Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II


Werthead

Recommended Posts

For the legitimacy, I think Rhaegar would have preferred his child to have the Targaryen surname?

Elia...hm, IIRC, it seems Dorne was quite pissed on how Elia was treated.

Re legitimacy: well, if that's the best explanation that could be found for justifying why there should have been a marriage at all, I have to say that personally, I'm not convinced.

Unless of course the prophecy required there to be three people of the royal house or something (rather than just royal blood, which to my mind seems much more likely, as far as prophecies/Westerosi - or rather Asshai'i, as the case may be - magic appears to work). Which we don't know.

Now having said that, all the risks/etc relating to the 'abduction' seem to be even more relevant if there's a child involved, rather than a marriage, it seems to me - we only need to look at Lord Hoster Tully's "treatment" of Lysa to see what happens to babies that the families don't want. I'd say that's possibly a better explanation for "why the secrecy" - as well as anything Aerys or the Martells may have done (which I don't discount, though I don't think Martells would've been that much of a threat since iirc there aren't any of them around in KL at this point in time?), I think the Starks/Baratheons may've felt a little annoyed at what'd happened...

Going back to the Martells, are we actually ever told that they were annoyed at how Rhaegar treated Elia? I thought they only harboured a grudge against the Lannisters for what'd happened to her, but do correct me if I'm wrong! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As for Viserys potentially swapping Aegon, I suppose you could be right Mezeh. "

Harry Stark

VISERYS swapped the babies? How old was he at this point? Isn't he still in his teens or early twenties when he dies 14 years later? Where did this come from?

I don't see much point in Rhaegar and Lyanna getting married at Harrenhal and not telling anyone. If Aerys is angry at the Knight of the Laughing Tree, they 1) don't have to tell him that was Lyanna, and 2) if they do and he's still angry, she's the wife of his heir. It's hard to believe that they wouldn't notify her family, at least.

I also think we'd've gotten some hint of there being more to Harrenhal than we know.

Well, I think it's fairly obvious that there's more to the Harrenhall tourney than we know - there's hints about it throughout the series, but no clear account of what'd happened. The best one we have is from Meera's tale in Feast, and that's incomplete ("but that's a sadder story" is all we are told at the end about Rhaegar crowning Lyanna Queen of Love and Beauty, iirc).

As I've been saying, I'm still not convinced that all this speculation about a marriage there is actually grounded in anything at all, though.

And as for Varys/Viserys, yeah, sorry, I got confused between the two names. I tend to do that. Especially after I'd spent three hours in an administrative law exam, following about 5 hours' sleep the night before...

Has now been edited!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up, HarryStark. I hope your exam went well.

I agree there's probably more to Harrenhal than we know . . . but as far as I know we haven't heard anything in canon to support the idea that R+L=marriage, there or anywhere else. Rhaegar expected to be the next king and could have legitimized their child if need be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the Martells, are we actually ever told that they were annoyed at how Rhaegar treated Elia? I thought they only harboured a grudge against the Lannisters for what'd happened to her, but do correct me if I'm wrong! :)

George told us through SSM that, yes, the Martells were annoyed with Rhaegar for his treatment of Elia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the Martells, are we actually ever told that they were annoyed at how Rhaegar treated Elia? I thought they only harboured a grudge against the Lannisters for what'd happened to her, but do correct me if I'm wrong! :)

AS Jon Targaryen has said, yep.

I think this was also the reason Aerys distrusted Dorne during the war, why he kept Elia and her babes with him.

Also, I think there was a mention that Dorne was rather...late in the war? Or something like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is precious about GRRM books is that we know where the secrets are but it is very hard to predict what they are exactly.

We surely know that there is some secret about Jon’s parentage.

We could be almost sure that GRRM is not done with Aegon and at least his name will yet appear in the book.

We could be sure that we will learn more about the tourney in Harenhall yet.

It is really tempting to connect some of the secrets one with other. Arthur Dayne, Ashara Dayne, Jon Connington and Oberyn Martell all were mentioned to be on the tourney. Arthur Dayne and Red Viper are both surely dead. Could they have known some secrets? Possibly but ser Arthur was bound with his oath and whatever he knew about Rhaegar he could have shared only with his brothers who are also dead. I’m almost sure that he didn’t even tell something to his sister who is supposed to be dead too and so far we have no reason to think otherwise besides the fact that her body never was found.

Oberyn – a mystery here. He was very close to his sister. But how much did Elia knew? We don’t actually know anything about her relation with her husband. The only clue is Dany’s vision and there it seems that Rhaegar shared with her his vision about the prophecy. Could it be that Elia knew about Rhaegar’s plans about Lyanna? She almost sure talked to Oberyn after Rhaegar and Lyanna disappeared so what possible Oberyn knew? And how much Doran shared with him about his own plans? They were close too and Doran plainly trusted him. We have a mystery of Sarella/Alleras in Oldtown most probably looking to knowledge about dragons. Could it be that her father hinted her something that her other sisters never knew?

Jon Connington. Here is another character who for sure knows some secrets. He was close to Rhaegar and unlike ser Arthur he wasn’t bound by any oath. There is also secret about his “deathâ€. He didn’t have any apparent reasons to fake his death. Most logical for him was to join a Colden Company for he surely would have been welcome here. They were exiled by Targaryens so was he and we was know as good knight by his own right as well as at least competent was leader (he was defeated but he gave rebels hard times when he was in charge). He could easily become one of the captains of the best mercenary company in the world yet he for some reason choose different path. Clearly this reason is a mystery. And once again it is tempting to connect Connington “death†with Aegon theory.

And don’t forget Howland reed. He was present both in Harenhall and the Tower of Joy and there is no doubt that Lyanna meant a lot for him. And by the story Bran was told he definitely knows more about the events there that already was revealed. It was Lyanna that helped him against squires that were abusing him so his loyalty was to her more then to other Starks. Could it be than if Rhaegar/Lyanna marriage happened there she took him as a witness on her side? Not impossible - if she would ask him to attend her in secret and don’t tell to her brothers he most probably would do as he was asked. He owned her not her brothers and she knew it so if she looked for somebody to keep her secret. If he was sworn a secrecy he would probably never reveal it to Ned even after Lyanna’s death.

And if Reed and Connington share some secret they combined witness would be very strong indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two slightly aside points:

1) We talk about Howland knowing L+R=J all the time, but what about Jojen and Meera? It certainly seems as though Meera knows more about the tourney at Harrenhal than she told Bran.

2) Jon Connington would be a very important character if all he does is tell us that Lyanna was the KotLT, that Rhaegar discovered this at the tourney at Harrenhal, and that Rhaegar and Lyanna were attracted to one another.

We take that information as fact, but most readers think that Howland was tKotLT and think Rhaegar abducted Lyanna, so Jon Connington telling the real story will be shocking and provide much food for thought.

So I take back what I said about Jon Connington only being able to be important if he was witness to the marriage. He will be important even if there was no marriage. So therefore his appearance in Meera's story, and likely re-appearance in ADWD, is not evidence that there was a marriage.

Also, a marriage at Harrenhal adds too much to the KotLT story, and would overwhelm the average reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meera surely knows a lot but all she knows she knows from her father.

Connington will be important character but I already mentioned that we don’t know what secrets he possess and which of then will he reveal. The only thing we could be sure is that there will be some secrets connected to Rhaegar.

The fact that Meera mentioned him in her story could be a hint that there is some secret that her father and Connington share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...taking a break on the 'Jon Connington' topic, I was conducting a poll on how people found out about R + L = J theory. So far:

Option 1 (Found out on their own): 28

Option 2 (Found out from others): 51

Granted, the numbers may seem small compared to the population size of the community, but looking at it, I could assume that the theory is NOT obvious. Almost half didn't know about R + L = J until they came upon it in on a website or in the forums, this despite (I assume) re-reads and several books later.

As an Option 1, it took several re-reads of AGoT and Catelyn's and Ned's mention of bed of blood for me to figure out. For some of the respondents, it took them several books before they figured out, which they read in either rapid succession or in between months/years.

Which brings me to ponder why some people 'see' this and some do not. Do you have to be of a certain mindframe? Mood? Experience?

I wasn't actively looking for R + L = J; it just jumped into my mind. It was the first time I read Martin, too, so I was unfamiliar with his works. I was used to fantasy that was fairly predicatable and I wasn't expecting surprises.

Thoughts?

(or you can just shoot me for ranting, if you like :P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, the numbers may seem small compared to the population size of the community, but looking at it, I could assume that the theory is NOT obvious.
Too small a sample to really be representative, but it was, I would say that if 33% of the readers seeing it doesn't prove something is obvious, it sure doesn't prove it is hard to see either.

But that sample is not only small but taken on a board dedicated to the books. I expect less obsessive readers to think less about this sort of stuff.

Which brings me to ponder why some people 'see' this and some do not. Do you have to be of a certain mindframe? Mood? Experience?
I think experience definitely plays a role, since once you've seen the hidden prince farmboy hero once, you're more receptive to hints about this same underdog teenager being more than he seems, in other books.

Overall though, I think the most important is critical thinking: being in a mindframe where you don't accept passively what is told to you, but rather put the information together and see how they fit, as well as imagine possible scenarii branching from there. Such scenario building can rely heavily on the experience you have of the genre's archetypes, of course, and the scenario will not necessarily happen either, even if it makes sense. :P

It works better when the story has some sort of internal consistency. Bakker and GRRM produce good material for that, while Erickson and Jordan often only make sense in hindsight, if ever, I found.

I wouldn't actually say that GRRM is less predictable, just that he has an extensive background story that actually matters, doesn't explain every little thing, and that his PoV driven structuration slightly breaks the usual good guys/bad guys mold. If you apply common sense, he's more predictable than other bestselling fantasy authors, in my opinion, since the story is so consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings me to ponder why some people 'see' this and some do not. Do you have to be of a certain mindframe? Mood? Experience?

I know that I was so used to reading 'light' fantasy (ahhh Forgotten Realms) that I just read what was in front of me and allowed the story to tell me what was going on instead of me adding things to the story.

I think that the POV way of writing definately changes the typical storyline. You're not getting information from a third party/narrator where items that some characters would miss could still be explained. Now if a character misses something or doesn't experience it, we don't know about it until another character that may have seen it talks about it. Or we just may never know and have to infer the information on our own.

Of course, now I may never read a book the same way ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to why HT, Dayne and Whent were at the TOJ instead of with Viserys.

It seems they had all decided to side with Rhaegar and declare Aerys unfit to rule by reason of insanity. Why then, would they go and protect Aerys' son, Viserys, who was already showing signs of the same insanity?

Also, when Ned arrives, the KG have three conflicting duties:

(1) Guard the annointed King Robert Baratheon.

(2) Guard the overthrown King Viserys.

(3) Follow out the orders of the overthrown Crown Prince and good friend, Rhaegar.

GRRM has said himself that their vows did not specify what to do in the case of the Targs being overthrown. Jaime has said that they make you swear and swear but don't tell you what to do when the oaths conflict. So these three KG were in a spot of bother.

There are arguments for and against doing any of the above three things. So their decision to stay at the TOJ could be for any reason, not necesarily because their King was in the TOJ.

And I'll add that the one thing out of the three that they were best placed to do was option (3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to why HT, Dayne and Whent were at the TOJ instead of with Viserys.

It seems they had all decided to side with Rhaegar and declare Aerys unfit to rule by reason of insanity. Why then, would they go and protect Aerys' son, Viserys, who was already showing signs of the same insanity?

Good question. Do you have anything to show that the three did support such a move? Or that this is the move Rhaegar contemplates when he talks of "changes"? If such a conspiracy among the Kingsguard existed, you might have a case for them not going to Viserys, but then they should also know that Aerys' Queen is pregnant with another child. Why would they not protect that child?

Also, when Ned arrives, the KG have three conflicting duties:

(1) Guard the annointed King Robert Baratheon.

(2) Guard the overthrown King Viserys.

(3) Follow out the orders of the overthrown Crown Prince and good friend, Rhaegar.

(1) he is not their anointed King. The Kingsguard is a creation of the Targaryen dynasty up until Robert co-opts Ser Barristan and Jaime (in the latter case it doesn't take much on Robert's part.) The three are sworn to the Targaryen kings and their family, not whoever takes the throne.

(2) If Viserys is the rightful King, that is exactly what their vow tells them to do. We have no reason to believe they cannot travel through still loyal Dorne and catch ship to Dragonstone.

(3) Only if they foreswore their vows in favor of old orders from a dead prince.

(4) Guard the heir to the throne at the Tower of Joy. You left this one out as a choice.

GRRM has said himself that their vows did not specify what to do in the case of the Targs being overthrown. Jaime has said that they make you swear and swear but don't tell you what to do when the oaths conflict. So these three KG were in a spot of bother.

There are arguments for and against doing any of the above three things. So their decision to stay at the TOJ could be for any reason, not necesarily because their King was in the TOJ.

And I'll add that the one thing out of the three that they were best placed to do was option (3).

The reason the vows don't specify what to do in case of an overthrow of the Targaryen dynasty is, as I said above, the Kingsguard is a creature of the Targaryen dynasty. There are no Kings of Westeros before the Conquest. There is no Kingsguard to vow to take care of such a situation. Why would the Targaryens tell their guards what to do if such a non-Targ King takes away their throne? As far as the Targs are concerned there is no ambiguity, they must defend the Targaryen heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to why HT, Dayne and Whent were at the TOJ instead of with Viserys.

It seems they had all decided to side with Rhaegar and declare Aerys unfit to rule by reason of insanity. Why then, would they go and protect Aerys' son, Viserys, who was already showing signs of the same insanity?

Also, when Ned arrives, the KG have three conflicting duties:

(1) Guard the annointed King Robert Baratheon.

(2) Guard the overthrown King Viserys.

(3) Follow out the orders of the overthrown Crown Prince and good friend, Rhaegar.

GRRM has said himself that their vows did not specify what to do in the case of the Targs being overthrown. Jaime has said that they make you swear and swear but don't tell you what to do when the oaths conflict. So these three KG were in a spot of bother.

There are arguments for and against doing any of the above three things. So their decision to stay at the TOJ could be for any reason, not necesarily because their King was in the TOJ.

And I'll add that the one thing out of the three that they were best placed to do was option (3).

Rhaegar intended to call a council so there wouldn’t be conflict and no necessary for them to take any side. Only Hightower probably would sit in the council and they won’t be even able to give any evidence of Aerys insanity since their oath forbade them from revealing any secrets of the royal family.

About their duties. Robert was Usurper for them they said it plain and clear. Rhaegar was dead so whatever orders he gave when he was still alive could not possibly supersede a duty of guarding a living king. As for Viserys signs of insanity the same Hightower said to Jaime that they were to guard the king not to judge him. Why would he change his mind and he was the commander other should have follow his orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question. Do you have anything to show that the three did support such a move?

Rhaegar spoke of changes in reference to Aerys' madness. The most logical conclusion to come to from that is that he was going to control or remove Aerys. Then later Barristan tells Dany that Aerys was mad. And he says he accepted Robert's pardon because Viserys was already showing signs of madness, and that he wouldn't have chosen to follow Dany if she had shown signs of the taint. An honourable member of the King's Guard who said he wouldn't support his Targaryen King, and later Queen (if she'd shown signs of it), because of madness. That's pretty good evidence that other KG could have felt the same.

Or that this is the move Rhaegar contemplates when he talks of "changes"? If such a conspiracy among the Kingsguard existed, you might have a case for them not going to Viserys, but then they should also know that Aerys' Queen is pregnant with another child. Why would they not protect that child?

There is no evidence in the text that they knew the Queen was pregnant.

(1) he is not their anointed King. The Kingsguard is a creation of the Targaryen dynasty up until Robert co-opts Ser Barristan and Jaime (in the latter case it doesn't take much on Robert's part.) The three are sworn to the Targaryen kings and their family, not whoever takes the throne.

(2) If Viserys is the rightful King, that is exactly what their vow tells them to do. We have no reason to believe they cannot travel through still loyal Dorne and catch ship to Dragonstone.

(3) Only if they foreswore their vows in favor of old orders from a dead prince.

GRRM himself has said it was not clear who they were sworn to, or what they should do, in the occasion of an overthrow.

If it was clear that the KG had to guard only the Targ Kings, GRRM would have said it was clear what the KG should do in the case of an overthrow.

If it was clear that their vows told them that if a new king was annointed, that they must go to whoever would have been the next Targ in line had a new king not been annointed, GRRM would have said it was clear what the KG should do in the case of an overthrow.

If it was clear that the KG had to go to whoever would have been the next Targ in line had a new king not been annointed no matter what (i.e. despite orders), he would have said that it was clear what the KG should do in the case of an overthrow.

But GRRM said it was unclear what the KG should do in the case of an overthrow. That means it was unclear. So please don't try and tell me that it was clear that they should have guarded the next Targ in a dynasty that had been overthrown. The author himself has said it was not clear what they should do.

It was unclear whether they should guard Viserys, guard Robert, or even if they were free of their vows and could do whatever they wanted, in the case of an overthrow. And following from that, because it was not clear what they should do, they could have come to any number of conclusions as to what they should do, and given any number of reasons why that was the best thing.

(4) Guard the heir to the throne at the Tower of Joy. You left this one out as a choice.

Yes, because it relies on an unfounded assumption.

The reason the vows don't specify what to do in case of an overthrow of the Targaryen dynasty is, as I said above, the Kingsguard is a creature of the Targaryen dynasty. There are no Kings of Westeros before the Conquest. There is no Kingsguard to vow to take care of such a situation. Why would the Targaryens tell their guards what to do if such a non-Targ King takes away their throne? As far as the Targs are concerned there is no ambiguity, they must defend the Targaryen heir.

As GRRM has said, for the KG, there was ambiguity. And there were two members who swore service to the newly annointed Baratheon king. That is evidence that protecting the newly annointed king was one of several ways the KG could have dealt with the ambiguity. If there was no ambiguity, and it was clear that he should guard the next Targaryen, Barristan would have fled at first chance to Viserys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About their duties. Robert was Usurper for them they said it plain and clear. Rhaegar was dead so whatever orders he gave when he was still alive could not possibly supersede a duty of guarding a living king. As for Viserys signs of insanity the same Hightower said to Jaime that they were to guard the king not to judge him. Why would he change his mind and he was the commander other should have follow his orders.

I have no doubt that these three chose not to go and guard Robert. But that doesn't mean it was clear in their vows that they must not go and guard Robert.

Given that they didn't know who their king was at this point (Viserys or Robert), or what they should do, I think it is possible that they could have chosen to follow Rhaegar's orders. Since their KG vows were unclear, they may have chosen to honour the final wishes of a respected prince and good friend.

Or because their KG vows were unclear, they may have chosen to do what they thought was most important - guarding a child relating to the PWWP prophesy.

Or because their KG vows were unclear, they may have chosen to revert to their primary knightly vows that say to defend the weak (i.e. Lyanna and child).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty good evidence that other KG could have felt the same.

Whatever they could have felt there is clear and solid evidence that Hightower who was the lord commander felt different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever they could have felt there is clear and solid evidence that Hightower who was the lord commander felt different.

Where is this clear and solid evidence? And even if there is such evidence, Hightower was still subject to the same ambiguity as Dayne and Whent were once Robert was annointed.

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...