R+L=J v.161

[J. Stargaryen]

9 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

This is very likely to be logistically true.

But it is clearly not what Martin has Ned think and focus on. I looked hard for evidence that Ned thinks that Robert murdered the Targ kids to protect his crown. I could not find it. If you find it, by all means correct me.

Of course you couldn't find it, because Robert didn't murder Rhaegar's children, the Lannisters did.

Quote

What Ned thinks the threat actually is seems likely to matter (since we haven't been told what Lyanna thought about her baby). And Martin makes it very clear that Ned thinks the threat is Robert's anger and need for vengeance.

My apologies in advance for the length of this. Just wanted to make sure I included sufficient evidence.

1. When Ned figures out that Jaime fathered Cersei’s kids, Ned believes that Robert will kill all of the Lannisters out of vengeance and wounded pride. Out of hatred, as Robert also hated Rhaegar. Because the insult is to great for Robert to ever forgive. Ned never thinks that Robert will do it to protect his throne. Only to avenge his pride and that Robert will never forgive the insult and betrayal.

I'm basically in agreement with LV on this one. Robert was a warrior king. He won the IT with his warhammer. His response to finding out that Cersei had cuckolded him, and gave him no legitimate heirs, seems reasonably predictable.

That said, I'm not dismissing your point, or case for that matter, out of hand. I see where you're going. I'm just not sure there is as much to it as you think.

Quote

2. The very first time we see Robert mention Rhaegar, Robert wants to keep killing the dead man for what he did to Lyanna. That’s the source of Robert’s rage and murderous intent—personal anger, loss, pride, and vengeance. NOT protecting his crown.

Right. Because he would have no reason to think about protecting his crown from a dead man.

(I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of reformatting this section a bit re: bold. So that it would be clear which part I was responding to.)

Quote

3. When Robert first brings up Dany, Ned clearly believes that Robert’s anger at Rhaegar drives his murderous intent on Rhaegar’s kids and other Targaryens. Ned does NOT think that Robert killed Rhaegar’s kids to defend his rule. Even when Robert talks about the threat to his reign, Ned only thinks that Robert’s desire to kill Dany is about hating Rhaegar. About wanting eternal revenge against Rhaegar.

Again, Robert didn't kill Rhaegar's children. That was the Lannisters, which Ned points out to Robert:

           “You are no Tywin Lannister, to slaughter innocents.”

This distinction is made by Ned himself, and is therefore quite damaging to your case, I think.

Quote

4. Ned believes Robert’s hatred and pride drive his fury and vengeance. That this rage is what drives his continued desire for vengeance on Rhaegar.  As such, he’s afraid of Robert’s potential wrath towards Catelyn. Thinks that Cat’s taking of Tyrion would insult Robert’s pride and thus incite wrath. He's even not sure Robert's wrath towards him (Ned) will cool.

In that same chapter, he also thinks this:

“Could Robert be part of it? He would not have thought so, but once he would not have thought Robert could command the murder of women and children either.”

Which runs directly counter to the argument you are making, and is even more troublesome for your case than the previous quote.

Quote

5. And Robert gives Ned good reason to think this:

6. BOTTOM LINE: If Ned was protecting Jon from Robert (as it really seems he was), it matters what Ned thinks the motive for Robert’s murderous threat was. Ned NEVER thinks Robert killed Rhaegar’s children to defend his throne. Only that Robert did it out of loss, pride, anger, and vengeance. And that this drives Robert’s desire to kill anyone connected to Rhaegar.

If those are the motives Ned believes drive Robert’s murderous rage towards children, those same motives would apply to any man who deprived Robert of his love. And had a child with her. And that child would thus be in danger.

Thus, Ned would VERY likely think that Arthur’s hypothetical child by Lyanna would be in danger of Robert’s wrath. And would protect said child accordingly, be the child dragonspawn or starfallspawn.

As I've shown above, Ned did not believe Robert was capable of ordering the murder of a child, until he actually did it. Which seems to me like a refutation of your entire line of reasoning. Proving that this is not a possible mistake on GRRM's part, there is the earlier quote where Ned distinguishes Robert from Tywin as someone who does not murder innocents.

Lastly, the decision to have Dany and her unborn child murdered was made prior to Ned's conversation with Cersei. Which provides a clear motive for Ned to believe that Robert would kill her children, in case you weren't convinced by the arguments LV and I made.

[J. Stargaryen]

56 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As an interesting aside, Jon was only the heir once Aegon had been killed during the Sack of King's Landing. Do we know for a fact that the Three Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy during the entire Rebellion? Or could they have headed there only after learning of Rhaegar and Aegon's deaths, having realized that Jon was now Rhaegar's last living heir?

No, but the ToJ dialogue makes it pretty clear that the three KG weren't anywhere else one would have expected them to be. They weren't at the Trident with Rhaegar. They weren't at KL with Aerys when he was murdered, along with Rhaegar's family. They didn't flee with Rhaella and Viserys to DS, nor were they taking part in the siege of SE.

[Khal Heldo]

One word to you: Wylla.

 

End of thread.

[Leticia Stark]

LMAO

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Lord Varys

I find it ironic that despite your vast knowledge of the series, you are not immune to using arguments in favour of your views, while ignoring the same logic when it doesn't support your point. In this very post you start by stating that we shouldn't expect characters to behave like real people when the plot demands it, but then the very next moment you ask us to imagine what it would be like if a real person is kidnapped and how real people would react to it. Thus invalidating your own argument from two paragraphs earlier.

That wasn't my intention. The point I was trying to make is that George tries to tell a story in which it is crucial for the mystery to remain a mystery. So many people who might know stuff, or could find out stuff easily, or could talk about stuff simply don't despite the fact that this is vexing for the reader and, perhaps, somewhat unrealistic.

The other point is that the realistic setting of the series makes it quite unlikely - perhaps even impossible - to assume that all the smart guys of Westeros actually living in Westeros were as stupid as to never suspect/find out/know that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married or that Lyanna was/might have been pregnant. 

I don't think the story George is trying to tell us is that it is a big surprise that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married or that they had a child. The point of the surprise is that the child in question is going to be Jon Snow.

And it is the Jon Snow mystery, I think, that is the crucial (and perhaps only) reason why we are not told everything the (POV) characters could tell us already about the Rebellion and the Lyanna affair. The point of that most likely being that George considers it to big a hint to introduced the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage or Lyanna's pregnancy. Especially after he has already given us the tower of joy fever dream.

Quote

The point of the three kingsguard being at the Tower is really such a massive hint at an heir to the Throne being present that it is entirely a plot convenience that no one like Varys, Littlefinger, Barristan or a hundred other smart people figured out that Lyanna had a baby. But clearly Martin did not want them to realize that, so he made them go blank on that little factoid.

Or it just never came up because all those people are convinced that such a prince died in the cradle or during birth. That is a possibility, too. People seldom constantly think or are obsessed about stuff that is this far in the past.

The problem with the entire affair is the fact that the KG were at the tower. It is common knowledge that Ned and his men killed them, and it is also, most likely, known that they guarded Lyanna. The idea that nobody connected these dots to 'Rhaegar and Lyanna were probably married' (if this wasn't already common knowledge due to a public marriage or Rhaegar actually announcing such a marriage to the world) or 'Lyanna may have been pregnant' just makes no sense.

@Sly Wren

You have a point as towards Ned's fears. But the question remains whether that fear was actually the same back when he decided to make Lyanna's son his bastard.

That is the interesting point. But we only get Ned_298 and Robert_298 as real characters so can't - as of yet - decide what exactly caused Ned's decision to dishonor himself and his name by inventing a bastard and living a lie.

I'm reluctant to believe that Ned's picture of Robert was as bad back when he came back from the tower as it is when he wonders what will happen to Cersei's children. My guess is that he wasn't sure whether Robert wouldn't also condone the murder of Lyanna's trueborn son by Rhaegar.

But I don't think we can speculate whether Robert's hatred would have extended to any bastards of hers and Rhaegar. He wasn't dealing with some pliable subject here, he was dealing with a great lord of the Realm who was, by and far, actually more well-connected than his king at this point. Eddard Stark was the foster son of Jon Arryn as well as married to Catelyn Tully. Ned could technically rally more men to his cause than the newly crowned king could who was as of yet not married to Cersei Lannister.

My core issue with this thing is that I simply don't think Ned would have remained such a loyal friend to Robert had he actually thought the man capable of such a murder back in 283 AC.

And again, we should also keep in mind that Ned Stark may have been as much (or even more) a driving force in the Rebellion as Robert was. His house was suffering the most, after all, and Ned may not have had a clear picture of what was going on when word of the abduction and subsequently the execution of his father and brother reached him.

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Not necessarily. Unless one knows that the KG were up-to-date with latest events, i.e. the Trident and the Sack, their presence is easily explained as following Rhaegar's orders. So, if Ned said, "they were holed up in some old tower and completely out of touch until I brought the news", there is no reason to suspect a baby.

That is not true. If a man sleeps with a woman children are always a possibility. Only if we assume that Rhaegar and Lyanna didn't have sex would anyone assume the conception and birth of a child was an impossibility.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As an interesting aside, Jon was only the heir once Aegon had been killed during the Sack of King's Landing. Do we know for a fact that the Three Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy during the entire Rebellion? Or could they have headed there only after learning of Rhaegar and Aegon's deaths, having realized that Jon was now Rhaegar's last living heir?

Jon wasn't the heir at all because Aerys II named Prince Viserys his heir after the death of Rhaegar. All we know is that Whent and Dayne were apparently with Rhaegar since he left Dragonstone with four other companions (who later did not seem to stay with Lyanna at the tower). My guess is that the others were Rhaegar's other known friends - Myles Mooton, his former squire, Jon Connington, Richard Lonmouth, and the fourth is unknown. It could have been Prince Lewyn but actually doubt that very much. There is small chance that guy was still a member of Rhaegar's party after Harrenhal.

If Connington was with Rhaegar at least for a time (he and Mooton must have returned to Aerys at one point because Connington became Hand and Mooton died at Stoney Sept) he could very well know about Rhaegar's second marriage and perhaps even about Lyanna's pregnancy. And still he doesn't think about any of that in ADwD - and why should he? Selmy or Kevan also don't think all that much about the interesting things they once witnessed.

@J. Stargaryen

I think we can easily enough explain Ned's motivation and fears by him not being absolutely sure that Lyanna's trueborn by Rhaegar son would survive the early years of the reign of King Robert due to the ruthlessness of Robert's new allies, the Lannisters. Not to mention the connected complications for House Stark with him now being stuck with a Targaryen prince for a nephew. That certainly wasn't what Eddard Stark wanted. Certainly not after Aerys II Targaryen executed his brother and father.

I'd not be surprised if there was another aspect for this whole thing: Ned being more happy with having an invented bastard than raising Rhaegar's son as Rhaegar's son. He would have had issues with Lyanna-Rhaegar and the Targaryens, too, issues he could best lay to rest by burying them. And if Lyanna's son is just Jon Snow the bastard there is less trouble in any possible scenario.

The idea that this is all about brotherly love and the best for the child isn't way too idealistic. Going to such great lengths that the truth has to be kept from Cat and Jon himself over a decade later wasn't all that necessary. It shows, in my opinion, that Ned had grown accustomed to the situation and had no intention to ever reopen that old wound again. He may have occasionally have thought about talking to Jon eventually but I doubt he would have ever done that. It was easier the way it was. This would fit very nicely with him never talking about Lyanna, the war, or in general what has happened in the past.

This is actually a very common theme in traumatized families. The late grandmother of my girlfriend was a Holocaust survivor and the non-talking in her family led her to know literally nothing about World War II and the Holocaust (which was rather embarrassing for her when the topic came up in school).

In that sense it is not surprising at all that a lot of Stark POVs know nothing about the past of Ned and what transpired during the war, perhaps even considerably less than others (Connington, Selmy). Vice versa, the sanctified memory of the late Lady Joanna might actually have led to her children never hearing anything about those dreadful rumors involving her and Aerys.

[J. Stargaryen]

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

@J. Stargaryen

I think we can easily enough explain Ned's motivation and fears by him not being absolutely sure that Lyanna's trueborn by Rhaegar son would survive the early years of the reign of King Robert due to the ruthlessness of Robert's new allies, the Lannisters. Not to mention the connected complications for House Stark with him now being stuck with a Targaryen prince for a nephew. That certainly wasn't what Eddard Stark wanted. Certainly not after Aerys II Targaryen executed his brother and father.

This is probably true, but I think the quotes I provided do a nice job of specifically contradicting @Sly Wren's argument. While Ned recognizes Robert's hatred of Rhaegar and Targaryens in general, he was of the opinion that Robert would not take part in the murder of innocent children. That is, until Robert ordered the murder of a child.

So, once again we're left without a decent answer for why AD+L=J would have to be kept secret.

[Jaemi Greysnow]

Haha I just read the "Interview with the Dragon" linked in FAQs at the start; that interviewer seemed particularly obsessed with Jon (not than I can fault him for that), but I bet he was disappointed with the book GRRM was writing in 2003 finally came out... Man I've had it easy, I only started along with show and the wait's near intolerable.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

This is probably true, but I think the quotes I provided do a nice job of specifically contradicting @Sly Wren's argument. While Ned recognizes Robert's hatred of Rhaegar and Targaryens in general, he was of the opinion that Robert would not take part in the murder of innocent children. That is, until Robert ordered the murder of a child.

So, once again we're left without a decent answer for why would AD+L=J have to be kept secret.

Isn't Oswell Whent Jon Snow's true father? I mean, the series is obviously about this secret Whent-Lothston restoration world domination plot, right?

Besides, Oswell definitely has to have the bigger cock. If not, then he would have the fancy sword to compensate for that and not Arthur...

[Ser Creighton]

On 7/1/2016 at 1:32 AM, AdesteFideles said:

 

Strider

Aragorn

King Elessar Telcontar

Strider is an Elvish nick name translation, but the Hobbits never stopped calling him that and Elessar Telcontar is Elvish not a different name and it means Elfstone Strider. Strider also New his own name, and Aragorn was revealed in the Fellowship, not 2 or 3 decades later.

Martin specifically told you who named Jon. All that may change is his last name, if R+L=J is true and he is legitimate. However if Thorne would like to stop calling him Lord Bastard and by the name the author has named him, it still won't change his name.  Just like Lord Bastard is not his actual name.

And might be, still does not equal fact.

On 7/1/2016 at 2:46 AM, J. Stargaryen said:

It seems like people are talking about the show in here. Are we allowed to do that? I'm not sure so I'm going to stay away from that for now.

Anyway, I kind of wanted to touch on something. As most of you know I'm a pretty strong supporter of RLJ. However, on the off chance that it's not true, I think the only other possibility is that Arthur Dayne and Lyanna are the parents, and I wanted to talk about one of the challenges, or problems, with this theory. Mainly because it's a solution that some people have been talking a lot about for the past several months.

Let's start by giving AD+L=J the benefit of the doubt, and writing off all of the RLJ hints and clues as red herrings. Ignore Rhaegar giving Lyanna the crown of winter roses and all of that, and generally just try and forget about it for the time being. Fine. Why in the hell would you keep AD+L=J a secret? Not just in general, but from everyone. Including Cat. Not only is there no good reason, but it's actually just a bad idea that potentially invites trouble, and unnecessarily tempts fate. Let's look at some of the reasons I've seen suggested.

Ned was trying to protect Arthur Dayne's honor, or something like that. Sorry, but I don't buy for a second that Ned would burden himself as he did, because AD couldn't keep it in his pants. Or keep his vows. Does that sound like the Ned we all got to know for fifteen chapters in AGoT?

Something about succession, maybe. Or whatever. The baby was no threat to anyone at Winterfell, Starfall, and certainly not King's Landing. Jon would have been the bastard child of a KG knight and Lyanna Stark. Even if you imagine that AD and Lyanna could have married, ignoring Arthur's KG vows, you're still talking about a child who was, not only dubiously legitimate, but the product of a second son and a younger daughter. Jon would be a last resort when it came to inheriting either Starfall or Winterfell. Not only that, but bastards are openly welcomed in Dorne.

Robert would be angry. Sure, he would have been angry at Arthur Dayne and would have wanted to kill him. I buy that. But Dayne was already dead by the time Robert learned of Jon's existence. Would Robert have been angry enough to take it out on this baby? I doubt it. And even if he was, do you think Ned would have given him the opportunity to do anything about it? Jon would have been long leagues from Robert by the time people found out who his parents were.

For the sake of argument, let's go ahead and assume that Robert would have been angry enough to kill this innocent baby, which I actually doubt. Neither Ned nor Jon Arryn would allow him to do so. Ned because of his promise, and Jon Arryn because of politics. Remember that the latter already had to make peace with Dorne following the rebellion. Partially due to the murder of young children, btw. It's not hard to imagine that Jon Arryn, Hand of the King, would have counseled against slaughtering an infant who was the bastard nephew of the Lord of Starfall. Robert would have had to be willing to go to war against the North and Dorne, and maybe even the Iron Islands. Just to try and kill Arthur Dayne's baby. Sorry, don't buy it. Even if you believe Robert had it in him, it was too hard of a sell politically.

Finally, there is an explanation which looks to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. The premise is that AD+L=J is true, but no one would believe it because they all think that Rhaegar loved, or lusted after, Lyanna. Maybe there's something to that line of thought. But, even if people believed that, its legitimacy would be severely undercut once Ned, not to mention Howland Reed and possibly some of Arthur's relatives, claimed -- swore, if necessary -- that the baby was in fact Arthur's. And if the baby was his, no one would ever find proof that it was Rhaegar's. In other words, you're going to have a hell of a time launching a rebellion based on the claim that this baby, who was said to be Arthur's, was actually Rhaegar's. Great!

But, if Arthur was the father and Ned lied about it and claimed the baby was his. And people found out he was lying about that. Well, that would be a really fantastic way to make all the key players think that you were lying when you then tried to say that Arthur, not Rhaegar, was the father. Good luck with that. From that day till his last, Jon would be followed by whispers that he was Rhaegar's son. Which would cause trouble with Robert and the Lannisters. Thus creating the problem you were trying to prevent. If your attempt to explain the secrecy of AD+L=J involves creating a potential problem where none existed before, or replacing a small problem with a bigger one, it's not a very good explanation.

Wait you support R+L=J, when did this happen J. Stargaryen?

AD+L=J, you know this going to start a Ashara Dayne + Legolas = Jon thread, they are going to make him an Elf Lord now, and name him Ecthelion of the flaming ice fountain of Fingonoland. At least she is not being hooked up with Whent, we would have a bunch of posters named Nightwing running around.

I don't personally think AD is his father but, if there was a reason to keep it secret I think Robert would still apply. This would be a hell of an oops. Robert you blamed the wrong guy, and went to war with the wrong family. Oh well lets go kill the Daynes. Thus the Daynes help keep the secret keeping them from getting killed by Robert, rumor is Robert could get a little obsessive about things; Drinking, whoring, fighting, Targaryens, Rhaegar, Lyanna, Daenerys, his hammer etc... The biggest problem would be Robert blamed an innocent guy in Rhaegar, went to war and killed him. Everyone who blamed Rhaegar would of been wrong, an innocent man just died, the silver light of Westeros, a gentle warrior with a heart of gold, a hero of hope, beloved by all and his children and wife were also massacred. He had simply perused his best friend who had abducted poor Lyanna, chasing him half way around the world, only to return to a war torn Westeros. He simply sought peace. This fat butcher king is a fraud, and a liar who murders innocent women and children and stole the silver prince from the world. Oh woe is Westeros.

Not impossible but all foreshadowing simply becomes pointless. That's the biggest argument here for me. I have never known Martin to be big on Red Herrings, he is more along the line of the clues are there figure it out. AD as his father falls in line with most speculation, they want to give a character something. Now he can be the Sword of the Morning and wield Dawn. I find the speculation to be less about understanding what was written and more about what some fans may want for Jon. If Jon is not riding Drogon he is wielding Dawn, if his name is not Aemon its Blackstar Dayne, or some such thing. Starfall seems magical, Jon should be from there despite the prominence of Starks and Targs in the series, and the utter lack of the Daynes.

It's like a plot gift competition, look how big Dany's plot gift is, Jon needs a bigger plot gift. Arya can do all the FM stuff, Sansa will be a dragon riding wizard and there is a secret Dragon names Snowthunder sleeping in the black pools of Winterfell and he is 3x the size of Dany's dragons and wait till he wakes up. The show is driving panic in certain corners of the book fandom and the speculation is losing touch with reality in order to compensate. ie. Sansa the secret moon singing maiden who will ride Snowthunder to defeat Dany, claim Jon and stop the Others before becoming empress of the world. There is a theory like this among Sansa fans. 

I love my favorite character allow me to fix the authors oversight and make them the most important and magical via fan fiction because the story is all about them, if other fans of my favorite character agree with me lets call it fact then get really mad when the story does not head in that direction and lash out. I don't understand why hasn't Jon grown his angel wings yet and where are his magical thunderbolts? Martin is a hack ahole, why won't he do what I want, I hate D&D, I am going to burn my books if I don't get what I want. Crap they are on my Ipad, I will delete the books forever. One week later, okay not Angel wings, he is getting falcon wings that he grows when he take on his flying werewolf form. The winged wolf, this will happen in the future, prove me wrong, another fan agreed with me so it's fact now.

Everyone keeps trying to dump Lyanna in bed with someone else. She is not a milkshake, you do not add sperm shake and get the character you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[J. Stargaryen]

18 minutes ago, Ser Creighton said:

I don't personally think AD is his father but, if there was a reason to keep it secret I think Robert would still apply. This would be a hell of an oops. Robert you blamed the wrong guy, and went to war with the wrong family. Oh well lets go kill the Daynes. Thus the Daynes help keep the secret keeping them from getting killed by Robert, rumor is Robert could get a little obsessive about things; Drinking, whoring, fighting, Targaryens, Rhaegar, Lyanna, Daenerys, his hammer etc... The biggest problem would be Robert blamed an innocent guy in Rhaegar, went to war and killed him. Everyone who blamed Rhaegar would of been wrong, an innocent man just died, the silver light of Westeros, a gentle warrior with a heart of gold, a hero of hope, beloved by all and his children and wife were also massacred. He had simply perused his best friend who had abducted poor Lyanna, chasing him half way around the world, only to return to a war torn Westeros. He simply sought peace. This fat butcher king is a fraud, and a liar who murders innocent women and children and stole the silver prince from the world. Oh woe is Westeros.

Except that the rebels went to war because Aerys murdered a bunch of nobles and called for the heads of Ned and Robert. Aerys backed them into a corner, and gave them two options: fight or die. So I don't think this idea that Rhaegar was "the wrong guy" holds up any better than the other reasons that have been discussed.

[Ser Creighton]

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Except that the rebels went to war because Aerys murdered a bunch of nobles and called for the heads of Ned and Robert. Aerys backed them into a corner, and gave them two options: fight or die. So I don't think this idea that Rhaegar was "the wrong guy" holds up any better than the other reasons that have been discussed.

Nobles who blamed Rhaegar, those evil nobles. I was writing based off subjective possibility rather than objective probability. One of Roberts fears was that he was a fraud. I said I didn't believe it just gave an an alternative argument based off unknown possibilities. It's not meant to be held up to scrutiny, it's meant to distort perspective, and rumor monger.

There is that perspective given in the book that Rhaegar and Robert battled over Lyanna. And Rhaegar was the shinny prince gone rouge and Robert was? Well Robert was Robert he drank, whored and hit things. Perspective would have to change among the bards, and what they would say about Robert and his war with Rhaegar. We all know Aerys was the second craziest person in Westeros after Cersie. But how would the bards tell the story now? What would be the perspective of the small folk and gossip mongers? What would Ned be concerned about? It's not just about what he knows, it's about how people might view Robert the new king. Even Cat did not have the right information on what happened to those Nobles, Jaime had to tell her, she had an idea but not the whole story.

Aerys was crazy and he did what he did, but that did not seem to change the perspective some had of it being all about a love triangle. You don't hear much about how Aerys started it except from Jaime and the most privy of the privy.

When you get into alternative perspectives you can make an argument for almost anything. You know I focus on literary devices and not this kind of stuff, I find most speculation pointless and based on unsubstantiated leaps of faith.

The idea is in creating an alternative version to anything aka the what if; is that once you create an alternative story, you can create an alternative perspective, and alternative information and facts, to substantiate a claim not objectively based. Using alternative possibility as support rather than facts and evidence. Then you end up in a circular debate about what is and is not. Which is what I did as an example, it was not meant to be debated because that would be pointless as it will never hold up to scrutiny which is objective or absolute only an alternative possibility which can be relative or subjective, and anyone can make an argument about alternatives. The big band theory, the tv show, they do it all the time. What if such and such was such and such.

If R+L=J is a objective probability which it is generally considered as it is based off facts and evidence. Then taking what I wrote would be an alternative hypothetical based any number of subjective possibilities. What would the small folk think, what would Ned think, how would this be viewed in Westeros?    

 

 

 

[Another White Walker]

So, if you take a look to the infographic released by HBO, you can see that Lyanna was abducted by Raeghar. There is no married/engaged line between them. Does it mean that she was in fact kidnapper by him?, no love or something like that? Is Jon still a bastard? what do you think? 

[yakisikli123]

11 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Ned did not feign surprise; Robert's hatred of the Targaryens was a madness in him. He remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar's wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder; Robert called it war. When he had protested that the young prince and princess were no more than babes, his new-made king had replied, "I see no babes. Only dragonspawn." Not even Jon Arryn had been able to calm that storm. Eddard Stark had ridden out that very day in a cold rage, to fight the last battles of the war alone in the south. It had taken another death to reconcile them; Lyanna's death, and the grief they had shared over her passing.

 

 

This time, Ned resolved to keep his temper. "Your Grace, the girl is scarcely more than a child. You are no Tywin Lannister, to slaughter innocents." It was said that Rhaegar's little girl had cried as they dragged her from beneath her bed to face the swords. The boy had been no more than a babe in arms, yet Lord Tywin's soldiers had torn him from his mother's breast and dashed his head against a wall."And how long will this one remain an innocent?" Robert's mouth grew hard. "This child will soon enough spread her legs and start breeding more dragonspawn to plague me."

 

"Nonetheless," Ned said, "the murder of children … it would be vile … unspeakable …"

 

"Unspeakable?" the king roared. "What Aerys did to your brother Brandon was unspeakable. The way your lord father died, that was unspeakable. And Rhaegar … how many times do you think he raped your sister? How many hundreds of times?" His voice had grown so loud that his horse whinnied nervously beneath him. The king jerked the reins hard, quieting the animal, and pointed an angry finger at Ned. "I will kill every Targaryen I can get my hands on, until they are as dead as their dragons, and then I will piss on their graves."

 

Ned knew better than to defy him when the wrath was on him. If the years had not quenched Robert's thirst for revenge, no words of his would help. "You can't get your hands on this one, can you?" he said quietly. Game, Eddard II

 

11 hours ago, Sly Wren said:

Ned's having none of it. Pushes back. And Robert's rage flies out. He doesn't just want Targs dead. He wants to piss on their graves.

 

All of your quotes or posts implie only Robert hating the Targaryens, Rhaegar or connected with Rhaegar (son), but it doesnt show any reason for him to kill Arthur´s son.

If we think A+L=J and if Robert still wants to kill the child (Jon), then that means the reason is Arthur Dayne, because he is connected with Rhaegar, but then he should also try to kill all descendants or family of the guards (if they have any) and all others connected with Rhaegar and also connected with connections.

If you say he wants to kill him because of Lyanna, then that means he hates now Lyanna (I dont think so, only if she chose Rhaegar over Robert) and because the child (Jon) is connected with Lyanna, but what is with Ned. They are family, if its true what you say, then Robert should hate all of them, because they are linked together.

Do we have any quotes of Robert saying Eddard, that he hates Lyanna, because she betrayed him.

There is no reason hatred towards her and also towards her child, if the child is not Rhaegards.

[Ygrain]

10 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As an interesting aside, Jon was only the heir once Aegon had been killed during the Sack of King's Landing. Do we know for a fact that the Three Kingsguard were at the Tower of Joy during the entire Rebellion? Or could they have headed there only after learning of Rhaegar and Aegon's deaths, having realized that Jon was now Rhaegar's last living heir?

No, we don't, but we know that AD and Whent were unaccounted for since Rhaegar's disappearance, and the last time we hear of Hightower is when he was sent to find Rhaegar. Lyanna couldn't remain unprotected, and if Rhaegar wanted to keep her safe from Aerys, he couldn't allow the KG to go anywhere where Aerys might order them to reveal her location. So, the three KG were stuck at ToJ.

9 hours ago, Khal Heldo said:

One word to you: Wylla.

 

End of thread.

And some nobody Wylla is such a huge and dangerous secret that Ned never tells his wife or Jon himself because...?

You really need to try harder, or do you think you are the only one who ever noticed her name?

1 hour ago, Another White Walker said:

So, if you take a look to the infographic released by HBO, you can see that Lyanna was abducted by Raeghar. There is no married/engaged line between them. Does it mean that she was in fact kidnapper by him?, no love or something like that? Is Jon still a bastard? what do you think? 

That they can't spoil the mystery just yet? It is the same as the AGOT appendix stating Jon as Ned's son.

[Ygrain]

Concerning AD's paternity versus Rhaegar's:

As a son of Rhaegar, Jon's life is in double danger because 1) he is an heir to the crown and 2) the son of the man who supposedly stole and raped Lyanna. 1) is the reason for political murder, 2) for personal. In both cases, Robert probably wouldn't kill Jon himself but he would close his eyes just like he did with Aegon and Rhaenys. It is even pointed out somewhere that Robert liked to think about himself as a honourable hero and was happy to let someone do the dirty work for him because he knew that Rhaegar's children couldn't be allowed to live.

 

As AD's son, 1) is nonexistent and 2) depends on how Ned doctors the story which he relays to Robert. If he says that teh eevil Rhaegar stole Lyanna, AD later consoled her broken heart and they both succumbed to a spur of the moment, Robert is not going to be happy but AD is dead and Rhaegar still takes the fallout for creating the situation. I really don't see Robert inclined to kill Jon in this scenario, nor do I see anyone murdering the son of the famous Arthur Dayne to please Robert because this definitely wouldn't.

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That wasn't my intention. The point I was trying to make is that George tries to tell a story in which it is crucial for the mystery to remain a mystery. So many people who might know stuff, or could find out stuff easily, or could talk about stuff simply don't despite the fact that this is vexing for the reader and, perhaps, somewhat unrealistic.

The other point is that the realistic setting of the series makes it quite unlikely - perhaps even impossible - to assume that all the smart guys of Westeros actually living in Westeros were as stupid as to never suspect/find out/know that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married or that Lyanna was/might have been pregnant. 

I don't think the story George is trying to tell us is that it is a big surprise that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married or that they had a child. The point of the surprise is that the child in question is going to be Jon Snow.

And it is the Jon Snow mystery, I think, that is the crucial (and perhaps only) reason why we are not told everything the (POV) characters could tell us already about the Rebellion and the Lyanna affair. The point of that most likely being that George considers it to big a hint to introduced the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage or Lyanna's pregnancy. Especially after he has already given us the tower of joy fever dream.

Or it just never came up because all those people are convinced that such a prince died in the cradle or during birth. That is a possibility, too. People seldom constantly think or are obsessed about stuff that is this far in the past.

The problem with the entire affair is the fact that the KG were at the tower. It is common knowledge that Ned and his men killed them, and it is also, most likely, known that they guarded Lyanna. The idea that nobody connected these dots to 'Rhaegar and Lyanna were probably married' (if this wasn't already common knowledge due to a public marriage or Rhaegar actually announcing such a marriage to the world) or 'Lyanna may have been pregnant' just makes no sense.

@Sly Wren

You have a point as towards Ned's fears. But the question remains whether that fear was actually the same back when he decided to make Lyanna's son his bastard.

That is the interesting point. But we only get Ned_298 and Robert_298 as real characters so can't - as of yet - decide what exactly caused Ned's decision to dishonor himself and his name by inventing a bastard and living a lie.

I'm reluctant to believe that Ned's picture of Robert was as bad back when he came back from the tower as it is when he wonders what will happen to Cersei's children. My guess is that he wasn't sure whether Robert wouldn't also condone the murder of Lyanna's trueborn son by Rhaegar.

But I don't think we can speculate whether Robert's hatred would have extended to any bastards of hers and Rhaegar. He wasn't dealing with some pliable subject here, he was dealing with a great lord of the Realm who was, by and far, actually more well-connected than his king at this point. Eddard Stark was the foster son of Jon Arryn as well as married to Catelyn Tully. Ned could technically rally more men to his cause than the newly crowned king could who was as of yet not married to Cersei Lannister.

My core issue with this thing is that I simply don't think Ned would have remained such a loyal friend to Robert had he actually thought the man capable of such a murder back in 283 AC.

And again, we should also keep in mind that Ned Stark may have been as much (or even more) a driving force in the Rebellion as Robert was. His house was suffering the most, after all, and Ned may not have had a clear picture of what was going on when word of the abduction and subsequently the execution of his father and brother reached him.

That is not true. If a man sleeps with a woman children are always a possibility. Only if we assume that Rhaegar and Lyanna didn't have sex would anyone assume the conception and birth of a child was an impossibility.

Jon wasn't the heir at all because Aerys II named Prince Viserys his heir after the death of Rhaegar. All we know is that Whent and Dayne were apparently with Rhaegar since he left Dragonstone with four other companions (who later did not seem to stay with Lyanna at the tower). My guess is that the others were Rhaegar's other known friends - Myles Mooton, his former squire, Jon Connington, Richard Lonmouth, and the fourth is unknown. It could have been Prince Lewyn but actually doubt that very much. There is small chance that guy was still a member of Rhaegar's party after Harrenhal.

If Connington was with Rhaegar at least for a time (he and Mooton must have returned to Aerys at one point because Connington became Hand and Mooton died at Stoney Sept) he could very well know about Rhaegar's second marriage and perhaps even about Lyanna's pregnancy. And still he doesn't think about any of that in ADwD - and why should he? Selmy or Kevan also don't think all that much about the interesting things they once witnessed.

@J. Stargaryen

I think we can easily enough explain Ned's motivation and fears by him not being absolutely sure that Lyanna's trueborn by Rhaegar son would survive the early years of the reign of King Robert due to the ruthlessness of Robert's new allies, the Lannisters. Not to mention the connected complications for House Stark with him now being stuck with a Targaryen prince for a nephew. That certainly wasn't what Eddard Stark wanted. Certainly not after Aerys II Targaryen executed his brother and father.

I'd not be surprised if there was another aspect for this whole thing: Ned being more happy with having an invented bastard than raising Rhaegar's son as Rhaegar's son. He would have had issues with Lyanna-Rhaegar and the Targaryens, too, issues he could best lay to rest by burying them. And if Lyanna's son is just Jon Snow the bastard there is less trouble in any possible scenario.

The idea that this is all about brotherly love and the best for the child isn't way too idealistic. Going to such great lengths that the truth has to be kept from Cat and Jon himself over a decade later wasn't all that necessary. It shows, in my opinion, that Ned had grown accustomed to the situation and had no intention to ever reopen that old wound again. He may have occasionally have thought about talking to Jon eventually but I doubt he would have ever done that. It was easier the way it was. This would fit very nicely with him never talking about Lyanna, the war, or in general what has happened in the past.

This is actually a very common theme in traumatized families. The late grandmother of my girlfriend was a Holocaust survivor and the non-talking in her family led her to know literally nothing about World War II and the Holocaust (which was rather embarrassing for her when the topic came up in school).

In that sense it is not surprising at all that a lot of Stark POVs know nothing about the past of Ned and what transpired during the war, perhaps even considerably less than others (Connington, Selmy). Vice versa, the sanctified memory of the late Lady Joanna might actually have led to her children never hearing anything about those dreadful rumors involving her and Aerys.

Just on the bolded sentence regarding Viserys being heir. You are right that Aerys declared him as such, but it also seems quite apparent at this point that Rhaegar was staging an internal Targaryen palace revolution at the time that the Rebellion broke out, and that Dayne, Whent and Hightower supported him in this regard. Aerys's day was done for, even if the Targs won the rebellion. Rhaegar was about to depose him.

This is pretty clear seeing as the three most prominent Kingsguard members chose to guard Jon over Viserys, despite Viserys being alive and named Aerys's heir at that point. They made it clear that their place was at the Tower of Joy. With Jon. This could only be because they had chosen Rhaegar - and possibly bought into his prophetic visions as well - over Aerys and whoever Aerys chose to name as heir.

EDIT

In fact, the fact that they specifically said their place was at the Tower of Joy instead of King's Landing, seems to indicate that Rhaegar had convinced them that Jon was more important even than Aegon, who was his eldest son. Hence, it seems likely that Rhaegar was going to name Jon his heir even if Aegon had lived.

 

[Ygrain]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just on the bolded sentence regarding Viserys being heir. You are right that Aerys declared him as such, but it also seems quite apparent at this point that Rhaegar was staging an internal Targaryen palace revolution at the time that the Rebellion broke out, and that Dayne, Whent and Hightower supported him in this regard. Aerys's day was done for, even if the Targs won the rebellion. Rhaegar was about to depose him.

Yet it is Hightower who says that had they been at KL, Aerys would still sit the IT. That doesn't exactly scream an anti-Aerys faction, and this is Mr Guard-the-King-not-judge-him talking.

As for the declaration of Viserys as heir... all we have is "his new heir Viserys". No textual support whether this declaration became widely known, and, above all, if the three KG knew about it. Plus, the normal succession goes from Rhaegar to Aegon, and we don't know why Aerys chose to skip him (most likely, his paranoia about the Dornish betrayal); if Aegon lived, would this skip be considered legit?

 

Quote

This is pretty clear seeing as the three most prominent Kingsguard members chose to guard Jon over Viserys, despite Viserys being alive and named Aerys's heir at that point. They made it clear that their place was at the Tower of Joy. With Jon. This could only be because they had chosen Rhaegar - and possibly bought into his prophetic visions as well - over Aerys and whoever Aerys chose to name as heir.

See above. Though at the time of the ToJ showdown, regardless of Aerys' previous messing with the succession, Viserys was his only known heir.

Quote

EDIT

In fact, the fact that they specifically said their place was at the Tower of Joy instead of King's Landing, seems to indicate that Rhaegar had convinced them that Jon was more important even than Aegon, who was his eldest son. Hence, it seems likely that Rhaegar was going to name Jon his heir even if Aegon had lived.

That's not exactly what they said. They were not at KL and if they had, they wouldn't have left for DS then, and they are not going to leave for DS now. The dichotomy is staying at ToJ versus leaving to join Viserys.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just on the bolded sentence regarding Viserys being heir. You are right that Aerys declared him as such, but it also seems quite apparent at this point that Rhaegar was staging an internal Targaryen palace revolution at the time that the Rebellion broke out, and that Dayne, Whent and Hightower supported him in this regard. Aerys's day was done for, even if the Targs won the rebellion. Rhaegar was about to depose him.

It seems as if Dayne and Whent were always part of Rhaegar's faction, meaning that despite being Kingsguard they were leaning more towards the Prince of Dragonstone than to their true king thanks to the latter's madness. It is all but confirmed that Oswell Whent was participating in Rhaegar's treason when he helped the latter to arrange the tourney of Harrenhal via talking to his lordly brother.

Jaime presents Ser Gerold Hightower as this stalwart Aerys loyalist, though. Whether he actually was that remains to be seen. You have to see stuff in context. Apparently Jaime had great difficulty making his peace with the fact that he was protecting and serving a mad king who regularly burned people alive and raped his sister-wife.

One assumes that the other Kingsguard all had similar feelings but were much better at hiding them but Hightower and Darry may have thought they had to hammer home the fact that young Jaime better not decide to take matters in his own hands (both for his own sake and the sake of the Kingsguard as an order).

Ned's fever dream does not reflect the subtleties of the political tensions within House Targaryen at this point (Perhaps because Ned had no clue about what was actually happening within the Targaryen inner circle and invented the ritualistic/unrealistic dream dialogue on the basis of his own bias/knowledge? They most certainly didn't exchange words the way it is presented in the dream.)

However, the idea that Rhaegar could force an unwilling Gerold Hightower to remain at the tower makes not much sense at all. If Ser Gerold wanted to return to his king he would have returned to his king, it is as simple as that. We don't know with how many people Gerold showed up at the tower, nor do we know what exactly his commands were. If Gerold had come with a small host (he certainly would have arrived there with some men because it is ridiculous to assume that the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard traveled alone) he could have taken Rhaegar, Lyanna, and his sworn brothers into custody.

The fact that nothing of this sort happened suggests that Ser Gerold essentially chose to stay with Lyanna/Dayne/Whent for an unknown reason. Even if Rhaegar had sort of forced him to stay there nothing could have forced him to remain there after Rhaegar had left.

In that sense, I think, we should seriously consider the possibility that even Ser Gerold Hightower had partially abandoned Aerys in the end, at least in the sense that he preferred not to be forced to choose between Aerys and Rhaegar if push came to shove. If he assumed that Rhaegar meant no harm to the royal person and only intended to rule as Prince Regent while his father was mentally incapable to rule it makes sense that he would go along with the idea to protect Lyanna.

That he had the other knights later regretted that decision when they learned that Rhaegar died at the Trident and Jaime slew their king in the Red Keep is hardly surprising. You can certainly also understand Hightower's words in the dream in that context, as an expression of regret and failure. They may not have wanted Aerys' mad reign to continue but they did also not want that one of their own killed their king (or that his royal person was harmed in any way).

If we assume the knights knew that Queen Rhaella and Viserys III were on Dragonstone (as the fever dream indicates) then this 

47 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

As for the declaration of Viserys as heir... all we have is "his new heir Viserys". No textual support whether this declaration became widely known, and, above all, if the three KG knew about it. Plus, the normal succession goes from Rhaegar to Aegon, and we don't know why Aerys chose to skip him (most likely, his paranoia about the Dornish betrayal); if Aegon lived, would this skip be considered legit?

makes little sense because Dragonstone is usually the seat of the Crown Prince. If Aerys II had intended for Prince Aegon to follow him he would have sent him to Dragonstone, too, or perhaps only him. If the knights at the tower knew that Viserys was on Dragonstone then they would also have known that he was Aerys' new heir. Not to mention that Dragonstone had been Rhaegar's castle and seat in life. He had been the Prince of Dragonstone who had been living on Dragonstone. But Aerys II clearly had no intention of giving that seat to his grandson after Rhaegar had died. He gave it to his own son, Prince Viserys.

The reason why they did not abandon the tower is pretty obvious to me. They either swore Rhaegar a vow to protect Lyanna and her unborn child or they felt honor-bound to do that. All three of them were entrusted with that task, and therefore they had no reason to leave for a mad quest to Dragonstone (as if they had a chance to reach that place). The idea that a KG has to be with the king is nonsense. A KG is there were the king wants him to be. The often repeated idea that at least one of the knights would have gone to Dragonstone had they believed that Viserys was the king (which he actually was insofar as House Targaryen was concerned) makes little sense because it rests on the rather stretched assumption that they were well-informed what had happened to their other sworn brothers. Did they knew that Lewyn Martell and Jonothor Darry died at the Trident and that Selmy was badly wounded? Did they know that Aerys II didn't sent one of them to Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys? Did they know whether Aerys II did name a new Sworn Brother after he learned of Rhaegar's death and the deaths of Lewyn and Darry? For all we know Aerys might have thrown a White Cloak at Ser Willem Darry when he sent him to Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys. He certainly was as loyal as a Kingsguard should be.

If the mission of the knights at the tower was to protect Lyanna and her unborn child then either of them might have considered it desertion to leave them. The fact that they took their mission seriously enough to defend Lyanna Stark against Eddard Stark certainly attests to the fact that they were devoted to this cause.

The royal status of the child is totally messed up. Unless Rhaegar married Lyanna in public there is no chance that it was ever a royal prince because you have to be recognized and acknowledged as a member of the royal family by the king (that is what Prince Daemon and Prince Rhaegar do with their daughters in TWoIaF/TRP).

Let's assume Prince Aegon actually married Merry Meg rather than just having a mock marriage involving a mummer disguised as a septon (that could easily be a story perpetrated later). Meg's daughters still would never be considered members of the royal family because they were never recognized as such by Aegon III, his sons, or Viserys II. Secret (royal) marriages are effectively non-existing marriages because the important point of a marriage is that a relationship between two people is officially and publicly announced. If you are married then it is clear to the world that you and another person have a sexual relationship and live together.

In that sense, the knights would only have had any reason to consider Lyanna's son a royal prince if Rhaegar and Lyanna had been publicly married (and we don't know that yet). The chance of him being considered 'the king' would only make sense if Rhaegar or Aerys had ever seen the child and acknowledged it as theirs and their heir. Which never occurred, either.

Then there is the obvious fact that historically only crowned and anointed monarchs are actually referred to as kings. There is the example of Prince Aegon, the son of Aenys I who is never called king despite the fact that he was his father's chosen heir, but more importantly the fact of our own Prince Aegon in the books. He is Rhaegar's eldest son in the book yet nobody refers to him as 'King Aegon VI'. He is Prince Aegon even despite the fact that his uncle, King Viserys III, is long dead by the time he is introduced to us.

Why is that? Most likely because you simply aren't a king until you are crowned or at least proclaimed king. Even your followers don't think you are a king under such circumstances. It is the same with the Blackfyres, by the way. Was Daemon the Younger ever crowned a Blackfyre king? I don't think so. No coronation takes place at Whitewalls and if Bittersteel had crowned a King Daemon II in Tyrosh one would assume that he would then have been honor-bound to follow him (not to mention that Daemon II then most likely would also have had Blackfyre). We don't know when exactly King Haegon Blackfyre was crowned, but we do know for a fact that Daemon III Blackfyre wasn't crowned until a year had passed after the ending of the Third Blackfyre Rebellion.

So the idea that kingships immediately jump from the corpses of kings to the next in line isn't exactly well supported in the text.

The only thing people can cite against that is that Selmy thinks Joffrey is king even before his coronation. But unlike the case we are talking about here Joffrey was the anointed and acknowledged Crown Prince of Westeros. He was King Robert's trueborn son and chosen heir. It was only natural for him to talk of Joff as the new king after Robert had died.

But the case at the tower is entirely different. No member of the royal family had made Lyanna's son a royal prince or even the heir to the throne. The Kingsguard had no clear picture what the remaining members of House Targaryen (Rhaella/Viserys) and the Targaryen loyalists across the Realm thought about the situation.

Crowning or even choosing a 'king' in the middle of nowhere without first consulting with the Queen Dowager or anybody else is just utter stupidity. Especially if they were still following the Targaryen cause. As it happens Aerys II did name Prince Viserys his successor and Queen Rhaella crowned him King Viserys III Targaryen on Dragonstone. If the knights had chosen/proclaimed/crowned a rival Targaryen king at their tower they would complicated the situation further and actually harmed the Targaryen cause.

In that sense I think the very idea that anybody thought there was a king in the tower of joy is ridiculous. There may have been a prince in there. A boy who has a claim to the throne and the chance to become king one day. But there was no king in there.

[Rem88]

Hello guys, i've been following this thread and Heresy threads for years, and as a very long time reader i have to say that all of you are amazing, even when explaining the most insane and crackpot theories. That said, as i was reading the last two R+L=J pages with youtube's playlist on casual in the background, i found myself mesmerized by a familiar track, wich happens to be both a coincidence and an epic experience .

Here it is: 

 

Guess from now on, i will read this thread only with this track in the background.

 

Spoiler

I'm sorry about not adding anything interesting to the discussion, i just want to use my first post to thank you all as a fellow book reader. Keep up the good work!

 

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

makes little sense because Dragonstone is usually the seat of the Crown Prince. If Aerys II had intended for Prince Aegon to follow him he would have sent him to Dragonstone, too, or perhaps only him. If the knights at the tower knew that Viserys was on Dragonstone then they would also have known that he was Aerys' new heir. Not to mention that Dragonstone had been Rhaegar's castle and seat in life. He had been the Prince of Dragonstone who had been living on Dragonstone. But Aerys II clearly had no intention of giving that seat to his grandson after Rhaegar had died. He gave it to his own son, Prince Viserys.

BS. Viserys was sent to Dragonstone for safety. It had nothing to do with this status as heir, or would you claim that Rhaella was also considered Aerys' heir? She was sent there, too, you know.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The reason why they did not abandon the tower is pretty obvious to me. They either swore Rhaegar a vow to protect Lyanna and her unborn child or they felt honor-bound to do that. All three of them were entrusted with that task, and therefore they had no reason to leave for a mad quest to Dragonstone (as if they had a chance to reach that place). The idea that a KG has to be with the king is nonsense.

Which books have you been reading? In my copy of ASOIAF, the king always has at least one KG with him, unless under very specific circumstances, which were not the case during the ToJ scenario.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

A KG is there were the king wants him to be. The often repeated idea that at least one of the knights would have gone to Dragonstone had they believed that Viserys was the king (which he actually was insofar as House Targaryen was concerned) makes little sense because it rests on the rather stretched assumption that they were well-informed what had happened to their other sworn brothers. Did they knew that Lewyn Martell and Jonothor Darry died at the Trident and that Selmy was badly wounded?

And why wouldn't they? We are talking about high and far famed KG, not some nobodies. And just BTW, Selmy was not only wounded but bent the knee to the Usurper.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Did they know that Aerys II didn't sent one of them to Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys? Did they know whether Aerys II did name a new Sworn Brother after he learned of Rhaegar's death and the deaths of Lewyn and Darry? For all we know Aerys might have thrown a White Cloak at Ser Willem Darry when he sent him to Dragonstone with Rhaella and Viserys. He certainly was as loyal as a Kingsguard should be.

"Ser Willem is a good man, and true. But not of Kingsguard."

You need to do some re-reading. They know that no KG was sent with Viserys.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If the mission of the knights at the tower was to protect Lyanna and her unborn child then either of them might have considered it desertion to leave them. The fact that they took their mission seriously enough to defend Lyanna Stark against Eddard Stark certainly attests to the fact that they were devoted to this cause.

Funny that they never mention Lyanna in their speech to Ned, though. Or that they beat themselves in the chests about being KG while NOT guarding a king.  "We are Kingsguard" has a rather different meaning than "we were given an order to guard Lyanna". Kingsguard, not Lyannasguard.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The royal status of the child is totally messed up. Unless Rhaegar married Lyanna in public there is no chance that it was ever a royal prince because you have to be recognized and acknowledged as a member of the royal family by the king (that is what Prince Daemon and Prince Rhaegar do with their daughters in TWoIaF/TRP).

BS. Marriage vows are as binding as any other, and once you say the words, you are in. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Let's assume Prince Aegon actually married Merry Meg rather than just having a mock marriage involving a mummer disguised as a septon (that could easily be a story perpetrated later). Meg's daughters still would never be considered members of the royal family because they were never recognized as such by Aegon III, his sons, or Viserys II. Secret (royal) marriages are effectively non-existing marriages because the important point of a marriage is that a relationship between two people is officially and publicly announced. If you are married then it is clear to the world that you and another person have a sexual relationship and live together.

You mean, daughters of a mock marriage were not recognized, therefore daughters of a real marriage were not recognized? Hardly an argument.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In that sense, the knights would only have had any reason to consider Lyanna's son a royal prince if Rhaegar and Lyanna had been publicly married (and we don't know that yet). The chance of him being considered 'the king' would only make sense if Rhaegar or Aerys had ever seen the child and acknowledged it as theirs and their heir. Which never occurred, either.

So, in your opinion, a posthumous son would have no rights because his father never had a chance to recognize him. BS.

Besides, if Dayne and Whent themselves witnessed the marriage, that is all that you need - proof that the marriage indeed took place.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Then there is the obvious fact that historically only crowned and anointed monarchs are actually referred to as kings. There is the example of Prince Aegon, the son of Aenys I who is never called king despite the fact that he was his father's chosen heir, but more importantly the fact of our own Prince Aegon in the books. He is Rhaegar's eldest son in the book yet nobody refers to him as 'King Aegon VI'. He is Prince Aegon even despite the fact that his uncle, King Viserys III, is long dead by the time he is introduced to us.

You mean, like when Barristan says "my place is with the king" right after Robert dies? You really need to re-read.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

So the idea that kingships immediately jump from the corpses of kings to the next in line isn't exactly well supported in the text.

Does your copy of ASOIAF lack the line above?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The only thing people can cite against that is that Selmy thinks Joffrey is king even before his coronation. But unlike the case we are talking about here Joffrey was the anointed and acknowledged Crown Prince of Westeros. He was King Robert's trueborn son and chosen heir. It was only natural for him to talk of Joff as the new king after Robert had died.

Please, do show us the line where Joffrey gets annointed as a Crown Prince, or that Robert had to make a special declaration to make Joffrey one. Joffrey being Crown Prince is solely due to him being (supposedly) firstborn legitimate son because that's the way succession normally goes.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the case at the tower is entirely different. No member of the royal family had made Lyanna's son a royal prince or even the heir to the throne. The Kingsguard had no clear picture what the remaining members of House Targaryen (Rhaella/Viserys) and the Targaryen loyalists across the Realm thought about the situation.

Crowning or even choosing a 'king' in the middle of nowhere without first consulting with the Queen Dowager or anybody else is just utter stupidity. Especially if they were still following the Targaryen cause. As it happens Aerys II did name Prince Viserys his successor and Queen Rhaella crowned him King Viserys III Targaryen on Dragonstone. If the knights had chosen/proclaimed/crowned a rival Targaryen king at their tower they would complicated the situation further and actually harmed the Targaryen cause.

In that sense I think the very idea that anybody thought there was a king in the tower of joy is ridiculous. There may have been a prince in there. A boy who has a claim to the throne and the chance to become king one day. But there was no king in there.

Unfortunately, the three KG were not familiar with your fanfictious requirements. In the tower, there was the first son's only surviving legitimate son. Fullstop.