Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II


Werthead

Recommended Posts

Is it just me or does anybody think that alot of the evidence for L + R = J, could also be used to suggest there was nothing going on but Lyanna was a highborn captive?

1) Kingsguard guarding her so she (or Jon) must be royalty?

If she was purely a captive, she was the most important one they had, Ned's Sister, Roberts Betrothed

2) Kingsguard refused to yield because they thought Ned was a threat to Lyanna, therefore she (or Jon) must be royalty?

Again we shouldn't forget that Ned was a traitor rising up against his rightful King, the KG were loyal and refused to bend the knee, so they fought or were hung, they fought and almost won.

3) She was found in a bed of blood

She could have been killed after news reached them that Rhaegor & Aerys had died, she no longer served any purpose as a hostage, so could easily have just been killed

But who knows

Certainly not me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or does anybody think that alot of the evidence for L + R = J, could also be used to suggest there was nothing going on but Lyanna was a highborn captive?
Nah. The rebellion kicked off after basically two incidents: the killing of Brandon and Rickard Stark and the supposed kidnap of Lyanna. The first is what brought House Stark to war. The second is what brought House Baratheon to war.

If Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna as a hedge against a Stark rebellion, he's a lot dumber than he seems. Robert is not exactly subtle or unpredictable. Targaryen could have taken Stark if Baratheon had stayed in their fold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If she was purely a captive, she was the most important one they had, Ned's Sister, Roberts Betrothed

They had already lost the war. If they wanted to do something for the Targaryens, they should have left Lyanna (alive or dead) and headed to Dragonstone, where Viserys and Dany were. I think that they must have stayed there because Rhaegar ordered them to and/or they were guarding Rhaegar's legitimate son. I don't think they would have cared for Rhaegar's bastard son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, "groupthink" is easy to spot. If someone doesn't substantiate an assertion, and merely latches on to what a group says, it is groupthink. Simple. It is not definitive, but based on their refusal to argue a point and rather simple advocate the conclusion, it shows "groupthink."

Wrong as usual. If Person A beats up Person B in an argument, someone can agree with Person A without feeling the need to reiterate Person A's argument and not be a sheep. Not everyone that agrees with R+L=J, but doesn't vocalize every point when someone comes up with something contrary, is a victim of groupthink. I notice you haven't spent much time debating Nightflyer's "Varys' birds are actually BIRDS" theory. Does this mean you accept that that is not the case because of groupthink, or because you just found the idea too ridiculous to be worthy of your time? Same principle at work here. I'm sure it's a blow to your precious ego, but you'll be better off once you realize that your wild-ass ideas and incoherent arguments are not the center of the universe.

Remember the basic rule of debating online. It's impossible to make someone agree with you.

Actually, this is only true of a certain subset of people. I long ago recognized you as a member of that subset, so have thus been content to make your arguments look foolish while grinning at the attention-seeking jackasses that always seem to crop up online. Rest assured, there are people that are more reasonable. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that a sizable percentage of the people here that now believe R+L=J is true, only believed it after being convinced by something they read on the Internet. This alone is de facto proof that you're full of crap.

Now, maybe YOU have never gotten anyone to agree with you. You might then look at it as reasonable to hypothesize that such a feat is impossible on the Internet, some mysterious facet of anonymity. As usual, you miss the more reasonable explanation, which is that your ideas and your arguments suck.

But it doesn't stop you from projecting like a mofo. Speaking of which...

I looked at your comments, and you have no understanding of probability beyond basic terminology.

Oh look! I disagree with you and therefore I am completely ignorant! How precious. Never mind that your argument is very simple, and doesn't take into account any actual complicated shit, no matter how much you seem to want it to be the most earth-shattering display of intellect that the world has ever seen. The fact is, I *could* be completely ignorant of probability and still tear your argument to shreds (remember, it's your reasoning that's wrong, not your math), but as it happens, I'm not.

For example, you say any any particular series of events is by itself improbable since the number of variables needed for that entire series of events to occur is unlikely to happen. This is true, but is in total avoidance of my arguement.

First off, I see you still haven't bowed down to the groupthink of how to spell "argument". Keep fighting the good fight brutha.

Second, the point is central to your so-called "argument" because your argument centers around the "probability" of events as though they were meaningful in and of themselves. You conflate a low-probability event with a "contrivance" on GRRM's part. This is meaningless because every possible event, every possible outcome, is low-probability.

Not all events are relevant to whether D happens when D is only dependent on A, B, and C happening. All outside variables make the path from A, B, and C to D unique, but they are not necessary for D to happen. Only A, B, and C are. It's basicly a stochastic series.

Stochastic series! A term I haven't heard since college. As I recall, that's just a fancy way of saying "random shit that affects outcomes", and deals with predicting the range of possible outcomes from a function with random elements. People use stochastic series to try to predict the stock market, things like that.

And, ooh, there's that meaningful word again ... PREDICT. Your entire argument hinges upon the notion that in order for R+L=J to be true, somebody had to predict that things would go down as they did. Your logic is 100% wrong on this point. Remember, this is the difference between something being "low probability" and something being a "contrivance", that you seem so resistant even to acknowledge.

Again, it's not the math I take issue with. It's the reasoning. If someone had spelled out the details of the R+L=J conspiracy prior to it happening, or if any charachter had done anything that required foreknowledge of what would occur at the ToJ, you would have a valid argument. But you don't, because neither of those statements is true.

The funny thing is, most of the salient points, you already concede - that Rhaegar and Lyanna did the nasty, that Lyanna got pregnant, that she had a child in the ToJ, that she died in childbirth, and that Ned was there. Everything from that point forward is strawman - arguing against a version of R+L=J that has Ned planning out everything about taking the kid, passing off Wylla as a mother, and himself as the father, before the events at the ToJ took place. Nobody that I know of argues that.

What we now call R+L=J (which is, the conspiracy to pass off Jon as Ned's kid, involving Jon's looks, Wylla's existence, etc.) was only formed in the light of pre-existing conditions, none of which were necessary for some version of a R+L=J conspiracy to take shape. This renders your point completely irrelevant, but you're too stubborn and arrogant to admit it.

But "groupthink" is easily categorizable.

a) Person does not substantiate their beliefs with arguements or a supportable position.

B) Person follows the mentality of a majority.

Actually, (a) is flat out wrong. For it to be "groupthink" someone must not *be able to* substantiate their beliefs. You're probably too arrogant even to consider the possibility, but rest assured, I'm sure many people think your arguments are so ridiculous as to not be worth their time, and are content simply to point and laugh. This doesn't mean that they couldn't, just that they don't want to be bothered.

I would be among them, but the tone you assume rubs me the wrong way, and I take a perverse delight in dealing with pseudo-intellectuals, especially when they get personal. I am clearly not a sheep, but your ego would have allowed you to see me as one, because the thought of your ideas being so terrible as to be laughed at and not dealt with in any seriousness is just too terrible for you to consider, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do not yield; they do not bend the knee. Period. I don't think it would have mattered if Rhaegar had said "don't let Robert or anyone who rode with him get close to Lyanna" or "don't let Robert or anyone who rode with him get to that window on the second floor, it's a bit dusty and I won't be embarrassed by my bad housekeeping skills." These guys weren't gonna give up, no matter who they're guarding or where Viserys is. If Rhaegar said guard Lyanna, they were gonna do it, no matter if it was just her, no matter if her brother came to pick her up. I've already mentioned another time when the Kingsguard was away from the entire royal family, it can happen if they are so ordered.

As I mentioned above whatever orders Rhaegar gave to the Kingsguard the things have changed after his death and the fall of KL. They were not supposed to follow orders blindly whatever the cost particularly orders of the dead man while there still were members of royal family alive. An there never was before a situation like that with Targ family.

Lyanna had a child, yes, but Rhaegar need not be the father for Lyanna to be scared for it's life. She knew Robert better than your or I, she might have thought he would have killed any bastard she bore. Or perhaps the real father's identity would have put Jon in danger as well. Plenty of crackpot theories out there that makes sense on this level.

I'll admit Rhaegar being the father makes plenty of sense, but I don't think you can just say from 1) she was afraid of/for something/one, and 2) the Kingsguard were guarding something/one, that 3) the same motivation carried for both.

Roberts wasn’t a child killer. He hated Rhaegar and his offspring but there was not any indication that he could kill a child for any other reason. Besides Ned would never allow him that. A child of Rhaegar is another story. Keeping him would be easily equal to treason and Ned was the last man to commit one. So somebody others child doesn’t make cense like it doesn’t make cense that Lyanna had child by somebody else.

They had already lost the war. If they wanted to do something for the Targaryens, they should have left Lyanna (alive or dead) and headed to Dragonstone, where Viserys and Dany were. I think that they must have stayed there because Rhaegar ordered them to and/or they were guarding Rhaegar's legitimate son. I don't think they would have cared for Rhaegar's bastard son.

The needs of living are definitely more important then the orders of the dead. They were sworn to follow the orders but they were also sworn to protect a royal family. So logically they must be protecting some. As for legitimate/bastard – I also think that the child should be legitimate since bastard does not counted as a member of family and this caused me to ask Martin a question about polygamy long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rhaegar said guard Lyanna, they were gonna do it, no matter if it was just her, no matter if her brother came to pick her up. I've already mentioned another time when the Kingsguard was away from the entire royal family, it can happen if they are so ordered.

There could be a different explanation for it, but it would require more explanation than this because there's a VERY big difference between the two situations.

When Robert went north he had KG with him just not all of them and he was in no immediate danger as far as anyone knew, the Realm was at peace and he was going to visit his oldest and closest friend.

At the time those three were at the ToJ though, Aerys, Rhaeger, Rhaenys (and almost but not entirely certainly) Aegon were dead already. This means that unless Rhaegar had another legitimate child that they knew of (or Aegon was successfully smuggled out and they knew of it) Viserys was the King they were sworn to protect and his life WAS in immediate danger. Lots of people wanted him dead and was trying to make sure he did end up dead.

A simple order from Rhaegar to keep Lyanna safe/locked up does NOT come even close to explain why they would abandon the King they're sworn to protect when his life is threatened. It might make sense IF Aegon was swapped and safely away and they knew of it, but unless that was the case another explanation than "Rhaegar ordered them to keep her safe/locked up" is required for their presence at the ToJ at that particular time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There could be a different explanation for it, but it would require more explanation than this because there's a VERY big difference between the two situations.

When Robert went north he had KG with him just not all of them and he was in no immediate danger as far as anyone knew, the Realm was at peace and he was going to visit his oldest and closest friend.

At the time those three were at the ToJ though, Aerys, Rhaeger, Rhaenys (and almost but not entirely certainly) Aegon were dead already. This means that unless Rhaegar had another legitimate child that they knew of (or Aegon was successfully smuggled out and they knew of it) Viserys was the King they were sworn to protect and his life WAS in immediate danger. Lots of people wanted him dead and was trying to make sure he did end up dead.

A simple order from Rhaegar to keep Lyanna safe/locked up does NOT come even close to explain why they would abandon the King they're sworn to protect when his life is threatened. It might make sense IF Aegon was swapped and safely away and they knew of it, but unless that was the case another explanation than "Rhaegar ordered them to keep her safe/locked up" is required for their presence at the ToJ at that particular time.

While possibility that Aegon was swapped away from KL exists there is a very little chance that Kinggurd at the Tower of Joy knew about it. It’s unlikely that Aegon was swapped before the battle on Trident and by that time they were already far away from KL. Informing them would be dangerous and unnecessary even if the person who swapped Aegon (Varys most probably) knew their exact whereabouts.

Dangerous because sending information always has a danger of leak. Unnecessary because in such a case the child would be safer without of persons who would surely attract attention nearby even if they are among the best knight of the realm. Remember that Jon Connington who IMHO the best possible candidate for surviving Aegon’s mentor (if he survived) “drunk himself to death†within a year - tried (successfully) to avoid any attention.

So it would be safe to assume that even if Aegon survived Kingsguard didn’t know about it.

With the rest I surely agree with you. Simple “Rhaegar gave orders†is not good enough explanation for Kingsguard actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While possibility that Aegon was swapped away from KL exists there is a very little chance that Kinggurd at the Tower of Joy knew about it. It’s unlikely that Aegon was swapped before the battle on Trident and by that time they were already far away from KL. Informing them would be dangerous and unnecessary even if the person who swapped Aegon (Varys most probably) knew their exact whereabouts.

Dangerous because sending information always has a danger of leak. Unnecessary because in such a case the child would be safer without of persons who would surely attract attention nearby even if they are among the best knight of the realm. Remember that Jon Connington who IMHO the best possible candidate for surviving Aegon’s mentor (if he survived) “drunk himself to death†within a year - tried (successfully) to avoid any attention.

So it would be safe to assume that even if Aegon survived Kingsguard didn’t know about it.

I don't really believe that's the case either. The possibility of Aegon having survived is very small to begin with and it's even less likely that they would have been informed of it if that really was the case. The only reason I brought this very slight possibility up was because it's the only possible way I can think of that the two situations would be similar enough for the argument I was adressing to make sense.

The point is, unless they knew Rhaegar had a legitimate son who was alive, their King was Viserys who needed their protection and they should have been with him. Keeping the King safe is the very reason for the KG existence after all. Either they were continuing to guard Lyanna on Rhaegar's orders because they knew he had a legitimate son who was kept safe secretly somwhere else and didn't need them (meaning Viserys was not their King), they knew Rhaegar had a legitimate son who needed them and they were guarding, or a completely different explanation is required for their presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really believe that's the case either. The possibility of Aegon having survived is very small to begin with and it's even less likely that they would have been informed of it if that really was the case. The only reason I brought this very slight possibility up was because it's the only possible way I can think of that the two situations would be similar enough for the argument I was adressing to make sense.

Until the AFFC and certain spoilers from ADWD I also thought that possibility that Aegon survived is very small. But the fact that pro Targaryen plot existed for long time lead to conclusion that Varys most probably always loyal to Targs. Then the possibility that he swapped babies and send real Aegon to Free cities like he sent Tyrion at the end of ASOS while some unnamed child was killed it Aegon stead doesn’t seem so improbable. But We both seem to be agree that even it this case it seems highly unlikely that he would inform Kingsguards at the Tower of Joy about it.

The point is, unless they knew Rhaegar had a legitimate son who was alive, their King was Viserys who needed their protection and they should have been with him. Keeping the King safe is the very reason for the KG existence after all. Either they were continuing to guard Lyanna on Rhaegar's orders because they knew he had a legitimate son who was kept safe secretly somwhere else and didn't need them (meaning Viserys was not their King), they knew Rhaegar had a legitimate son who needed them and they were guarding, or a completely different explanation is required for their presence.

Exactly. Look at the conversation above. First Ned tells them that their cause is lost and that the last supporters of the Targaryens surrendered. Then after they refused to surrender he tells them about the Quinn and Viserys. It’s a clean hint that he will let them go to her. Yet they refuse again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative explanation is that Rhaegar kidnapped her, which makes Rhaegar a lot less honorable.

But then you have another problem:

Kidnapping Lyanna would mean that Rhaegar didn't marry her and therefore Jon must be a bastard. But then what was the Kingsguard doing at the ToJ?

The KG could be explained if something like switched Baby-Aegon was in the Tower and then there would be no need for Jon being a Targ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until the AFFC and certain spoilers from ADWD I also thought that possibility that Aegon survived is very small. But the fact that pro Targaryen plot existed for long time lead to conclusion that Varys most probably always loyal to Targs. Then the possibility that he swapped babies and send real Aegon to Free cities like he sent Tyrion at the end of ASOS while some unnamed child was killed it Aegon stead doesn’t seem so improbable. But We both seem to be agree that even it this case it seems highly unlikely that he would inform Kingsguards at the Tower of Joy about it.

Before these things were revealed I thought it more or less impossible that Aegon managed to survive, now I think it's possible but not very likely. However, I'm connecting the possibility with Ashara Dayne, but that theory can be found in the apropriate thread.

I do agree that it's extremely unlikely that the KG at the ToJ (or any KG for that matter) were informed of the baby swap (if it took place at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah. The rebellion kicked off after basically two incidents: the killing of Brandon and Rickard Stark and the supposed kidnap of Lyanna. The first is what brought House Stark to war. The second is what brought House Baratheon to war.

Wrong order. The "abduction" of Lyanna happened first. Brandon and Rickard went to KL to demand her release, that's why they were killed. Robert wanted war first, I suspect, the Starks wanted peaceful/honorable resolution. The murder(or execution) of Brandon and Rickard is what made war inevitable. But since the "abduction" is what started the whole thing, it's not possible that she could have been a captive or hostage against her family's good behavior, because there was no conflict prior to the "capturing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before these things were revealed I thought it more or less impossible that Aegon managed to survive, now I think it's possible but not very likely. However, I'm connecting the possibility with Ashara Dayne, but that theory can be found in the apropriate thread.

I do agree that it's extremely unlikely that the KG at the ToJ (or any KG for that matter) were informed of the baby swap (if it took place at all).

I connect Aegon with Jon Connington however it’s possible that lady Ashara too. If he survived then he should have been raised by people close to his parents and we have just two who could be alive.

With correction from “highly†to “extremely†I surely agree. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong order. The "abduction" of Lyanna happened first. Brandon and Rickard went to KL to demand her release, that's why they were killed. Robert wanted war first, I suspect, the Starks wanted peaceful/honorable resolution. The murder(or execution) of Brandon and Rickard is what made war inevitable. But since the "abduction" is what started the whole thing, it's not possible that she could have been a captive or hostage against her family's good behavior, because there was no conflict prior to the "capturing".

We don’t know what Robert wanted since it wasn’t mentioned in any place but Brandon Stark (the wild wolf) wanted Rhaegar’s blood that prompted Mad King to mad actions that caused the war. Otherwise Rhaegar would most probably just marry Lyanna – the solution that wouldn’t made anyone happy but definitely preferable to alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I connect Aegon with Jon Connington however it’s possible that lady Ashara too. If he survived then he should have been raised by people close to his parents and we have just two who could be alive.

It's definitley a possibility that they were in it together. I would even guess that IF this happened, the baby Aegon was switched with may have been Wyllas. She must have had a child around that time (since she presumably nursed Jon and it's said in Starfall that Jon was hers). And unless Jon actually IS her child (in which case Ned's refusal to tell either Cately or Jon the name of his mother makes no sense what so ever) her child must have disappeared.

IF this is the case, it would explain a lot of things. Like how she came to be involved in the presumed conspiracy to cover up the true identity of Jon's parents and why Ned felt he could trust her with the secret. But maybe it's too farfetched and complicated... It's fun to speculate though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since the "abduction" is what started the whole thing, it's not possible that she could have been a captive or hostage against her family's good behavior, because there was no conflict prior to the "capturing".

Perhaps there is more not being said, what if Robert always wanted war in order for him to usurp the throne, he started making rumblings so Lyanna was kidnapped in order to make him tow the line. Brandon being the wild wolf and (quite rightly) annoyed his sister had been taken storms down to KL. Aerys thinks he can end it by destroying Roberts freinds in the North. It doesn't and war breaks out.

There has never IIRC been any reason given as to why Lyanna was taken, this could indicate L+R=J but it could mean there is more that has not been said

It has always seemed a bit convenient to me that Robert was the figurehead of the war and just happened to have the best claim if the Targ's were executed. And Aery's appears to have overreacted if he could have just said "He's not kidnapped her, they're getting married".

So what if the Kidnap of Lyanna wasn't the first move in the war, but the second

Discuss

Also do we know the timeline between Battle of the Trident and ToJ, because as far as i understand it Ned wasnt at the Trdent so perhaps the KG never had time to go to dragonstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JaimeLannister--I think it's just you. The incident that set the war off was the fact that Lyanna vanished from the North and somehow it was assumed that Rhaegar was responsible. We don't know how/why people came to that conclusion: was there evidence or did they assume he'd taken her because he'd outrageously made her Queen of Love and Beauty at Harrenhal? Then Brandon got involved, which got his men and all their fathers called to KL and most if not all of them killed, after which Aerys called on Jon Arryn to send him Ned's and Robert's heads. Jon refused, and that led to open war. Unless Rhaegar was 1) trying to start a war and 2) decided that kidnapping Lyanna Stark was the way to do it, there was no need for a "high-born captive" at the time she disappeared.

Remember that Lyanna was found ALIVE in a bed of blood. The KG didn't kill her. She and Ned had a conversation, he made her some promises, and she relaxed and died. "They" (one of whom was Howland Reed) found Ned holding her hand (GoT, pp. 43-4).

Rhaegar was killed on the Trident before the Sack of King's Landing. If Lyanna had recently given birth when Ned found her, Rhaegar died without knowing her child had been born. But however Lyanna's disappearance happened, I think it likely that Rhaegar was involved. As she's dying she's holding what appears to be the now-withered Crown of Love and Beauty he gave her at Harrenhal.

There's a lot, obviously, that we don't know about this time. But no one on either side has said anything to indicate that Robert was fomenting rebellion. Robert wasn't actively involved until Aerys demanded his head. I'm not sure I'd call him the "figurehead" of the war, though; there seems to be agreement that he was a helluva fighter. He killed Rhaegar. At some point in GoT he tells Ned that the war was the best time in his life, that he should never have become king.

I'm not particularly interested in whether R and L were married or not. Aerys doesn't seem to have offered that as a way to placate the Starks, though, so apparently it wasn't on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that Lyanna was found ALIVE in a bed of blood. The KG didn't kill her. She and Ned had a conversation, he made her some promises, and she relaxed and died. "They" (one of whom was Howland Reed) found Ned holding her hand (GoT, pp. 43-4).

Also, Ned's thoughts mention (same page) a fever that had sapped her stregnth, so it would appear sickness (possibly from complications from childbirth) killed her, not the Kingsguard. It is at least strongly implied.

But this "they" is interesting. I'd been under the impression the only two to have survived were Ned and Howland Reed, and after the fight the two had found Lyanna. Unless "they" refers to one person (Howland), wouldn't that seem to imply that Ned found her before the fight? Would that change things?

I'm not particularly interested in whether R and L were married or not. Aerys doesn't seem to have offered that as a way to placate the Starks, though, so apparently it wasn't on the table.

It is important whether or not they were married. If they were, and Jon was their kid, then he would be the legitimate heir. If not, he was only some bastard child whom the Kingsguard had no reason to guard more than Viserys. It's hard to rationalize the presence of the Kingsguard as proof of Jon being Rhaegar's son unless he was legitamate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong order. The "abduction" of Lyanna happened first. Brandon and Rickard went to KL to demand her release, that's why they were killed. . . . But since the "abduction" is what started the whole thing, it's not possible that she could have been a captive or hostage against her family's good behavior, because there was no conflict prior to the "capturing".
Ack! Right. Oops.

Also, who Rhaegar have practiced polygamy? Would Elia or, more importantly Lyanna (who hadn't said any vows yet), have accepted it? Then again, Lyanna seems to have accepted a married Rhaegar as a lover, so maybe she would have. We know that Targaryen law permits royal polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...