Jump to content

Archived

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

Ygrain

R+L=J v.162

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

I don't think we can say conclusively that only a king can legitimize a bastard.  We know that one king did:  Aegon IV.  We also know that other bastards have been legitimized.  We don't know whether a Lord Paramount could do that, either for himself or for a vassal.  And we don't know whether the High Septon could do it, although there is reason to think that he could.  Remember that a king can't dissolve a betrothal but the High Septon can -- that is why Joffrey needed the High Septon to dissolve his betrothal to Sansa.

I think it's clear that only a king can do it.

Quote

“A bastard cannot inherit.”
“Not unless he’s legitimized by a royal decree,” said Robb. “There is more precedent for that than for releasing a Sworn Brother from his oath.”

Anyone can dissolve their betrothal, as we've seen. The issue with Joffrey and Sansa was that Joffrey had made a vow to wed her, and the High Septon let him out of of the vow so it wouldn't be a mark against his honor. Actual marriages on the other hand can only be set aside by the faith, either through the High Septon or a "council of faith." 

38 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

when Aerys was prisoner at Duskendale (Barristan eventually went in and got him but he had to get Tywin's permission first)

This is a pretty horrible example. He was a prisoner, of course he didn't have Kingsguard protection.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

I agree with your overall conclusion.  The presence of the KGs does not indicate a marriage or legitimacy.  After all, during the Dance of the Dragons, two KGs (Fell and Thorne) left a wounded King Aegon II in the care of a non-KG bastard knight while they went to protect Aegon's son and his simple daughter, Jaehaera.  The daughter in particular had virtually no claim to the throne (since Aegon II's claim rested on the premise that females come behind all living male Targaryens), yet Fell went with Jaehaera and left King Aegon with no Kingsguard.

The Green case did not necessarily rest on the premise that royal females came behind all male members of the family (through the male line). Otto Hightower himself pushed Rhaenyra as heir against her uncle Prince Daemon, after all. Their case rested on conventional wisdom that a son comes before a daughter.

But I'm in complete agreement with your case on Thorne and Fell. In addition one could also cite Ser Criston Cole. That guy actually chose to abandon Prince Aemond after learning of the fall of KL marching down south in an attempt to unite his army with the Hightowers. In doing so he abandoned both the Prince Regent of the Realm (and Aegon II's most likely heir and successor at this point) but also his king and his children themselves.

If the Kingsguard at the tower were obligated to go to Viserys III on Dragonstone then Cole would also have been obligated to try to find out what had happened to Aegon II and his children. Not to mention Queen Helaena. Yet he did nothing of this sort.

In addition, one has to keep in mind that a king can name new Kingsguard. Darry and Prince Lewyn died at the Trident so Aerys II could have named two new White Swords thereafter. The idea that Viserys III didn't have any Kingsguard protection on Dragonstone is a baseless claim. If Queen Rhaella or young Viserys III had wanted they could have named a Kingsguard from among their trusted household knights.

Quote

I don't agree that the KGs learned the fate of Aerys, his children and grandchildren from Ned.  The dialogue implies that they knew that Rhaegar died on the Trident, that Aerys died in King's Landing and that Robert was now king.  It also implies that they learned for the first time from Ned that Rhaella and Viserys had fled to Dragonstone and that Mace Tyrell had bent the knee.  Noticeably absent from the dialogue is any mention of the fate of Elia, Rhaenys or Aegon, suggesting that they did not know that Aegon was (supposedly) dead.  

I agree on that but I really don't think we can use the dream to verify stuff. The author himself calls it a fever dream.

Quote

So the question is:  they believed that Viserys was alive on Dragonstone and that Aegon was a prisoner in King's Landing yet they did not go to either of them.  In that sense, they were in the same position as the KGs who were with Tywin when Aerys was being held captive at Duskendale.  They did not try to fight their way through to their king.  They followed orders -- Tywin's orders.

That is another great example, actually. We know the Hand can order about the Kingsguard as if he was the king. Ned does it after Robert's death, and Tywin seems to be doing it while Aerys was absent/incapacitated. For some reason the knights at the tower chose to obey whatever order glued them to Lyanna in the first place. That is the important point. They were with her for some reason while their prince/friend and their king were facing mortal danger.

It is quite obvious that they would have stayed with Lyanna even after they had learned of Aerys' death and Viserys' coronation. They would have defended her even if her child had been stillborn.

Quote

Leading to the conclusion that Hightower, Dayne and Whent were at the toj because they were following orders.   Not because there was any legitimate Targaryen heir in the tower.   

Amen.

42 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

I don't think we can say conclusively that only a king can legitimize a bastard.  We know that one king did:  Aegon IV.  We also know that other bastards have been legitimized.  We don't know whether a Lord Paramount could do that, either for himself or for a vassal.  And we don't know whether the High Septon could do it, although there is reason to think that he could.  Remember that a king can't dissolve a betrothal but the High Septon can -- that is why Joffrey needed the High Septon to dissolve his betrothal to Sansa.

We know that Queen Rhaenyra I was necessary to legitimize Addam and Alyn of Hull. That suggests that only monarchs can do that. And by the way: The fact that Alyn Velaryon remained a Velaryon and became Lord of Driftmark actually indicates that Rhaenyra was effectively a legitimate monarch, regardless what Aegon II decreed. Her decrees apparently stood.

And as @RumHam has already cited, Robb confirms for us that only kings can legitimize bastards. That needs a royal decree, which most likely means a special law. And laws and decrees are made by the king only. We also see this with Ramsay Snow. Roose cannot legitimize his bastard on his own.

Quote

Also, remember that the trigger for Robert's Rebellion was that Aerys demanded two innocent lives--Robert's own and Ned's -- from Jon Arryn and Lord Arryn refused.  That led half the realm to rise up against Aerys.  Robert could hardly turn around and do the same thing to to Ned that Aerys had done to Jon Arryn.  If Robert found out that Ned was harboring a son of Rhaegar and then told Ned to execute the child or send him to King's Landing for execution, Robert would not have lasted long on the throne.

Yeah, Robert could never have afforded demanding the murder of Eddard Stark's nephew from Eddard Stark himself. The man was the best friend of Jon Arryn and the son-in-law of Hoster Tully, and his wife was the sister of Jon Arryn's wife. He was at this time much better connected with the powerful leaders of the Rebellion than Robert himself.

Any attempt to threaten Jon Snow's life would have ended in Robert Baratheon's quick deposition and, possibly, even in a Targaryen restoration.

But Ned certainly had a reason to fear Tywin and the Lannisters in general thanks to their treatment of Aerys and the children. And he may also have had no intention to make Lyanna's son the pawn in another game of thrones. He certainly had no intention back then to crown another Targaryen king but there might have been a time when some Targaryen loyalists may have decided that Lyanna's son would make a good figurehead in this or that anti-Baratheon rebellion. Keeping his identity a secret would have been a much wiser ides.

But Rhaegar's bastard wouldn't have been in any danger at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the Robb-quote:

I have a question, since Robb actually legitimized Jon and named him his heir for Winterfell and the North before the Red Wedding (granted no one knows about this and is still alive or free, the Greatjon knows as does Edmure, but Idont see them getting out of the Twins any time soon and Catelyn would probably die before telling anyone) does this make Jon's rejection of Stannis' offer moot?

Edmure and the Greatjon are prisoners, true... but you are forgetting the envoys that Robb sent to Howland Reed... Galbart Glover, Maege Mormont, Jason Mallister... they are all alive and free.

As to what is and is not moot... the key point is, only a =king= can legitimize a bastard......

(So Spake Martin, August 6, 2000)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RumHam said:

I think it's clear that only a king can do it.

Anyone can dissolve their betrothal, as we've seen. The issue with Joffrey and Sansa was that Joffrey had made a vow to wed her, and the High Septon let him out of of the vow so it wouldn't be a mark against his honor. Actual marriages on the other hand can only be set aside by the faith, either through the High Septon or a "council of faith." 

This is a pretty horrible example. He was a prisoner, of course he didn't have Kingsguard protection.

 

I don't think the quote from Robb proves that only a king can legitimize a bastard.  The quote starts with Catelyn saying that a bastard cannot inherit -- an absolute.  Robb then says "Not unless he's legitimized by a royal decree."  So Robb is correcting his mother -- a bastard can inherit.  And while Robb implies that a royal decree might be the only way to do it, we have to keep in mind that Robb is King in the North and a follower of the Old Gods.  In his religion, there is no High Septon who could legitimize a bastard.  But in the South, there is.

That is why the fact that Joffrey had to get the High Septon to annul his betrothal is so important.  The reason Joffrey had made a vow to marry her is that that is what a betrothal is.  Joffrey and Sansa had a normal betrothal -- they vowed to wed each other -- and they could not break it without the High Septon's permission even though Joffrey was the King.  There is no reason to think that Joffrey and Sansa had an extraordinary betrothal that involved a vow that other betrothed people never took.  

Finally, I think you misunderstood my point about Barristan, Tywin and Duskendale.  The point is that Barristan was in a position during the Defiance at Duskendale that was very similar to the position Hightower found himself in at the toj.  The last time he saw the king, the king was protected by a kings guard.  That situation changed and the new king (Viserys, protected on Dragonstone, or Aegon, who Hightower probably believed to be a prisoner in King's Landing) had no Kingsguard protector.  Barristan wanted to go to his king -- he wanted to sneak into Duskendale and rescue Aerys.  But he could not do that without first seeking and obtaining Tywin's permission.  In other words, his obligation to follow orders trumped his ability to make up his own mind how best to fulfill his KG vow.  In the end, Tywin gave him permission and he went in and saved Aerys, but the point is that going to the unguarded king was not a decision he was allowed to make if it violated the orders he received from Tywin.   

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But Rhaegar's bastard wouldn't have been in any danger at all.

Thanks, LV.  It looks like we mostly agree.  But I do think Rhaegar's bastard would be in just as much danger from Tywin and Cersei as any legitimate child.  A bastard can make a claim -- that is why Cersei tried to kill off all of Robert's bastards.  

Think of it this way.  Aegon IV gave Blackfyre to Daemon years before he legitimized Daemon, on his deathbed.  And getting Blackfyre was a large part of Daemon's claim.  Another part was that he had more Targaryen blood than Daeron.  The third was that Aegon IV legitimized Daemon on his deathbed.  But don't you think that Daemon would have risen up and declared himself king based on the first two (wielding Blackfyre and having more Targ blood) even if Aegon had never gotten around to legitimizing him?   

7 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

In addition to the Robb-quote:

I have a question, since Robb actually legitimized Jon and named him his heir for Winterfell and the North before the Red Wedding (granted no one knows about this and is still alive or free, the Greatjon knows as does Edmure, but Idont see them getting out of the Twins any time soon and Catelyn would probably die before telling anyone) does this make Jon's rejection of Stannis' offer moot?

Edmure and the Greatjon are prisoners, true... but you are forgetting the envoys that Robb sent to Howland Reed... Galbart Glover, Maege Mormont, Jason Mallister... they are all alive and free.

As to what is and is not moot... the key point is, only a =king= can legitimize a bastard......

(So Spake Martin, August 6, 2000)

That certainly adds some weight to the theory that there is no other route to legitimization other than a royal decree, but given the context (he was talking about Jon, Robb and Stannis, none of whom would defer to the High Septon) I don't think that is definitive.  It is also possible that that the point GRRM was making is that a legitimization decree by Robb or Stannis would only be effective if Robb or Stannis were recognized as a king.  In other words, Stannis might not think that his desire to legitimize Jon was mooted by Robb's decree because Stannis does not accept that Robb was ever a king.  

I also suspect that if the king died with no legitimate heirs and a Great Council decided to legitimize a bastard and make him king, then that person would be legitimate even though there was no king to legitimize him.  In other words, the king, the High Septon, and a Great Council are all ways a bastard could be legitimized.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

I don't think the quote from Robb proves that only a king can legitimize a bastard.  The quote starts with Catelyn saying that a bastard cannot inherit -- an absolute.  Robb then says "Not unless he's legitimized by a royal decree."  So Robb is correcting his mother -- a bastard can inherit.  And while Robb implies that a royal decree might be the only way to do it, we have to keep in mind that Robb is King in the North and a follower of the Old Gods.  In his religion, there is no High Septon who could legitimize a bastard.  But in the South, there is.

I don't agree, but as it's made moot by the SSM @Rhaenys_Targaryen posted I'm not gonna argue. I will say it's kinda odd they think a bastard can't inherit when we know that they can, in the absence of legitimate heirs. Maybe legitimization is an implicit part of that scenario, but it's not clear. Like If Larence Snow had inherited his fathers lands and titles would it have been as a Snow or a Hornwood? I tend to think the latter. But as Robb was king anyway it tells us nothing. 

15 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

That is why the fact that Joffrey had to get the High Septon to annul his betrothal is so important.  The reason Joffrey had made a vow to marry her is that that is what a betrothal is.  Joffrey and Sansa had a normal betrothal -- they vowed to wed each other -- and they could not break it without the High Septon's permission even though Joffrey was the King.  There is no reason to think that Joffrey and Sansa had an extraordinary betrothal that involved a vow that other betrothed people never took.  

Betrothals are clearly not legally binding. It's a promise, it's not the same thing as say a marriage. Marriages cannot be undone except by the Faith. Bethroals can. We've seen many broken betrothals. There are consequences, yes. Mostly having to do with honor and politics. But not legal consequences. I'm not suggesting that Sansa and Joffrey made a second vow. Just that the risk in breaking such a vow is a matter of honor, not legal consequences. 

To put it another way, [Insert any of Egg's sons here] was able to break his betrothal without any help from the Faith. But I think you'd agree he wouldn't have been able to just dissolve his own marriage of his own authority. 

21 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

Finally, I think you misunderstood my point about Barristan, Tywin and Duskendale.  The point is that Barristan was in a position during the Defiance at Duskendale that was very similar to the position Hightower found himself in at the toj.  The last time he saw the king, the king was protected by a kings guard.  That situation changed and the new king (Viserys, protected on Dragonstone, or Aegon, who Hightower probably believed to be a prisoner in King's Landing) had no Kingsguard protector.  Barristan wanted to go to his king -- he wanted to sneak into Duskendale and rescue Aerys.  But he could not do that without first seeking and obtaining Tywin's permission.  In other words, his obligation to follow orders trumped his ability to make up his own mind how best to fulfill his KG vow.  In the end, Tywin gave him permission and he went in and saved Aerys, but the point is that going to the unguarded king was not a decision he was allowed to make if it violated the orders he received from Tywin.   

The king was imprisoned. Going to him was not an option. You make it sound like Barristan's rescue mission was a sure thing delayed only because he wanted Tywin's permission. I agree with you about the Kingsguard following orders. For example if Aerys Oakheart got a letter in Storm that the White Sword Tower had collapsed killing all his sworn brothers, he'd not abandon his charge and return to King's Landing. He had a mission and he'd stick to it. But to suggest that Aerys being without Kingsguard protection when he was in an enemy dungeon helps your case is moronic. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? 

You guys really think that Robert would be on Ned's side in good faith when Tywin (the Lannister side of his royal court) demand that Ned swears his fealty to the new Monarch (Robert + Cersei) by giving up Jon? Especially knowing how Cersei deals with Robert's own bastards, do you guys really think that Robert will have the spine to stand up to the Lannisters, especially after the marriage?  I can't count how many Lords great and minor that would gladly fulfill and demonstrate their loyalty and fealty to have Jon killed.  Even inside Winterfell walls, Jon is not safe.  No matter how loyal Ned's subjects are, the crown's small council (hello, Varys?) will find a way to have Jon murdered.  And all Robert will do is deny that he sent such orders.  What is Ned gonna do rebel? especially knowing how Catelyn was, when the truth is known, she would probably even grudgingly blame Lyanna for Brandon death, let alone allowing Ned to go to another war against the crown.

Robert looked away when Rhaegar's children bodies were being displayed as a token of fealty.  He will not look at Jon as somebody of a sympathetic symbol of his love, Lyanna, but another dragonspawn.  In fact, he will even be ripe with wrath when it's realized that Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar.  Talk about wounded pride, Robert will probably drive a hammer through Jon even when Ned is looking.

They ALL flee together through the secret pathways under the Red Keep.  After that, it was Lord Larys that made the authorized decision with the plan to sent forth to protect the King's ROYAL HEIRS (not bastard) with Kingsguard.  Curious, why didn't GRRM say something to the context that the "decree" by Lord Larys was sanctioned by Aegon? Was Aegon really that incapacitated to make orders that the 2KG have to obey a minor lord's decree?

In that circumstance, would Lord Larys make the decree at moment, to protect bastard Maelor with all of the available KG's loyal to the king (numbering just two) at the cost of Princess Jaehaera?

I'm sorry, but I put Lord Commander Hightower's integrity on equal standing or above that of Lord Larys any day.  There is no way Gerold would place the bastard baby boy and a mistress of the crown prince above the HEIR to the Targaryen monarchy (proclaiming that Aerys would yet sit the throne), Prince Viserys, who did not have a KG at that very moment in Dragonstone.  They would've known at the parley with Ned, that when he lifted the siege at SE, there is no stopping the Baratheon fleet of Stannis to capture Dragonstone.  And for Dayne, Whent, let alone Hightower to risk the heir, Viserys, to not send at least one KG to him for protection, would be the ultimate dereliction of their sworn oaths as Kingsguard.

Consider this, Gerold made the authorized decision with the plan to not send at least one KG to Dragonstone, because he has enough evidence that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, thus the baby is trueborn and heir to the throne.  I think this is displayed by his behavior and words to Ned at the parley.  There is no doubt at all from his demeanor, as well as Arthur's and Oswell's, who they are protecting at the tower, other than the King himself, Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of more or less random remarks on a couple of posts above.

First, I think that drawing septons whether high or low into the legitimisation question is a distraction. It seems pretty clear that only kings have the authority to set aside precedent and law and allow bastards to inherit ahead of any other more distant but legitimate claimants. South of the Neck it may be necessary for the High Septon to put his seal on it, just as he actually places the crown on the king's head, but that's not the same as having the power to unmake a bastard or make a king.

And changing subjects slightly, I agree with Lord Varys about creating new members of the King's Guard. There was an immediate vacancy following the death of Prince Lewyn at the Trident. When the decision was taken to send the Queen and Prince Viserys to Dragonstone the only member of the King's Guard left in King's Landing was its youngest and least trusted member, Jaime Lannister.

Ser Willem Darry on the other hand was a good man and true so off he went with the Prince. He may not have been formally inducted. Hightower was in the land of far far away, so he didn't go through the usual ceremonies but can we really doubt that Aerys appointed him a de facto member of the guard - after all he was neither deputed by Jaime to take Viserys to safety and nor did he do it on his own initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

   Thanks, LV.  It looks like we mostly agree.  But I do think Rhaegar's bastard would be in just as much danger from Tywin and Cersei as any legitimate child.  A bastard can make a claim -- that is why Cersei tried to kill off all of Robert's bastards.

Sure, bastards - legitimized or not - do have claims. You can be very sure that back in the days of the Hundred Kingdoms a lot of bastards took over the holdings of their fathers simply because there were no other heirs. And if you check the ways of the free folk then they still don't recognize bastards as such (if you want to be with a woman you are with that woman). Considering that those seem to be the ways of the First Men of old formal political marriages and the stigmatization of children not born in wedlock would be a much later development.

King Ronard Storm apparently was never legitimized by his royal brother before he usurped his place, making him the one proper 'Storm King' of the Stormlands...

Not to mention that Benedict Rivers could conquer the entire Riverlands without being legitimized.

I'd consider the possibility that Rhaegar's bastard would have been in danger from the new regime if history would tell us that the bastards of deposed/murdered Targaryen kings had been in danger, too. Aegon III did apparently not search for and murder Aemond's child by Alys Rivers (assuming she gave birth to a living child) nor were Aegon II's two confirmed bastards (mentioned in TRP) or Gaemon Palehair (who very well might have been Aegon's son) in any danger from the new regime.

We also don't hear anything about Robert looking for Aerys' bastards. The man had a lot of mistresses throughout his life and while no bastards are mentioned there is a pretty good chance that Aerys had at least one or two illegitimate children.

Cersei murders Robert's bastards in the city because her children are illegitimate and thus have no legal claim to the Iron Throne, and because Robert's bastards could be used as 'proof' that her children are not Robert's due to their Baratheon features.

Jon Snow looked like his mother and Eddard Stark. The idea that anybody would rally behind such a Targaryen bastard is very unlikely indeed. If Daemon Blackfyre had looked like Baelor Breakspear nobody would have supported his claim, either.

Quote

Think of it this way.  Aegon IV gave Blackfyre to Daemon years before he legitimized Daemon, on his deathbed.  And getting Blackfyre was a large part of Daemon's claim.  Another part was that he had more Targaryen blood than Daeron.  The third was that Aegon IV legitimized Daemon on his deathbed.  But don't you think that Daemon would have risen up and declared himself king based on the first two (wielding Blackfyre and having more Targ blood) even if Aegon had never gotten around to legitimizing him?

I really don't know. But you are arguing from the end result here. Daemon Blackfyre only challenged the claim of his royal brother after he had been legitimized by Aegon IV. Daemon was twelve years old when his royal father gave Blackfyre to him, and fourteen when Aegon died. He had no designs on the Iron Throne at this age nor did anyone apparently say Daemon should be king by the time of Aegon's death. Daeron II ascended to the Iron Throne quickly and without any problems.

The idea that Blackfyre was the kingdom would only have gained popularity much later, when Daeron II had grown unpopular in certain circles.

I honestly doubt that Daemon would have gotten enough support for a rebellion had he not been legitimized. At this point the nobility in Westeros isn't exactly bastard-friendly.

As to the High Septon thing:

Ran told us that the High Septon was effectively controlled by the king in his decisions since Jaehaerys I. We see this when it is Viserys I Prince Daemon approached when he wants to set aside his marriage to Rhea Royce and not the High Septon directly.

I'd agree that the old High Septons prior to the reign of Jaehaerys I might have presumed the authority to legitimized children just as the Faith legitimized marriages (and I'm also pretty sure the new High Septon would presume to do something like that as well) but we have no precedent for that.

A Great Council might support the claim of a royal bastard and choose him as the new king but that doesn't mean the lords have the right to legitimize said royal bastard. But if the bastard is crowned as king then he could decide how he is going to name himself and his dynasty just as Benedict Rivers-Justman did.

And betrothals certainly can be ignored by both parties. That is not the proper form, of course, and if you want to prevent the impression that you have broken a contract you better include the High Septon into all that. Just as the Lannisters did in Joffrey's case.

@RumHam

I think TT has a point in the case about Duskendale insofar as Tywin was apparently able to delay Barristan's rescue mission indefinitely. We don't know exactly when Barristan came up with the idea but it might have been earlier during the siege yet he still needed Tywin's permission for that in the end.

7 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

Seriously? 

You guys really think that Robert would be on Ned's side in good faith when Tywin (the Lannister side of his royal court) demand that Ned swears his fealty to the new Monarch (Robert + Cersei) by giving up Jon? Especially knowing how Cersei deals with Robert's own bastards, do you guys really think that Robert will have the spine to stand up to the Lannisters, especially after the marriage?  I can't count how many Lords great and minor that would gladly fulfill and demonstrate their loyalty and fealty to have Jon killed.  Even inside Winterfell walls, Jon is not safe.  No matter how loyal Ned's subjects are, the crown's small council (hello, Varys?) will find a way to have Jon murdered.  And all Robert will do is deny that he sent such orders.  What is Ned gonna do rebel? especially knowing how Catelyn was, when the truth is known, she would probably even grudgingly blame Lyanna for Brandon death, let alone allowing Ned to go to another war against the crown.

Yeah, I do think Eddard Stark (and Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn) would rebel in such a scenario, possibly supported by the Dornishmen and the Reach. After all, if Robert demanded that the child be killed or handed over to him and Ned refused then Ned would know Robert was involved when it was murdered later on (or act as if he knew it).

You have to keep in mind that the Cersei-Robert deal was negotiated after the end of the war. Robert and Cersei did not marry immediately, and if Robert had learned of Lyanna's child before such a marriage took place then he would not yet have had the Lannisters fully on his side.

Not to mention that Robert would, at this point, not so much under Cersei's thumb as he is over a decade later. Robert was/is Ned's best friend and he loved Lyanna. The idea that he would want to kill a child that is Lyanna's son and Ned's nephew but no immediate threat to his throne is simply insane.

7 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

Robert looked away when Rhaegar's children bodies were being displayed as a token of fealty.  He will not look at Jon as somebody of a sympathetic symbol of his love, Lyanna, but another dragonspawn.  In fact, he will even be ripe with wrath when it's realized that Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar.  Talk about wounded pride, Robert will probably drive a hammer through Jon even when Ned is looking.

The existence of child does not prove that Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar. Even a marriage between them does not prove that. Just look at Sansa Lannister or 'Arya Bolton'.

You should really reread the books. Your last sentence up there is ridiculous. Robert Baratheon is reasonably good at closing his eyes to things he does not want to see but he is no murderer of children. And when pushed he still makes the right decisions. Just remember how he called off Dany's assassination on his deathbed.

7 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

They ALL flee together through the secret pathways under the Red Keep.  After that, it was Lord Larys that made the authorized decision with the plan to sent forth to protect the King's ROYAL HEIRS (not bastard) with Kingsguard.  Curious, why didn't GRRM say something to the context that the "decree" by Lord Larys was sanctioned by Aegon? Was Aegon really that incapacitated to make orders that the 2KG have to obey a minor lord's decree?

We learn that Aegon II spent nine out of ten hours in poppy dreams at this time. Considering that the Greens would not have expected Syrax and Caraxes showing up in the sky above the city Aegon II would have gotten his usual dosage of the milk of the poppy on this day, too. As it seems Larys Strong acted completely on his own only including the Kingsguard knights he took with him into his plans. Else Alicent, Otto, and Helaena certainly would have gone with them, right?

The idea that Aegon II was conscious enough to give coherent orders at this point makes no sense. Even if he gave Larys permission to arrange his escape (which I very much doubt) there is no reason to believe that the Kingsguard had to feel bound to follow Larys' orders had they been under the impression that their king didn't know what he was talking about when he gave said permission to Larys Strong.

In addition, you also have to keep in mind that this is mostly historical speculation. Yandel and Gyldayn tell us a story based on Orwyle's account filtered through Munkun's book.

Considering that Aegon II's Kingsguard was only protecting the royal person of Aegon II (that is why Queen Helaena and her children were without Kingsguard protection in the Blood and Cheese incident) it is actually rather odd that Fell agreed to deliver Jaehaera to Storm's End and did not insist to stay at the side of his king and liege. Aegon's life was much more important than the life of the royal heirs because Aegon's cause would die with him or his brothers. Nobody in Westeros would have continued the war in the name of two-year-old boy or a lackwit girl.

7 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

In that circumstance, would Lord Larys make the decree at moment, to protect bastard Maelor with all of the available KG's loyal to the king (numbering just two) at the cost of Princess Jaehaera?

That depends. If Maelor's mother had been a Strong woman I could see him making such a decision. The same if Aegon II only had had illegitimate children (at this point) and considered them his legal heirs (or even loved them very much and feared they might be killed).

7 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

I'm sorry, but I put Lord Commander Hightower's integrity on equal standing or above that of Lord Larys any day.  There is no way Gerold would place the bastard baby boy and a mistress of the crown prince above the HEIR to the Targaryen monarchy (proclaiming that Aerys would yet sit the throne), Prince Viserys, who did not have a KG at that very moment in Dragonstone.  They would've known at the parley with Ned, that when he lifted the siege at SE, there is no stopping the Baratheon fleet of Stannis to capture Dragonstone.  And for Dayne, Whent, let alone Hightower to risk the heir, Viserys, to not send at least one KG to him for protection, would be the ultimate dereliction of their sworn oaths as Kingsguard.

That is just nonsense, really. The Kingsguard at the tower had been given orders. Orders that might even have been as specific as that each of them, individually, had to stay with Lyanna. If that was the case they could not have honorably left.

The very idea it was their duty to get to Viserys III is just crap. Viserys III could already have his own Kingsguard at this point because he was the new king. Just compare the situation to Barristan decision to not personally look for Daenerys after Daznak's Pit. Barristan is not bound by any order yet he still does not rush out into the Dothraki Sea with Dany's bloodriders to find her. If Selmy can think her bloodriders are enough to find and protect her then Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are also free to assume that the Ser Willem Darry and the garrison of Dragonstone are enough to protect Viserys III and the Queen Dowager for the time being.

Hightower, Dayne, and Whent were bound to Lyanna by specific orders and thus had no leeway to just go to Viserys for no good reason. They had to take care of Lyanna and the child.

Not to mention that they might actually have preferred for this or that reason to protect Lyanna and the child instead of Viserys and Rhaella. We don't know their thoughts on that.

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

And changing subjects slightly, I agree with Lord Varys about creating new members of the King's Guard. There was an immediate vacancy following the death of Prince Lewyn at the Trident. When the decision was taken to send the Queen and Prince Viserys to Dragonstone the only member of the King's Guard left in King's Landing was its youngest and least trusted member, Jaime Lannister.

Ser Willem Darry on the other hand was a good man and true so off he went with the Prince. He may not have been formally inducted. Hightower was in the land of far far away, so he didn't go through the usual ceremonies but can we really doubt that Aerys appointed him a de facto member of the guard - after all he was neither deputed by Jaime to take Viserys to safety and nor did he do it on his own initiative.

It was actually two vacancies. Both Jonothor Darry and Prince Lewyn died at the Trident. Aerys could even have considered Selmy to be either dead or a traitor. If he wanted he could have made three new Kingsguard before his death.

And nothing would have prevented Viserys III after his coronation to make additional Kingsguard to replace the traitor Jaime Lannister as well as Hightower, Dayne, and Whent who he and his mother could easily have considered to be either dead or traitors, too, considering that they were nowhere to be found.

The very idea that a Kingsguard feels the need to ensure the king's safety always by ensuring that a Kingsguard is with him is just ridiculous. This was never the case and is just a stupid non-argument. There is no textual evidence to back up this assumption which means it is null and void when cited in the whole fever dream sequence discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, bastards - legitimized or not - do have claims. You can be very sure that back in the days of the Hundred Kingdoms a lot of bastards took over the holdings of their fathers simply because there were no other heirs. And if you check the ways of the free folk then they still don't recognize bastards as such (if you want to be with a woman you are with that woman). Considering that those seem to be the ways of the First Men of old formal political marriages and the stigmatization of children not born in wedlock would be a much later development.

King Ronard Storm apparently was never legitimized by his royal brother before he usurped his place, making him the one proper 'Storm King' of the Stormlands...

Not to mention that Benedict Rivers could conquer the entire Riverlands without being legitimized.

I'd consider the possibility that Rhaegar's bastard would have been in danger from the new regime if history would tell us that the bastards of deposed/murdered Targaryen kings had been in danger, too. Aegon III did apparently not search for and murder Aemond's child by Alys Rivers (assuming she gave birth to a living child) nor were Aegon II's two confirmed bastards (mentioned in TRP) or Gaemon Palehair (who very well might have been Aegon's son) in any danger from the new regime.

We also don't hear anything about Robert looking for Aerys' bastards. The man had a lot of mistresses throughout his life and while no bastards are mentioned there is a pretty good chance that Aerys had at least one or two illegitimate children.

Cersei murders Robert's bastards in the city because her children are illegitimate and thus have no legal claim to the Iron Throne, and because Robert's bastards could be used as 'proof' that her children are not Robert's due to their Baratheon features.

Jon Snow looked like his mother and Eddard Stark. The idea that anybody would rally behind such a Targaryen bastard is very unlikely indeed. If Daemon Blackfyre had looked like Baelor Breakspear nobody would have supported his claim, either.

I really don't know. But you are arguing from the end result here. Daemon Blackfyre only challenged the claim of his royal brother after he had been legitimized by Aegon IV. Daemon was twelve years old when his royal father gave Blackfyre to him, and fourteen when Aegon died. He had no designs on the Iron Throne at this age nor did anyone apparently say Daemon should be king by the time of Aegon's death. Daeron II ascended to the Iron Throne quickly and without any problems.

The idea that Blackfyre was the kingdom would only have gained popularity much later, when Daeron II had grown unpopular in certain circles.

I honestly doubt that Daemon would have gotten enough support for a rebellion had he not been legitimized. At this point the nobility in Westeros isn't exactly bastard-friendly.

As to the High Septon thing:

Ran told us that the High Septon was effectively controlled by the king in his decisions since Jaehaerys I. We see this when it is Viserys I Prince Daemon approached when he wants to set aside his marriage to Rhea Royce and not the High Septon directly.

I'd agree that the old High Septons prior to the reign of Jaehaerys I might have presumed the authority to legitimized children just as the Faith legitimized marriages (and I'm also pretty sure the new High Septon would presume to do something like that as well) but we have no precedent for that.

A Great Council might support the claim of a royal bastard and choose him as the new king but that doesn't mean the lords have the right to legitimize said royal bastard. But if the bastard is crowned as king then he could decide how he is going to name himself and his dynasty just as Benedict Rivers-Justman did.

And betrothals certainly can be ignored by both parties. That is not the proper form, of course, and if you want to prevent the impression that you have broken a contract you better include the High Septon into all that. Just as the Lannisters did in Joffrey's case.

@RumHam

I think TT has a point in the case about Duskendale insofar as Tywin was apparently able to delay Barristan's rescue mission indefinitely. We don't know exactly when Barristan came up with the idea but it might have been earlier during the siege yet he still needed Tywin's permission for that in the end.

Yeah, I do think Eddard Stark (and Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn) would rebel in such a scenario, possibly supported by the Dornishmen and the Reach. After all, if Robert demanded that the child be killed or handed over to him and Ned refused then Ned would know Robert was involved when it was murdered later on (or act as if he knew it).

You have to keep in mind that the Cersei-Robert deal was negotiated after the end of the war. Robert and Cersei did not marry immediately, and if Robert had learned of Lyanna's child before such a marriage took place then he would not yet have had the Lannisters fully on his side.

Not to mention that Robert would, at this point, not so much under Cersei's thumb as he is over a decade later. Robert was/is Ned's best friend and he loved Lyanna. The idea that he would want to kill a child that is Lyanna's son and Ned's nephew but no immediate threat to his throne is simply insane.

The existence of child does not prove that Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar. Even a marriage between them does not prove that. Just look at Sansa Lannister or 'Arya Bolton'.

You should really reread the books. Your last sentence up there is ridiculous. Robert Baratheon is reasonably good at closing his eyes to things he does not want to see but he is no murderer of children. And when pushed he still makes the right decisions. Just remember how he called off Dany's assassination on his deathbed.

We learn that Aegon II spent nine out of ten hours in poppy dreams at this time. Considering that the Greens would not have expected Syrax and Caraxes showing up in the sky above the city Aegon II would have gotten his usual dosage of the milk of the poppy on this day, too. As it seems Larys Strong acted completely on his own only including the Kingsguard knights he took with him into his plans. Else Alicent, Otto, and Helaena certainly would have gone with them, right?

The idea that Aegon II was conscious enough to give coherent orders at this point makes no sense. Even if he gave Larys permission to arrange his escape (which I very much doubt) there is no reason to believe that the Kingsguard had to feel bound to follow Larys' orders had they been under the impression that their king didn't know what he was talking about when he gave said permission to Larys Strong.

In addition, you also have to keep in mind that this is mostly historical speculation. Yandel and Gyldayn tell us a story based on Orwyle's account filtered through Munkun's book.

Considering that Aegon II's Kingsguard was only protecting the royal person of Aegon II (that is why Queen Helaena and her children were without Kingsguard protection in the Blood and Cheese incident) it is actually rather odd that Fell agreed to deliver Jaehaera to Storm's End and did not insist to stay at the side of his king and liege. Aegon's life was much more important than the life of the royal heirs because Aegon's cause would die with him or his brothers. Nobody in Westeros would have continued the war in the name of two-year-old boy or a lackwit girl.

That depends. If Maelor's mother had been a Strong woman I could see him making such a decision. The same if Aegon II only had had illegitimate children (at this point) and considered them his legal heirs (or even loved them very much and feared they might be killed).

That is just nonsense, really. The Kingsguard at the tower had been given orders. Orders that might even have been as specific as that each of them, individually, had to stay with Lyanna. If that was the case they could not have honorably left.

The very idea it was their duty to get to Viserys III is just crap. Viserys III could already have his own Kingsguard at this point because he was the new king. Just compare the situation to Barristan decision to not personally look for Daenerys after Daznak's Pit. Barristan is not bound by any order yet he still does not rush out into the Dothraki Sea with Dany's bloodriders to find her. If Selmy can think her bloodriders are enough to find and protect her then Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are also free to assume that the Ser Willem Darry and the garrison of Dragonstone are enough to protect Viserys III and the Queen Dowager for the time being.

Hightower, Dayne, and Whent were bound to Lyanna by specific orders and thus had no leeway to just go to Viserys for no good reason. They had to take care of Lyanna and the child.

Not to mention that they might actually have preferred for this or that reason to protect Lyanna and the child instead of Viserys and Rhaella. We don't know their thoughts on that.

It was actually two vacancies. Both Jonothor Darry and Prince Lewyn died at the Trident. Aerys could even have considered Selmy to be either dead or a traitor. If he wanted he could have made three new Kingsguard before his death.

And nothing would have prevented Viserys III after his coronation to make additional Kingsguard to replace the traitor Jaime Lannister as well as Hightower, Dayne, and Whent who he and his mother could easily have considered to be either dead or traitors, too, considering that they were nowhere to be found.

The very idea that a Kingsguard feels the need to ensure the king's safety always by ensuring that a Kingsguard is with him is just ridiculous. This was never the case and is just a stupid non-argument. There is no textual evidence to back up this assumption which means it is null and void when cited in the whole fever dream sequence discussion.

We can't know for sure what Robert would have done if he had discovered Jon's existence. However, Ned, absolutely believes that his friend is capable of murdering children. It's specifically why he warns Cersei. 

Yet last night he had dreamt of Rhaegar's children.........The little princess had been barefoot, still dressed in her bed gown, and the boy.....the boy....Ned could not let that happen again. the realm could not withstand a second mad king, another dance of blood and vengeance. He must find some way to save the children.......

Robert could be merciful.....This was something else: poison in the dark, a knife thrust to the soul. This he could never forgive, no more than he had forgiven Rhaegar. He will kill them all, Ned realized. 

Ned seriously fears that Robert would kill children that he had been a father to all their lives. Any child that Lyanna had with Rhaegar would be another knife thrust to the soul. If he found out Jon's identity after 14 years, there would be the additional issue of Ned lying to his friend and king, effectively committing treason and personal betrayal. Sure, Robert might repent any hasty action on his deathbed but that could have been all too late - as it would have been with Dany if the assassination attempt hadn't been foiled (or manipulated by your good self LV).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

We can't know for sure what Robert would have done if he had discovered Jon's existence. However, Ned, absolutely believes that his friend is capable of murdering children. It's specifically why he warns Cersei. 

Yet last night he had dreamt of Rhaegar's children.........The little princess had been barefoot, still dressed in her bed gown, and the boy.....the boy....Ned could not let that happen again. the realm could not withstand a second mad king, another dance of blood and vengeance. He must find some way to save the children.......

Robert could be merciful.....This was something else: poison in the dark, a knife thrust to the soul. This he could never forgive, no more than he had forgiven Rhaegar. He will kill them all, Ned realized. 

Ned seriously fears that Robert would kill children that he had been a father to all their lives. Any child that Lyanna had with Rhaegar would be another knife thrust to the soul. If he found out Jon's identity after 14 years, there would be the additional issue of Ned lying to his friend and king, effectively committing treason and personal betrayal. Sure, Robert might repent any hasty action on his deathbed but that could have been all too late - as it would have been with Dany if the assassination attempt hadn't been foiled (or manipulated by your good self LV).

That isn't the same. A king being cuckolded by his own wife and her twin-brother (who also happens to be his own bodyguard) is scarcely the same thing as a fiancée running away with another man (if that's what happened). Cersei was Robert's wife for over a decade and deliberately betrayed him. Lyanna was a girl Robert had at best met a couple of times.

And as I've brought up repeatedly in the past Ned's assessment of Robert_298 doesn't mean Ned_283 did think Robert_283 was capable of murdering children. Especially not Ned's nephew and Lyanna's son. Child murder is bad in any case but murdering the nephew of your best friend is even worse than that. The idea that a man like Robert would have done that is very low. Especially if we talk about a child that was no political threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the discriminating reader, take note of the previous versions of the thread.  One thing should be blatantly obvious:

Those who insisted:

  • Jon's mother was NOT Lyanna
  • Jon's father was NOT Rhaegar

are laying a consistent track record by vociferously arguing that Jon is NOT legitimate.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The discriminating reader might also note that no one in these here parts has in fact seriously challenged the proposition that Jon is the son of Lyanna Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do people need to be reminded? Use common sense!

A King (Queen-Dany) ON dragonback without Kingsguard is different with Kings/Queens NOT on dragonback without Kingsguard.

The Kingsguard were limited with their abilities, they don't have wings and can't fly on a dragon.

Now, is it common sense, during peace time, to have Kingsguard assigned to go forward to Winterfell days/weeks in advance, so that when King Jaehaerys arrived ON dragonback, there will be Kingsguard there to CONTINUE their primary duty???? yes, of course!

In fact, it's probably part of their protocol manual of duties they must follow.  During the days when the Targaryens are on dragons, I'm sure there were a lot of time that the King and the people that he assigned Kingsguard with left on their dragons without Kingsguard protection, during peace time, let alone on war/chaotic times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IceFire125 said:

How many times do people need to be reminded? Use common sense!

A King (Queen-Dany) ON dragonback without Kingsguard is different with Kings/Queens NOT on dragonback without Kingsguard.

The Kingsguard were limited with their abilities, they don't have wings and can't fly on a dragon.

Now, is it common sense, during peace time, to have Kingsguard assigned to go forward to Winterfell days/weeks in advance, so that when King Jaehaerys arrived ON dragonback, there will be Kingsguard there to CONTINUE their primary duty???? yes, of course!

In fact, it's probably part of their protocol manual of duties they must follow.  During the days when the Targaryens are on dragons, I'm sure there were a lot of time that the King and the people that he assigned Kingsguard with left on their dragons without Kingsguard protection, during peace time, let alone on war/chaotic times.

If you could give any sort textual evidence for those adventurous claims I'd be inclined to believe you.

But there are none.

We don't know how royal progresses worked during the days of the early Targaryen kings. Considering that nothing suggests the king and the royal family only traveled on dragonback there is a rather good chance that most of the traveling was done on horseback with the Targaryens occasionally flying around with their dragons. We know that the Conqueror enjoyed it to hang out with the smallfolk and to spend nights in common inns and the like.

The idea that they sent Kingsguard ahead to meet them at a certain destination is the most silliest idea I ever heard in connection to this whole topic. Being a dragonrider means you are mobile and can fly wherever the hell you want to fly. Nobody would complicate that by sending men on horseback ahead. Not to mention that the riders of Balerion, Vhagar, and Meraxes could most definitely have taken Kingsguard with them on dragonback (although I'm not sure this was ever done). We do know that you can take a 'guest' up on your dragon as a dragonrider from the example of Ronnel Arryn.

The idea that there was a 'protocol manual of duties' for Kingsguard also makes no sense because we actually do know that it was up to the king, and the king alone, what the Kingsguard had to do. Some kings restricted KG protection to their own royal person others extended it to their wives, children, siblings, cousins, mistresses, and bastards. Barristan Selmy himself told us that.

The Kingsguard had no right not make up their own orders or to tell the people who were actually in charge (the King, a regent, the Lord Protector, the Hand, or a member of the royal family) what their oath demanded them to do. They were servants of the king and his family. The royals and the people ruling them Realm do decide what's dangerous and from whom or what a king or his family have to protected from. Not the Kingsguard (unless a member of the Kingsguard is also the Hand, a regent, or a member of the royal family, of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

@RumHam

I think TT has a point in the case about Duskendale insofar as Tywin was apparently able to delay Barristan's rescue mission indefinitely. We don't know exactly when Barristan came up with the idea but it might have been earlier during the siege yet he still needed Tywin's permission for that in the end.

 

Thank you.  The World Book makes clear that Barristan wanted to go into Duskendale to protect the king.  If his "first duty" required him to disregard contrary orders and go protect the king, that is what he would have done.  He would have believed that his obligation to protect superseded his obligation to obey.  

But clearly the obligation to obey overrode the obligation to protect, because Barristan asked for Tywin's permission.  

12 hours ago, RumHam said:

But to suggest that Aerys being without Kingsguard protection when he was in an enemy dungeon helps your case is moronic

Is that really necessary?

Anyway, the issue is not that Aerys was without KG protection.  The issue is that once the king found himself without KG protection, a member of the KG (Barristan) was in a position to go in and protect (rescue) him.  But Barristan was not allowed to make up his own mind to go do that.  He had to follow orders, even if his orders prevented him from going in.  

23 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

The discriminating reader might also note that no one in these here parts has in fact seriously challenged the proposition that Jon is the son of Lyanna Stark.

Not recently, but I won't be surprised if we find out that Jon's parents are Ned and Ashara, or Ned and Wylla.  And I won't be shocked if it turns out that Lyanna is Young Griff's mother.  

19 minutes ago, IceFire125 said:

How many times do people need to be reminded? Use common sense!

A King (Queen-Dany) ON dragonback without Kingsguard is different with Kings/Queens NOT on dragonback without Kingsguard.

The Kingsguard were limited with their abilities, they don't have wings and can't fly on a dragon.

Now, is it common sense, during peace time, to have Kingsguard assigned to go forward to Winterfell days/weeks in advance, so that when King Jaehaerys arrived ON dragonback, there will be Kingsguard there to CONTINUE their primary duty???? yes, of course!

In fact, it's probably part of their protocol manual of duties they must follow.  During the days when the Targaryens are on dragons, I'm sure there were a lot of time that the King and the people that he assigned Kingsguard with left on their dragons without Kingsguard protection, during peace time, let alone on war/chaotic times.

We know for a fact that the Targaryen kings went into grave danger -- even battle -- on dragonback, with no KG protection.  Think about Aegon II.  Or Rhaenyra, when she flew from Dragonstone to King's Landing.  In light of that, I seriously doubt that they invented an order of knights and told them one of their jobs was to make sure one of them was with the king at all times.  It just would not be practical.

I also doubt they took the time to send a KG ahead of them any time they wanted to travel on a dragon in peace time.  Can you picture Aegon the Conqueror saying "I want to go to Oldtown today to consult with the Grand Maesters.  Saddle up my dragon.  I will be back before sundown."  And then the Lord Commander of the KG says:  "Wait, Your Grace.  I will go to Oldtown to protect you.  If you wait 3 weeks before flying down, I should be there by the time you get there."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Consider this, Gerold made the authorized decision with the plan to not send at least one KG to Dragonstone, because he has enough evidence that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, thus the baby is trueborn and heir to the throne.  I think this is displayed by his behavior and words to Ned at the parley.  There is no doubt at all from his demeanor, as well as Arthur's and Oswell's, who they are protecting at the tower, other than the King himself, Jon.

What do you think about Gerold Hightower going to the TOJ (or wherever Lyanna and Rhaegar were) and staying with the other KG? You think he witnessed a marriage? Too late, maybe? Or perhaps he brought with him some sort of royal document that would give legitimacy to their union and any children born of that union? Remember we now know that after Rhaegar died, Aerys made Viserys his heir. Some people claim it was because Aegon was still a baby, but Viserys was still a boy also, and Rhaella would rule in his place.

A simple marriage, in my opinion, would not make Jon legimate if Aerys did not agree with it. I believe the presence of Hightower in ToJ is very important, in not only the way you wrote, protecting the possible King - remember they did not know then how to tell the sex of an unborn child, but to guard an important document.

I will go further. Call it crackpot but what if Aerys has already abdicated his throne to Rhaegar? Not really, I mean, he would have had other plans in mind, but what if he resigned just to lure Rhaegar back? If so, Hightower stayed not only to protect a legimate heir, but the King's legimate heir... That would explain also why Aerys could not make Viserys his heir, he had no power anymore. But only 3 KG in the middle of nowhere know this...

Ok, crackpot, but I wrote that Aerys had other plans in mind when Rhaegar came back from Trident...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the king's decree validating Rhaegar's marriage could well have been a part of the agreement between Aerys and Rhaegar as a sort of bribe to convince Rhaegar to come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Yes, the king's decree validating Rhaegar's marriage could well have been a part of the agreement between Aerys and Rhaegar as a sort of bribe to convince Rhaegar to come back.

I always thought that Hightower had something to do with Rhaegar coming back to KL.

Rhaegar, before the "event"* as I now call it, was very determined to depose Aerys. Anyone could see that Aerys' acts would result in a big tragedy for Westeros if he was not restrained somehow.

He was away from the Rebellion all this time, and all of a sudden he agrees to come back and fight for Aerys?

I would even propose another "theory", lol, that maybe Rhaegar wanted to be found and it was him who contacted his father, asking for permission to marry Lyanna, and asking for legitimacy for their son. Aerys was already totally losing his mind. Something like a poison, it was getting worse and worse. But Aerys was never stupid, only cruel and sadistic. Only a very good offer would make Rhaegar defend him. I am sure Rhaegar did not care about a Targaryen Kingdom anymore, unless he could believe this King would be a good person (him, lol).

Since I follow the theory that R rescued L from Aerys, and then they fell in love, I believe Rhaegar was hidden all this time to not only protect himself and his guards, but to protect Lyanna, who, according to the theory I believe in, was considered a traitor by Aerys, only because of the KoTLT trick.

So, Hightower would follow Viserys, I believe, but he and his pals knew something other people did not.

Well, at least a validation of their marriage is something believable. I think this is the only way to explain the whole ToJ events.

*by "event" I call the abduction (for some), elopement (for others) or rescue (for me). The moment Rhaegar disappears with Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Thank you.  The World Book makes clear that Barristan wanted to go into Duskendale to protect the king.  If his "first duty" required him to disregard contrary orders and go protect the king, that is what he would have done.  He would have believed that his obligation to protect superseded his obligation to obey.  

But clearly the obligation to obey overrode the obligation to protect, because Barristan asked for Tywin's permission.  

You're missing the common sense aspect of this. There was a good chance Aerys would be killed if Barristan's infiltration was detected. He was successful, but the odds were greatly against him. By just blindly bee-lining for the king Barristan could actually have caused his death. I was never suggesting that Kingsguard don't have to obey, I agree with you there. I just think this is a really dumb example that does not help your argument. Under circumstances where going to the king is not an option, the lack of a kingsguard presence tells us nothing. Just like Barristan doesn't spend the end of Dance wandering the countryside looking for his queen. They're not robots. 

3 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Is that really necessary?

Look we all say stupid shit sometimes. I wasn't saying you are a moron. There's a difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/08/2016 at 1:00 PM, Lord Varys said:

You also have to keep in mind that Rhaegar for some reason returned to KL but left Lyanna in that tower. Why did he do that?

Just a small point, but I believe the consensus is that she was, you know, busy dying at the time.

:)

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...