R+L=J v.161

[Ygrain]

BTW, speaking about secret marriages: Daemon and Rhaenyra married secretly, Egg's kids married secretly. Then their came to their respective pa's and said, "we're married." I hope no-one claims that prior their coming out, the marriage didn't exist.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

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.

Viserys being sent to Dragonstone for safekeeping isn't mutually exclusive with him being the Prince of Dragonstone and the new heir of his father, right? Queen Rhaella certainly had a claim to the Iron Throne, too - immediately after Prince Viserys, possibly, considering that evidence suggests both Aegon and Rhaenys were demoted to the status of hostages and were likely to be killed by Aerys II himself should Dorne ever move against him.

But this isn't the point. Rhaella was sent to Dragonstone as Viserys' mother and guardian. The boy was still rather young, you know.

Quote

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.

That is just crap. If a knight/Kingsguard/retainer whatever is given a command then he is honor-bound to follow that. If the knights at the tower felt honor-bound to protect Lyanna (and later also her child) then the fact that the guy giving them such an order (or them giving a promise to that guy) died didn't change that. And if they all three gave a promise/swore a vow/felt bound by an order then all three might decide to stay no matter what.

The idea that one of them would have gone to Viserys on Dragonstone had they known he was king (which he actually was) is just crap. There is no reason to even consider that possibility because this never comes up.

Quote

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.

Because there is no magical telepathic information device that provides the knights at the tower with all the information you want them to have. Not to mention that King Aerys could easily enough have replaced his fallen Kingsguard with new valiant swords. Whether he did that we don't know but he had the chance. The idea that the knights at the tower realized 'King Viserys is without some valiant Kingsguard! We know that because we know that. His Grace is helpless without us. One of us must go to the island to defend him.' is ridiculous and childish. King Viserys III (as King Aerys II before him) had both time and opportunity to name himself a new Kingsguard.

As to Selmy: I know that. But do you know that Barristan Selmy had already yielded to Robert and accepted his pardon by the time we are speaking about here? Do you know how badly Selmy was hurt and whether he was conscious enough to make such a decision by the time Robert marched on to KL? I don't think so.

Quote

"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.

So they guys are now mind readers and telepaths again and know that Aerys II did not give Darry (or somebody else) a new White Cloak. Just because dream Whent/Hightower say something in a fever dream doesn't mean it is true. Unless, of course, you want to make the point that everything Whent/Hightower say in a fever dream is true by default.

Quote

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.

So you think the Kingsguard cannot protect a Princess Consort of Dragonstone and her young son without ceasing being the Kingsguard? And that despite the fact that Barristan Selmy tells us that various kings had extended Kingsguard protection not only to their wives and children but also to their cousins and other kin, including even mistresses and bastards? You are making a fool of yourself. The Kingsguard can all day long declare they are the Kingsguard and that they don't flee without actually protecting the king.

They could make such a speech when they were guarding some empty tower or insignificant gate for all we know. 'We are the Kingsguard' doesn't mean 'We are right now protecting the king'. It could just as well mean 'We are loyal to the king to the death (or in their case rather Prince Rhaegar because their king never told them to protect that tower anyway) because that's what defines the Kingsguard and their vows.

Quote

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

You don't understand. The difference in not marriage or not-marriage it is royal prince or not royal prince. Not every woman married by a prince or even a king is a queen (for instance, the secret marriage of King Louis XIV with Madame the Maintenon late in life was never announced to the public, and thus didn't exist).

And not every child born to a prince or a king is a prince. If Prince Duncan had any children with his Jenny they most likely were not considered members of the royal family because their mother was a commoner (or considered a commoner).

There are rules for things like that. A royal child must be formally adopted in the royal family and acknowledged by the king as his son, heir, grandchild, etc. We see this happening when Viserys I accepts Daemon's marriage to Laena Velaryon after the fact and grants their twin daughters dragon eggs when they are presented to him. Prior to that they were not members of the royal family. They were nothing.

A similar thing happens when Rhaegar present Princess Rhaenys to his parents. Normally the king would publicly call such a child his grandchild but King Aerys apparently did nothing of this sort. He was disgusted by the girl. Such things aren't just empty gestures.

Quote

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

No, I say that if there was a secret marriage then there is no way that Lyanna's son was a prince because the king and his father never even learned that he existed. Titles are granted, they don't fall from the sky or come out of a woman's womb alongside the child.

Quote

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

That is not what I said. A child that is born after the death of his or her father certainly can have a claim. After all, Jon Snow still has a (rather flimsy) claim to the Iron Throne in my opinion. But he wasn't 'the king'.

But if you are only born after the death of your father and your father is the king or the Crown Prince then history and the world might not care about your claim. The throne is vacant and a new monarch has to be found. The court and the royal family might not be willing to wait until such a birth takes place. Aerys II obviously didn't give a fig about the fact that Lyanna might give Rhaegar another son he could name his heir. He chose his own blood, Prince Viserys.

Quote

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

Again, it is not the marriage that is at issue here. You know that I believe that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. The issue is the status of the child. Whent and Dayne cannot throw titles or crowns at Lyanna's young son. That is neither their place nor their right.

We aren't even talking the whole polygamy thing here - which certainly would give those men the right to reconsider the status of the child even if Rhaegar or Aerys had made him a prince.

My point here is that I find the idea of secret wedding pretty ridiculous if we are talking a setting in which Jon Snow should ever have some sort of claim to the throne. Howland Reed and some skinchanger boy won't convince the world that this took place. But their story will sound a lot more credible if Rhaegar and Lyanna actually married publicly, and if Rhaegar and Aerys (who I think was opposed to this outrage and called for the heads of Rhaegar and Lyanna forcing them underground) later publicly reconciled (when Rhaegar took the command of the Targaryen army). Aerys seems to have understood/concluded that Rhaegar was never plotting with the Starks against him - despite the fact that he actually had plotted against his father - because neither Rhaegar nor Lyanna were hanging out with the rebels.

Quote

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

Does your copy of ASOIAF lack the line above?

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.

I talk about that a little bit further down the line (up there). The point is that to all the Realm Prince Joffrey is the Crown Prince and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne when King Robert dies. But he doesn't have this status by default. He has this status and is Robert's heir because Robert said so, both in words and deeds throughout his life as well as in his own last will (although Eddard Stark falsified that).

The idea that the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard has the right to decide who the new king is is ridiculous. The king names his heir, and nobody else. You can later challenge that. But then you are a traitor.

Not to mention that the Selmy situation refers to specific situation:

They are in the Red Keep and Selmy prefers to attend Joffrey who, in his opinion, is going to be crowned and anointed the new king. He thinks the meeting of the Small Council is just a formality. The idea that Barristan Selmy would, in a similar situation, just abandon his post to attend the new king (say, if he was protecting a member of the royal family in a time of war and turmoil like the knights at the tower did) is ridiculous.

Not to mention that historically (and in AGoT) the legal power did not lie with the new king but with the King's Hand in a situation of transition. Ser Otto Hightower spoke with the King's Voice after the death of Viserys I. Just as Eddard Stark did after the death of King Robert (and Lord Rivers after the death of King Maekar).

And since you know what you citing there you also know that Selmy deferred to Ned who spoke with the King's Voice. Joffrey wasn't yet the king at this point - else Ned could certainly not have planned to offer the crown to Stannis, right? He would not have deposed a crowned and anointed monarch, after all.

Quote

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. 

So what? That doesn't make him the king. Not in the mind of the knights and not in the mind of Westeros. Assuming that they thought he was the king is completely misconstruing those characters. They were bodyguards, not politicians. And at that point only politicians could figure out who the new king was.

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

BTW, speaking about secret marriages: Daemon and Rhaenyra married secretly, Egg's kids married secretly. Then their came to their respective pa's and said, "we're married." I hope no-one claims that prior their coming out, the marriage didn't exist.

That is the case, but missing the point again. Those marriages were done in secret or without the king's permission (in the case of Rhaenyra and Daemon) but the king later accepted those marriages and Aegon the Younger and Viserys as well as Aerys and Rhaella all become members of the royal family.

But this was not obligatory. Viserys I and Aegon V could have thrown their children/brother out of their house, cutting their funds, sending them into exile. They could even have killed them. And they most certainly could have decreed that no child of any of those marriages had any claim to the Iron Throne. Just as Prince Duncan lost his claim to the Iron Throne when he married Jenny.

And you also know that Aegon V chose to accept the marriage of his minor children (Jaehaerys and Shaera), right? Consummation or not, that marriage was not set in stone.

[Ygrain]

Lord Varys, fever dream or not (you know, an old dream means that it was not dreamt the first time), it is a literary device which was written with a certain purpose in mind, and the prompts and replies are there not merely for shits and giggles. It shows that the KG 1) are up-to-date with the recent events, 2) true to their KG status, 3) consider the job at ToJ fulfillment of their KG duties, and 4) show no intention to go to Viserys. You cannot consider your KG duties fulfilled if the king's heir is on his own, without a single KG with him, and you cannot be considered a shiny example of KG by a man who cares a lot about honour and fulfilling vows - unless Jon is perceived as having a better claim than Viserys, in which case there is no contradiction between the primary KG duty and staying at ToJ.

Do not bother replying.

[King Jon Targaryen I]

Ygrain, what the heck is going on? Is this an argument of semantics or Is his about AD+L=J which I find ridiculous to let it go Jon is Rhaegar son plain and simple, let me not say that, there is more evidence for Rhaegar being the father but now the mystery is how does is flow with the succession in this case. Viserys was NOT supposed to be heir if anything wouldn't it be Aegon by law but of course, Aerys II paranoia made him subvert the law already in place of succession under Jaehaerys I 

[Ygrain]

13 minutes ago, King Jon Targaryen I said:

Ygrain, what the heck is going on?  

Nothing, I just made the mistake of temporarily removing some users from Ignore to be able to follow the debate more smoothly. My apologies.

[Free Northman Reborn]

21 minutes ago, King Jon Targaryen I said:

Ygrain, what the heck is going on? Is this an argument of semantics or Is his about AD+L=J which I find ridiculous to let it go Jon is Rhaegar son plain and simple, let me not say that, there is more evidence for Rhaegar being the father but now the mystery is how does is flow with the succession in this case. Viserys was NOT supposed to be heir if anything wouldn't it be Aegon by law but of course, Aerys II paranoia made him subvert the law already in place of succession under Jaehaerys I 

As an aside, I have for some time strongly considered the likelihood of Arthur Dayne indeed being the father of some of the 'Targaryen" children. But not of Jon. Instead, I take Martin's hints that Arthur Dayne was not the shining knight everyone thinks he was, or at least his hint that there is more to learn about Arthur Dayne's role in the whole affair. And I take with that the striking coincidence that the Daynes alone, of all the non-Valyrian Houses of Westeros have silver hair and purple eyes, and I take Arriane (as a representative of a typical female Martell)'s infatuation with men from House Dayne. I take that together with the general Dornish culture of promiscuity.

And together it forms a rather nice backdrop for Elia of Dorne having fathered all of her children with Arthur Dayne. That would make Jon Rhaegar's true heir, even while Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys were at King's Landing. And if Arthur then finally chose his duty over his heart, it would make the events at the Tower of Joy doubly poignant, heart wrenching and significant.

And it would explain why the Kingsguard felt that Jon was more important than Aegon or Rhaenys in the closing days of the War. It would also represent a character defining moment for Arthur Dayne, as he made that choice willingly, in repayment of sins against his liege that must have haunted him up to that point.

Anyway, it is of course speculation, but not without some hints to support it at least. I wait to see if I am on the right track at all, or missing the boat completely in this instance.

[Ygrain]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As an aside, I have for some time strongly considered the likelihood of Arthur Dayne indeed being the father of some of the 'Targaryen" children. But not of Jon. Instead, I take Martin's hints that Arthur Dayne was not the shining knight everyone thinks he was, or at least his hint that there is more to learn about Arthur Dayne's role in the whole affair. And I take with that the striking coincidence that the Daynes alone, of all the non-Valyrian Houses of Westeros have silver hair and purple eyes, and I take Arriane (as a representative of a typical female Martell)'s infatuation with men from House Dayne. I take that together with the general Dornish culture of promiscuity.

And together it forms a rather nice backdrop for Elia of Dorne having fathered all of her children with Arthur Dayne. That would make Jon Rhaegar's true heir, even while Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys were at King's Landing. And if Arthur then finally chose his duty over his heart, it would make the events at the Tower of Joy doubly poignant, heart wrenching and significant.

And it would explain why the Kingsguard felt that Jon was more important than Aegon or Rhaenys in the closing days of the War. It would also represent a character defining moment for Arthur Dayne, as he made that choice willingly, in repayment of sins against his liege that must have haunted him up to that point.

Anyway, it is of course speculation, but not without some hints to support it at least. I wait to see if I am on the right track at all, or missing the boat completely in this instance.

Yeah, I entertained the idea of Arthur and Elia being a parallel of Lancelot and Guinevere, as well

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

Lord Varys, fever dream or not (you know, an old dream means that it was not dreamt the first time), it is a literary device which was written with a certain purpose in mind, and the prompts and replies are there not merely for shits and giggles. It shows that the KG 1) are up-to-date with the recent events, 2) true to their KG status, 3) consider the job at ToJ fulfillment of their KG duties, and 4) show no intention to go to Viserys. You cannot consider your KG duties fulfilled if the king's heir is on his own, without a single KG with him, and you cannot be considered a shiny example of KG by a man who cares a lot about honour and fulfilling vows - unless Jon is perceived as having a better claim than Viserys, in which case there is no contradiction between the primary KG duty and staying at ToJ.

Do not bother replying.

No, it is not a literary device made for said purposes. It is a literary device to give us hint but those hints are inconclusive and allow other interpretations that make much more sense as I've just demonstrated.

George R.R. Martin calls this dream a fever dream himself, pointing out that it is not supposed to be taken at face value. A dream is not a memory, and you know that. Having dreamed the same stuff once (or twice) doesn't mean it was (re-)created by the dreamer.

You seem to be both unwilling and incapable to ask yourself why Martin used a dream there as a literary device rather than a memory. If he had done the latter I'd share your view. But he did not. And he did that for a reason.

I am right on that one, there is no other choice. George is not as stupid as to have loyal Kingsguard crown another king in the middle of nowhere under ridiculous circumstances.

And now we can ignore each other again.

@Free Northman Reborn

A lot of stuff is possible but actually the Kingsguard would be honor-bound to protect Rhaegar's legal son as much as his biological son. Rhaegar also knows the night when Aegon was conceived - unless we assume he Arthur slept with Elia that night (too) there is small chance that he was the father.

And Rhaenys was conceived shortly after Rhaegar's wedding. Little chance that Ser Arthur had anything to do with that unless we go with him and Elia having a long-standing affair/attraction even before the marriage (which would be odd because Arthur was in the Kingswood at that time and previously Elia was in Dorne and Arthur a Kingsguard).

So there is most likely nothing to that. Arthur may have been a true knight of sorts, however. One of those rare occasions where the vow of the knight came before the vow of the Kingsguard. We already got hints in that direction with Whent and Dayne as Rhaegar's great friends.

And there has to be something especially special about Ser Arthur that makes him stand out in Ned's memory. Ned gives Arthur as this special example for knighthood. He never talks about Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower.

If you ask me, there is another layer to the relationship between Arthur and Ned that makes him stand out. Stuff that does not necessarily have much to do with the tower but rather with things that go back to Harrenhal. And I think Howland Reed is connected to that as well.

The Daynes give the impression of having Valyrian features but they are not so prevalent as they are among the Targaryens. Ashara Dayne had purple eyes and black hair, Gerold Dayne has silver hair with a black streak, and Edric dark blue eyes than can appear purple as well as pale blond hair. We'll have to wait and see if there is a explanation given for that (I expect we'll get one because apparent Valyrian features are now way to noteworthy to be just coincidence in this series).

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it is not a literary device made for said purposes. It is a literary device to give us hint but those hints are inconclusive and allow other interpretations that make much more sense as I've just demonstrated.

George R.R. Martin calls this dream a fever dream himself, pointing out that it is not supposed to be taken at face value. A dream is not a memory, and you know that. Having dreamed the same stuff once (or twice) doesn't mean it was (re-)created by the dreamer.

You seem to be both unwilling and incapable to ask yourself why Martin used a dream there as a literary device rather than a memory. If he had done the latter I'd share your view. But he did not. And he did that for a reason.

I am right on that one, there is no other choice. George is not as stupid as to have loyal Kingsguard crown another king in the middle of nowhere under ridiculous circumstances.

And now we can ignore each other again.

@Free Northman Reborn

A lot of stuff is possible but actually the Kingsguard would be honor-bound to protect Rhaegar's legal son as much as his biological son. Rhaegar also knows the night when Aegon was conceived - unless we assume he Arthur slept with Elia that night (too) there is small chance that he was the father.

And Rhaenys was conceived shortly after Rhaegar's wedding. Little chance that Ser Arthur had anything to do with that unless we go with him and Elia having a long-standing affair/attraction even before the marriage (which would be odd because Arthur was in the Kingswood at that time and previously Elia was in Dorne and Arthur a Kingsguard).

So there is most likely nothing to that. Arthur may have been a true knight of sorts, however. One of those rare occasions where the vow of the knight came before the vow of the Kingsguard. We already got hints in that direction with Whent and Dayne as Rhaegar's great friends.

And there has to be something especially special about Ser Arthur that makes him stand out in Ned's memory. Ned gives Arthur as this special example for knighthood. He never talks about Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower.

If you ask me, there is another layer to the relationship between Arthur and Ned that makes him stand out. Stuff that does not necessarily have much to do with the tower but rather with things that go back to Harrenhal. And I think Howland Reed is connected to that as well.

The Daynes give the impression of having Valyrian features but they are not so prevalent as they are among the Targaryens. Ashara Dayne had purple eyes and black hair, Gerold Dayne has silver hair with a black streak, and Edric dark blue eyes than can appear purple as well as pale blond hair. We'll have to wait and see if there is a explanation given for that (I expect we'll get one because apparent Valyrian features are now way to noteworthy to be just coincidence in this series).

Lord Varys

As I said, the Arthur Dayne-Elia of Dorne love affair is a pet theory of mine, and certainly not set in stone. However, once again I question your certainty over matters which really are far from certain in truth.

Why would a secret affair between a Kingsguard member and the Queen be unable to produce secret offspring in the case of Arthur and Elia, but be perfectly possible in the case of Cersei and Jaime? In fact, in the latter case the offspring did not look like the official father at all, while in the case of Arthur and Elia the traditional Dayne features would provide at least a resemblence to the Targaryen appearance. One could be tempted to believe that the entire Cersei-Jaime affair, as well as the Arriane-Gerold Dayne infatuation are all merely clues to set the foundation for the big revelation that Arthur and Elia cuckolded Rhaegar and left him without true offspring, thus contributing to - and going a long way in explaining - his quest for Lyanna to produce the prophecied Prince Who Was Promised.

As for your opinion (italicized merely to point out its nature, and not for any reasons of malice) that the Kingsguard would be honor bound to protect Rhaegar's "legal" son as much has his biological son, where is the court of 'honour" that states this? Who is to say that it is honorable to protect the son of a Kingsguard member which Rhaegar had falsely believed to be his son at the time when he made the declaration that "his is the Song of Ice and Fire" in Daenerys' vision? Who is to say that it is not far more honorable to protect the son that is his actual blood, and therefore the one who is his true heir? I find it troubling that you fall back on stating something as fact, when it is merely your view.

To me it is far more honorable to do the right thing in that case, especially when Arthur was forced between racing off to protect his own son - Aegon - and the true heir - Jon. The anguish and sacrifice involved in that decision would have absolved him of his former sins, and finally won back his honor, if that is the way it transpired.

Of course, this is in my view only.

 

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Lord Varys, fever dream or not (you know, an old dream means that it was not dreamt the first time), it is a literary device which was written with a certain purpose in mind, and the prompts and replies are there not merely for shits and giggles. It shows that the KG 1) are up-to-date with the recent events, 2) true to their KG status, 3) consider the job at ToJ fulfillment of their KG duties, and 4) show no intention to go to Viserys. You cannot consider your KG duties fulfilled if the king's heir is on his own, without a single KG with him, and you cannot be considered a shiny example of KG by a man who cares a lot about honour and fulfilling vows - unless Jon is perceived as having a better claim than Viserys, in which case there is no contradiction between the primary KG duty and staying at ToJ.

1) is actually an open question, because we don't know whether the KG knew that Aerys had named Viserys his heir (instead of Rhaegar's first son, which was Aegon). The problem here is that it could possibly be argued that Jon was Aegon's heir... But Aerys naming Viserys heir means that Jon was never the rightful king...
So of course, how well-informed the KG were becomes really important when trying to understand their actions.
For them to consider Jon king they would have to know that Aegon was dead, but not that Aerys had named Viserys heir... Possible but unlikely imho.

There are other issues. The first is chronology. There's the very simple chronological fact that all three KG had been staying at the ToJ for some time before Jon was even born... Before they even knew he would be a boy... Thus it's hard to argue that they originally were guarding a possible heir ; they had to be initially obeying Rhaegar's orders.
But this is also problematic. One can assume that Rhaegar had asked Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent to guard Lyanna and her child... But what about Gerold Hightower, the Lord Commander himself? Why did he stay at the ToJ instead of going back to his king? His presence makes little sense. Surely Rhaegar didn't need a third KG by Lyanna's side, and even if Rhaegar had ordered Hightower to stay, the Lord Commander would likely have wanted to be with Aerys and Aegon.
So what was Hightower doing there?

I'd also like to underline the fact that, in itself, the KG's presence isn't enough to infer anything. We don't know when and how they got their orders and information, nor do we know what their plans were. Not to mention the fact that Martin himself stressed that Ned's dream shouldn't be seen as reliable. What is certain however is that they did fight Ned... And of course, the most likely source of conflict between Ned and the KG appears to be Jon...

Which brings us back to 1): how well-informed were they? And what did they and Ned tell each other that lead them to fight?

Until the WOAIF was published, it was possible to theorize that they could have been fighting over Jon, whom the KG saw as the rightful king. It was kind of a stretch imho, but it made sense. But Aerys naming Viserys heir is a serious problem. Now one has to wonder whether the KG knew this, and -if they didn't- whether Ned told them -or didn't.
What I'm getting at, is that the events at the ToJ were always quite mysterious... But the WOAIF made them completely baffling.
If one goes with the reasonable assumption that both Ned and the KG knew about Viserys being the new heir... The KG had no reason to stay at the ToJ, and even less reason to fight Ned.
If we assume the KG didn't know and Ned didn't tell them... Then it means that they died for nothing. Possibly Ned realized that after finding Jon (if he was sharp)... Or later (if he wasn't).
 

[Lord Freddy Blackfyre]

I don't think is completely clear at what point King Aerys named Viserys as the new heir. Rumors of the King replacing Rhaegar as heir were previous to  the death of the Crown Prince. 

Regarding the marriage, well the ASOI&F is base on the war of the roses, so is base on real monarchy so the principles of the royal monarchy laws should apply and in that sense a mariage of a member of the Royal Family needs the consent of the sovereign in order to be considered valid. My theory is that Aerys and Rhaegar come to an agreement, the King accepted the marriage and Rhaegar would go to face the rebels at the same time that Viserys was named the new Crown Prince, only that Rhaegar wasn't planning to fulfill his part of the deal and would make his move against his father after he return from the riverlands.

If that were the case then the marriage is valid, Jon is legitimate and has a clear claim to the IT that could make him the heir of Daenarys Stornborn or if accepted the verdict of the las Grand Council that established that only male princes can be elevated to the IT, that after the Dance of Dragons.

[purple-eyes]

i think rhaegar is not able to produce children since he is the product of two generations of sibling incest. or he is in love with jonconso he did not want to sleep with women to betray his lover. either one, you pick. 

therefore he used best knight best friend plus with purple eyes aka arthur dayne as sperm donor. aegon rhaenys jon are all children of arthur, otherwise why he brought arthur everywhere with his women? 

unfortunately they do not have ivf by then, so arthur had to physically lay with elia and lyanna, that is why he stayed at toj all the time. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why would a secret affair between a Kingsguard member and the Queen be unable to produce secret offspring in the case of Arthur and Elia, but be perfectly possible in the case of Cersei and Jaime?

Cersei and Jaime had much more time. And we know way too much about Elia and Rhaegar for such a scenario to be very likely. We do know that Rhaenys must have been conceived shortly after their wedding, and we can reasonably assume that Rhaegar actually consummated his marriage.

We also do know that Rhaegar knows the very day Aegon was conceived and we do know that Elia was bedridden for six months after the birth of Rhaenys, making it unlikely that she had sex in that time.

We also know from Yandel that Rhaegar and Elia resided on Dragonstone after their marriage. What we don't know is whether Ser Arthur lived with them or not. There is a hint that this was not the case - or at least not always - considering that Yandel also tells us that the party of prince often clashed with the party of king in the Red Keep. That would scarcely have been possible if Rhaegar's friends had constantly been on Dragonstone.

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

In fact, in the latter case the offspring did not look like the official father at all, while in the case of Arthur and Elia the traditional Dayne features would provide at least a resemblence to the Targaryen appearance. One could be tempted to believe that the entire Cersei-Jaime affair, as well as the Arriane-Gerold Dayne infatuation are all merely clues to set the foundation for the big revelation that Arthur and Elia cuckolded Rhaegar and left him without true offspring, thus contributing to - and going a long way in explaining - his quest for Lyanna to produce the prophecied Prince Who Was Promised.

That is possibly but very unlikely. The cuckolding thing would then mean that Arthur betrayed his best friend and eventually abandoned his lover and child(ren) to the mercy of the Mad King and Tywin Lannister. Why the hell was this guy with Lyanna and not at Elia's side in such a scenario?

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for your opinion (italicized merely to point out its nature, and not for any reasons of malice) that the Kingsguard would be honor bound to protect Rhaegar's "legal" son as much has his biological son, where is the court of 'honour" that states this? Who is to say that it is honorable to protect the son of a Kingsguard member which Rhaegar had falsely believed to be his son at the time when he made the declaration that "his is the Song of Ice and Fire" in Daenerys' vision? Who is to say that it is not far more honorable to protect the son that is his actual blood, and therefore the one who is his true heir? I find it troubling that you fall back on stating something as fact, when it is merely your view.

Well, because officially those children of Arthur's were children of Rhaegar's, and thus royal children. The idea that a KG knowing that Jaime was the father of one of Robert's children could refuse to guard said child on that basis is rather peculiar. Appearances matter, not the actual truth. And a royal prince is a royal prince regardless who fathered him. 

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To me it is far more honorable to do the right thing in that case, especially when Arthur was forced between racing off to protect his own son - Aegon - and the true heir - Jon. The anguish and sacrifice involved in that decision would have absolved him of his former sins, and finally won back his honor, if that is the way it transpired.

Of course, this is in my view only.

Well, again, not impossible, but very unlikely. Especially since there is no direct hint or clue in such a direction. In fact, considering the great friendship between Rhaegar and Arthur I find the idea more compelling that Rhaegar and Arthur had some sort of romance/sexual relationship going on than the idea that something was going between Elia and Rhaegar.

But since you are here right now I wanted to ask you something to perhaps illustrate the Targaryen succession dilemma surrounding the three knights at the tower by transferring the whole issue to the Starks. We all know you for a staunch Stark loyalist so you might actually like to be put in those shoes:

Who do you think is right now the rightful King in the North if we assume that the kingdom did not die with Robb Stark? And if you *know* that (I don't think I do) do you think a guardian/protector (somebody in a similar position as the Kingsguard at the tower) should proclaim/anoint/do homage to such a king without having a clear picture of the political situation or more than hearsay information that other (and perhaps better claimants to the crown) were still alive?

[Going for Bran could now things make too easy. Let's say Robb's will is also out there (as it is) and there is also the chance that Jeyne Westerling is pregnant (which she isn't in the books).]

My point is clear. Kings can and should only be proclaimed/crowned in some sort of gathering or ceremony. Before that they aren't really kings. And one should actually think before one does such a thing because it is difficult to take a crown off if you have put it on somebody's head.

If the Skagosi crowned Rickon, the Boltons 'Arya', the Lords of the Vale Sansa, the wildings Jon Snow, and Bran himself then there could be a war of succession among many Stark pretenders just as the Targaryens ripped themselves apart during the days of Maegor and after the death of Viserys I.

@Rippounet

You ask exactly the right questions. But you'll get the same answer as I got above (if you get one at all).

There is an SSM where George says that the KG would have been forced to follow an order if it had been given to them by Rhaegar. That is in itself strange considering that, as you pointed out, Ser Gerold was the Lord Commander and thus, most likely, not bound to some command given to him by the Prince of Dragonstone (who at that point hid himself at the far end of the Realm, possibly in attempt to escape royal justice). The idea that Joffrey could command Selmy to do something when the latter had been given a mission/command by King Robert makes no sense, either.

The best thing to resolve this issue is actually to assume that Ser Gerold wanted to follow Rhaegar's command/wish/whatever. I think he might have taken any chance to get away from his Mad King for some time. That is not incompatible with the dream image Gerold who seems to be pissed that Jaime murdered Aerys. But Gerold can still not have liked what Aerys became while not wanting that the man be butchered by one of the Kingsguard. Not to mention that 'Aerys still sitting the Iron Throne' isn't the same as 'Aerys ruling the Realm'.

In my opinion the dream is greatly misconstruing the actual events. It gives the whole thing some sort of Spaghetti Western atmosphere, the last stand between the heroes and the villains, and they all know each other and what's going on.

In reality Ned wouldn't have addressed those powerful warriors in such a cocky fashion (after all, he wasn't much of a fighter) nor would they have exchanged such ritualistic dialogue. The very idea that Ned would have said 'No, now it ends' in real life is very unlikely indeed. Phrases like that imply that Ned's mind constructed the dream with his knowledge. The same would go to Arthur Dayne smiling sadly. That could be a sign that he would soon die. But the real Arthur Dayne wouldn't have known that nor would have had a reason to be sad.

As to the reason why the knights insisted on a fight you'll get a lot of strange arguments why they would/could only have died for their king.

Another good guess is that they may have wanted to die because they did not want to accept Robert's pardon or survive Rhaegar and Aerys - which would actually be a very good explanation why the hell Ned's people could slay these men. It was only seven against three on paper. Actually it was five against three because Ned was at best a mediocre swordsman according to George, and Howland Reed would have been even worse. Perhaps it was even three against four if buy the story that Ethan Glover spent the entire war in black cell (which I not necessarily do) and was thus not exactly in a good shape. But considering that he was Brandon's squire he may not exactly have been an all that experienced fighter anyway.

Another explanation would be that Rhaegar asked them to defend Lyanna and her child against anybody and they felt bound by that. That one has problems considering that they were about to kill Lyanna's brother, the uncle of the child, and Rhaegar's brother-in-law if we assume that they were married. One should assume that they would have been able to reach some understanding.

Perhaps the whole prophecy angle figures into all that and they thought they could not risk handing the child over to Ned or to risk that anything happened to the boy.

I personally like the 'good exit' explanation pretty much, especially considering that the whole 'The Kingsguard does not flee' thing can easily be read as 'We are no cowards, we are the Kingsguard, we do not yield, and we do not run from a fight.' But that doesn't mean that they have to protect a king when they are saying that. They can also protect a prince, the queen, or the king's castle.

[IceFire125]

17 minutes ago, Lord Freddy Blackfyre said:

I don't think is completely clear at what point King Aerys named Viserys as the new heir. Rumors of the King replacing Rhaegar as heir were previous to  the death of the Crown Prince. 

Regarding the marriage, well the ASOI&F is base on the war of the roses, so is base on real monarchy so the principles of the royal monarchy laws should apply and in that sense a mariage of a member of the Royal Family needs the consent of the sovereign in order to be considered valid. My theory is that Aerys and Rhaegar come to an agreement, the King accepted the marriage and Rhaegar would go to face the rebels at the same time that Viserys was named the new Crown Prince, only that Rhaegar wasn't planning to fulfill his part of the deal and would make his move against his father after he return from the riverlands.

If that were the case then the marriage is valid, Jon is legitimate and has a clear claim to the IT that could make him the heir of Daenarys Stornborn or if accepted the verdict of the las Grand Council that established that only male princes can be elevated to the IT, that after the Dance of Dragons.

We've discussed this at length a couple of years ago in one of the RLJ threads.

It's an interesting thought, because we know that although Aerys has gone mad, there are lapses of his "reasonable" self that would return at times.  Sane Aerys would try at best to listen to Rhaegar, as his son admits to his Father that he has married Lyanna via the way of the old gods in front of a weirwood tree.  That in order for him to lead the royal army, he, Aerys, needs approve the marriage with a seal of the king as a binding and legit document.  This will give even more valid reason of absolute certain, regarding the staunch response and behavior of the 3KG displayed in front of Ned.

1a. Aerys sent Hightower to find Rhaegar, with him is the king's seal of approval regarding Rhaegar's marriage with Lyanna.  In exchange, Rhaegar must do his duty now as the "protector of the realm", leading the royal army against the rebels.  Hightower meets with one of the 2KG or a servant loyal to Rhaegar's party on the way south, guiding him back to the tower.

1b. Or Aerys sent a trusted servant to meet with Rhaegar's servant or one of the 2KG (Arthur, Whent; Hightower left already and arrived at the tower all on his own) on the way south and Ethan Glover (Brandon's squire) got wind of this, leading him to tell Ned where to look for Rhaegar, thus his sister.

2. Hightower arrived at the tower and gave the King's order for him to return to Kingslanding, Rhaegar refuses until the evidence of the King's seal of his approval of him and Lyanna's marriage (who is noticeably carrying a baby in her womb).

1a) Hightower hands Rhaegar the king's seal of approval document regarding the marriage.  Jon is a trueborn.

1b) The party at the tower received the king's seal of approval from their servant after one Aerys' servant handed it somewhere in an agreed place of meeting.  Jon is a trueborn.

OR

3. After Rhaegar returned to Kingslanding, Aerys gave his seal of approval, then Rhaegar sent it via a servant to give it to the 3KG at the tower.  Jon is a trueborn.

Why is this important??

Because there might a possibility that Howland Reed is in possession of not one King's document (Robb's), but also another King's (Aerys).  And GRRM can go anywhere with this, because I believe in the end, Howland will present Jon these two document and it will be up to Jon to choose... 

however, as we've learned through out his journey in the books, Jon will not choose, his path will be chosen for him. because to Jon...

What kind of man stole his own brother’s birthright? (Bran/Rickon--Winterfell; fAegon--Iron Throne)

It will be the Great Council that will select Jon as king of Westeros in the end.

[Kal-L]

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Yeah, I entertained the idea of Arthur and Elia being a parallel of Lancelot and Guinevere, as well

I happened to think about that possiblity as well partly due to the horrible fate of Elia and her children, not saying that they deserved it (far from it) but I feel that at the end, there is always some sort of karma in asoiaf story which make that the throne seems to always go to the true heir. We had the exemple with Rhaenyra's children with Robert Strong who probably weren't from her husband but most of of all didn't look like Targaryen.

There is also the fact they are often presented as Elia's children, which might be a subte hint from the author.

The last hint comes from Aerys whose first reaction to his granddaughter was "it smells dornish" and something tell me that despite being completely lunatic Aerys' reaction might have struck some truth.

I'm not saying it's definitely true but I think it's worth giving it some thoughts and I can at least see Arthur and Elia having had an affair during their past in Dorne or simply having shared a secretly courteous love.

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, Kal-L said:

I happened to think about that possiblity as well partly due to the horrible fate of Elia and her children, not saying that they deserved it (far from it) but I feel that at the end, there is always some sort of karma in asoiaf story which make that the throne seems to always go to the true heir. We had the exemple with Rhaenyra's children with Robert Strong who probably weren't from her husband but most of of all didn't look like Targaryen.

Actually, Rhaenyra's elders sons were originally Lord Lynonel Strong's sons. Rhaenyra married Viserys' Hand. The whole Laenor-Harwin maneuver came later in the conception.

And the elder sons only came up at all when the historical details were mapped out. As to the appendix of AGoT Aegon III could have been Rhaenyra's eldest son.

But in general I don't think that true heirs prevail in Martin's world. Prince Aenys and Prince Maegor both might have been bastards (because the Conqueror was infertile) making the entire Targaryen dynasty illegitimate. Joffrey and Tommen happily sat the throne and the legitimate Baratheon is never going to get a real shot at it.

Robert Arryn might be Littlefinger's son yet he still rules the Eyrie. And so on.

Having a fake Aegon when there is also potentially an Aegon impostor in the story right now would be strange. I doubt the legitimate birth of Rhaegar's son is going to be questioned or that Aegon is going to stumble over the revelation that Rhaegar's son wasn't his seed. If that was the case why the hell did we get all that Blackfyre exposition?

[purple-eyes]

59 minutes ago, Kal-L said:

I happened to think about that possiblity as well partly due to the horrible fate of Elia and her children, not saying that they deserved it (far from it) but I feel that at the end, there is always some sort of karma in asoiaf story which make that the throne seems to always go to the true heir. We had the exemple with Rhaenyra's children with Robert Strong who probably weren't from her husband but most of of all didn't look like Targaryen.

There is also the fact they are often presented as Elia's children, which might be a subte hint from the author.

The last hint comes from Aerys whose first reaction to his granddaughter was "it smells dornish" and something tell me that despite being completely lunatic Aerys' reaction might have struck some truth.

I'm not saying it's definitely true but I think it's worth giving it some thoughts and I can at least see Arthur and Elia having had an affair during their past in Dorne or simply having shared a secretly courteous love.

Maybe Elia and Arthur had their last passionate night right before her wedding night with Rhaegar, but Arthur's seed is stronger, so here you go with 100% Dornish girl Rhaenys.

Then Rhaegar crowned Lyanna at Harrenhal and Elia was pissed off and resumed her physical relationship with Arthur at Harrenhal then you got baby Aegon with silver hair and violet eyes, all from Arthur Dayne.

 

 

 

[RumHam]

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Nothing, I just made the mistake of temporarily removing some users from Ignore to be able to follow the debate more smoothly. My apologies.

Personally in all my time on this forum I've never seen the need to put somebody on ignore. Especially not just because we had a disagreement or I couldn't convince them of something. There are certainly posts I'll skip past or skim through, but the idea that you need the forum software to protect you from encountering opinions that don't align up with yours is kinda silly, in my opinion. 

4 hours ago, Lord Freddy Blackfyre said:

I don't think is completely clear at what point King Aerys named Viserys as the new heir. Rumors of the King replacing Rhaegar as heir were previous to  the death of the Crown Prince.

It's sorta clear, he's described as the "new heir" when he's packed off to Dragonstone. Sometime between the Trident and then is probably as clear as it's going to get. 

[purple-eyes]

1 hour ago, Kal-L said:

I happened to think about that possiblity as well partly due to the horrible fate of Elia and her children, not saying that they deserved it (far from it) but I feel that at the end, there is always some sort of karma in asoiaf story which make that the throne seems to always go to the true heir. We had the exemple with Rhaenyra's children with Robert Strong who probably weren't from her husband but most of of all didn't look like Targaryen.

There is also the fact they are often presented as Elia's children, which might be a subte hint from the author.

The last hint comes from Aerys whose first reaction to his granddaughter was "it smells dornish" and something tell me that despite being completely lunatic Aerys' reaction might have struck some truth.

I'm not saying it's definitely true but I think it's worth giving it some thoughts and I can at least see Arthur and Elia having had an affair during their past in Dorne or simply having shared a secretly courteous love.

actually your idea is not new at all.

Long time ago there were theories about Elia Arthur relationship.

interesting things:

1. they were both from Dorne. Maybe they even grew up together in water gardens. Puppy love. But Arthur is way too low for Elia, so he was heartbroken and joined KG.

2. Elia cried a name before her death, everybody knew it is mountain who killed them, why bother hiding it? the name is Arthur. varys told Tyrion this name is you father's man. of course Tyrion thought it is mountain and tywin, but in fact, Arthur is KG of whom? Aerys.  

3. Why Arthur ignored his king and disappeared for one year with Rhaegar? Why did he help Rhaegar to abduct Lyanna? easy, he does not want to see Elia was forced to bear another child for Rhaegar. He does not want Elia to die. It is better to let Lyanna do this dangerous job.

4. Why was Arthur killed by Howland and Ned? Arthur should be able to kill both of them easily. How come Howland backstabbed Arthur considering he was beaten by three young boys only two years ago? Why Ned mentioned everything about KL but no any word about Elia and children? because Arthur did not know about it. Howland shouted out: Arthur! why are you wasting your life to guard Targ? There is nobody for you to guard. Rhaegar died, Aerys died, Elia and Aegon and Rhaenys were killed too! The last sentence just gave Arthur a mental blow and Ned took this chance to finish him.

5. Why did Arthur spend some much effort to lead and kill brotherhood of kingswood? There were Barristan, lewyn, Darry who are more senior than him. Because somebody stole a kiss from Elia and Arthur was not happy with it.

 

 

[SFDanny]

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

There are other issues. The first is chronology. There's the very simple chronological fact that all three KG had been staying at the ToJ for some time before Jon was even born... Before they even knew he would be a boy... Thus it's hard to argue that they originally were guarding a possible heir ; they had to be initially obeying Rhaegar's orders.

Sorry, but having been otherwise occupied for the last month and a half, it may be I've missed many important things on these boards as I haven't yet had the opportunity to catch up. This, however caught my eye, Rippounet. I don't think we know the KG had been staying at the ToJ for some time before Jon was born. We just know they end up there. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume Rhaegar gives the tower its name because he spends time there and finds joy in the time he was there, but how long each of the KG stay at the tower after he leaves seems to be an open question. Others have advanced the idea that Hightower might have been sent to the Free Cities on a mission, or something else, but we - as far as I know - have no evidence to support where they were during this time. Your conclusion that they are initially there obeying Rhaegar's orders seems sound, but we don't know what those orders were.

 

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Not to mention the fact that Martin himself stressed that Ned's dream shouldn't be seen as reliable.

Again, and this may seem a nitpick, I don't think that's exactly what Martin says. He said:

Quote

You'll need to wait for future books to find out more about the Tower of Joy and what happened there, I fear.

I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal. 

The bold is added by me for emphasis. Note there is nothing about the reliability of the dream. Dreams can reflect a deeper reality than just the recording of events. As such, I think the minimum we can take from Ned's dream sequence is that it reflects Important questions Ned is still dreaming about fourteen years later. It reflects Ned's reality. He is still concerned with why the KG were at the Tower instead of where he says in his dream he thought to find them. The KG's answers, at the least, reflect the reality of Ned's thinking on their motives all those years later. It tells the reader that there is an important mystery wrapped up in the answers to why the men where there and why they died to prevent Ned getting to the tower. How much of the dream conversation actually takes place is open to question, but Ned believes the responses to be true, if not literally true and understandable to him, as he still struggles with the events that led him to fight and kill the three men at the cost of the lives of five of his closest companions.

So what does it tell us? I think it tells us Ned knew all the information contained in the conversation, and considered it known to the KG. Whether it really was known to them is open to question, of course. I think there is good reason outside the dream conversation to support the KG knowing the information in the dream and likely more, but that is another post. I think it also tells us how Ned thinks of the three men. He sees them as honorable men who died tragically doing their duty. What exactly was the nature of that duty is the real question.

Always enjoy your ideas, Rippounet.