Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II


Werthead

Recommended Posts

"The girl I was to wed married my cousin in my place, I had no need of land or sons, my life would be lived for the realm."

Barristan is talking about living a life of sacrifice, It could simply mean that as in many cultures the king's person is seen as the embodiment of the realm, I can't see that you even managed to make tenuous connection to anything resembling your absolute claim that the kingsguard are duty bound to serve an usurper. The fact that the three senior kingsguard’s that are regarded as paragons of virtue manifestly disagrees with you on what their duty entails, simply shows how silly your claim is.

And once again:

If a bunch of people shoots down the head of your government and declare martial law, why would you feel morally and legally compelled to submit to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well since we do not know the whole context of their vows it may well be that they should have served an usurper as Ser Barriston did. And if that is the case then those three were not the paragons of virtue that you seem to think they are. :)

If a bunch of people shoots down the head of your government and declare martial law, why would you feel morally and legally compelled to submit to them?

If a nation in which a dictator ruled descended into civil war and I fought for the ruling dictator who lost and was replaced by another dictator I guess I'd serve the new dictator if I was pardoned. Especially if everyone else in the country was satisfied with the new dictator being in charge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Viserys and Rhaella were the blood royal whether Lyanna secretly married Rhaegar or no, and whether Jon is her son or not. The Kingsguard's oath is to all the royal family -- Aerion Brightflame and Baelor Breakspear both counted on that. So why were there no Kingsguard on Dragonstone -- either way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well since we do not know the whole context of their vows it may well be that they should have served an usurper as Ser Barriston did. And if that is the case then those three were not the paragons of virtue that you seem to think they are. :)

If a nation in which a dictator ruled descended into civil war and I fought for the ruling dictator who lost and was replaced by another dictator I guess I'd serve the new dictator if I was pardoned. Especially if everyone else in the country was satisfied with the new dictator being in charge.

Ser Barristan made a decision for which he latter regrets, and it is he that is ashamed.

It is a very peculiar interpretation of the Kingsguard's oath that allows for rebellion, regicide, and murder of innocent children as a lawful means of succession. Yes, the de facto rule of Westeros is in Robert's Hands, but the lawful succession is either to Lyanna's child or to Viserys. Let's just assume for the moment that Robert is within his rights to kill both his King and the Crown Prince (a huge stretch,) but how does this change the fact the lawful heir is first Aegon, then possibly the baby Jon, and then certainly Viserys? Robert doesn't come close to the lawful order of succession. The three members of the Kingsguard know this and they are not going to forget their oaths because the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against them. Is it pride that makes them stick to their oaths? Not unless determination to live and die with honor is prideful.

Don't get me wrong, snake, if I was in Ned and Robert's place, I'd likely do much of the same as they did, but I wouldn't base my new found dynasty on the lawful order of succession. I'd base it on power and the crimes and insanity of Aerys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Viserys and Rhaella were the blood royal whether Lyanna secretly married Rhaegar or no, and whether Jon is her son or not. The Kingsguard's oath is to all the royal family -- Aerion Brightflame and Baelor Breakspear both counted on that. So why were there no Kingsguard on Dragonstone -- either way?

The first duty is STILL to protect the king remeber as long as they know that member of the royal family are save they can go about there other duties remeber when Jamie held a meeting of all the Kingsguards ? that was very imporant yet they still made sure the king was safe protect by two born brother of member of the Kingsguard one wich was the finest sword in the Seven Kingdom. Remeber that one of the thing that said is the man with the royal family is a "man good and true/but not of the Kingsguard" the other are save with him more so because they are at Dragonstone whereas Lyanna and Jon? are right down in Dorne and therefore in greater danger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Viserys and Rhaella were the blood royal whether Lyanna secretly married Rhaegar or no, and whether Jon is her son or not. The Kingsguard's oath is to all the royal family -- Aerion Brightflame and Baelor Breakspear both counted on that. So why were there no Kingsguard on Dragonstone -- either way?
There are many Targaryen bastards in history, if we are to believe what is said about the line of kings, but no indication that the Kingsguard viewed their oath to cover them if they were not legitimized by the King. But you're right that the oath is to all members of the Royal family. However, it is to the King first - as the scene of Aerys' brutality to his wife confirms. As to why there was no Kingsguard on Dragonstone - I've been trying to drive this point home for days now - there should have been, especially if Viserys is the rightful heir. The only reason that three members should have stayed with Lyanna is if her child is legitimate and is therefore, if a boy, the heir. The actions of the Kingsguard are the best and most convincing proof that Jon is the heir to the throne.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many Targaryen bastards in history, if we are to believe what is said about the line of kings, but no indication that the Kingsguard viewed their oath to cover them if they were not legitimized by the King. But you're right that the oath is to all members of the Royal family. However, it is to the King first - as the scene of Aerys' brutality to his wife confirms. As to why there was no Kingsguard on Dragonstone - I've been trying to drive this point home for days now - there should have been, especially if Viserys is the rightful heir. The only reason that three members should have stayed with Lyanna is if her child is legitimate and is therefore, if a boy, the heir. The actions of the Kingsguard are the best and most convincing proof that Jon is the heir to the throne.

Not particulary. The only reason they would be in the tower in the first place is because Rhaegar told them to go there. So really there isn't any proof that Rhaegar married Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not particulary. The only reason they would be in the tower in the first place is because Rhaegar told them to go there. So really there isn't any proof that Rhaegar married Lyanna.

The only reason they are at the Tower is, indeed, because Rhaegar ordered them there, but it doesn't follow that the continuation of their presence there proves nothing. The fact they stay there after Rhaegar dies, Aerys dies, Aegon dies, Elia dies, and Rhaenys dies says something very powerfully. Their oaths are to protect their king. The only reason they are there and not with Viserys, at least a reason that makes sense, is if Lyanna's child is their new King. This should be very simple, godot, and unless you're just pulling my leg, I'm sure you understand the point I'm making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason they are at the Tower is, indeed, because Rhaegar ordered them there, but it doesn't follow that the continuation of their presence there proves nothing. The fact they stay there after Rhaegar dies, Aerys dies, Aegon dies, Elia dies, and Rhaenys dies says something very powerfully. Their oaths are to protect their king. The only reason they are there and not with Viserys, at least a reason that makes sense, is if Lyanna's child is their new King. This should be very simple, godot, and unless you're just pulling my leg, I'm sure you understand the point I'm making.

Yes, i understand the point you're making but it's very thin, with another perfectly logical explanation and a decent bit of evidence against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, i understand the point you're making but it's very thin, with another perfectly logical explanation and a decent bit of evidence against it.

We disagree about the "thinness" of my point, but I'd love to see the evidence against it and any logical explanation of other scenarios. Perhaps it would save time if you read the last few pages of the same discussion I've had with snake and others. Then we wouldn't have to cover all the same ground - but if you want to we can do that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well since we do not know the whole context of their vows it may well be that they should have served an usurper as Ser Barriston did.

So are you backtracking and admitting that you overstated your case?

But legally speaking they were now serving a false king. Their oaths were to the realm and to serve and protect who the king was and at that point in time it was Robert.

What you suggest isn’t inconceivable , just like flying pigs aren’t inconceivable in Westeros, Martin has after all never explicity stated that they can’t.

But the absence of evidence is the only thing that, to my knowledge, supports your claim.

Barristan himself doesn’t defend his defection with what law and honor require, only base pragmatism.

Every voice in the books addressing the issue agrees that the that the conduct of the kingsguard that didn’t abandon the Targaryens is impeccable. Yet you have somehow arrived to a diametrically opposite conclusion.

If a nation in which a dictator ruled descended into civil war and I fought for the ruling dictator who lost and was replaced by another dictator I guess I'd serve the new dictator if I was pardoned. Especially if everyone else in the country was satisfied with the new dictator being in charge.

In other words your decision has nothing to do with law and honor. You simply accept that might make right, this attitude, while common, is never seen as admirable or honorable. People like you are branded turncoats, quislings, ragusas and while rewarded are never be trusted by their new master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About Selmy.

I agree with Enquerrand completely. His oath and his duty was to royal family and with Viserys alive Selmy should have join him in exile no matter if Viserys had any chance to become a king. While lords of the realm could justify themselves bending knee to Robert by them needed to protect their people decision of Selmy could not be justified and this was clear oathbreaking. Actually he deserves the name much more then Jaime who broke his oath to save the city. In Jaime’s case there was conflicting oath in Selmy case just his weakness.

About supposed Rhaegar/Lyanna marriage.

I really like an idea that if it taken place then if probably happened even before their escape in the Harrenhall. It should be secret for other present there including the King would never allow it but if the course of events would be different after passing of some time Rhaegar would be able to reveal it so the conflict could have been solved. Particularly if Lyanna would be pregnant by the time. But once again in the case Rhaegar’s friends in Harenhall should be witness of the marriage. So if Jon Connington is really alive and could confirm the fact of marriage and other people could confirm that Jon is Lyanna son we could get sufficient witness for Jon to be accepted as Rhaegar’s heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny, you're missing my point: let's say that Jon is the heir to the throne. That can only explain one Kingsguard going to the Tower of Joy, two at the exteme outside, but nowise three. Why were three Kingsguard a the TOJ -- Jon or no Jon?

P.S. About the lawful right of Robert to the throne: What was the lawul right of the Targaryens to the throne? Aegon's conquest. Why does his murder of tens of thousands create better legal right than Robert's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny, you're missing my point: let's say that Jon is the heir to the throne. That can only explain one Kingsguard going to the Tower of Joy, two at the exteme outside, but nowise three. Why were three Kingsguard a the TOJ -- Jon or no Jon?

P.S. About the lawful right of Robert to the throne: What was the lawul right of the Targaryens to the throne? Aegon's conquest. Why does his murder of tens of thousands create better legal right than Robert's?

When Rhaegar sent them there he was sending his best and most trusted to guard his wife and unborn child, who were the members of the royal family that were most at risk. The King, Elia, and his other children were protected by all the defenses of King's Landing, including young Jaime Lannister. His mother and brother were in the ancestral island fortress guarded by loyal forces against a foe with no naval power. He himself had the largest army in Westeros, as well as three members of the Kingsguard. Only Lyanna and child depended on secrecy and the might of three honorable men. So, it makes sense if we look at the situation as it existed when Rhaegar sent them there.

What doesn't make sense, if one believes these men to be half-wise intelligent and dedicated to their oaths, is that after the sack of King's Landing the Kingsguard would stay with Lyanna knowing that Viserys is in danger and there are none of their number to help him. That is, if Viserys is the rightful king. If young Jon is to be the rightful heir, then they are still only three against the entire rebellion. Then and only then, does it make sense the three members are still at the Tower of Joy.

With regards to Robert's right to the throne, you are absolutely right. Aegon's claim is one of conquest and it is only the power of dragonfire that creates the Iron Throne. If snake were to make that point, I'd have no problem. I'm just responding to the idea that Robert's claim is more lawful than Jon's. It is not. Robert breaks the law, no matter how good his and Ned's reasons, in his rebellion. As I said, if I were in his place, I'd do much the same. But it is by right of conquest that Robert sits the throne, not by right of lawful succession. In viewing the actions of the Kingsguard, it is the latter that is important because they are the guardians of that lawful succession. snake's argument is designed to reverse the purpose and the plain understanding of the Kingsguard's oath in order to call into question the three knight's commitment to law - to cast the men in a less than honorable light. It just doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, while looking through Martin's correspondence it seems that the Kingsguard vows did not envision rebellion and that in order for the Kingslayer and Selmy to serve Robert they had to accept his pardon. So I was wrong in stating that the Kingsguard could have been Robert's after a successful rebellion. Their duty was to the Targaryen kings and them only.

In other words your decision has nothing to do with law and honor. You simply accept that might make right, this attitude, while common, is never seen as admirable or honorable. People like you are branded turncoats, quislings, ragusas and while rewarded are never be trusted by their new master.

Like Lord Tywin said, when people defy you you give them steel and fire but when they bend the knee you help them back up or no one would ever yield to you. He said Aerys never realized that and I guess you don't either. No doubt you feel that everyone who bent the knee to Robert should be executed for traitors but hopefully if Dany regains the throne she'll have more sense than you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny,

I’ve been advocating this theory for some 5-6 years know, so I’ve been through this discussion more times that I care to remember.

But my take of it is somewhat different then yours.

You see I don’t think Rhaegar assigned The Lord commander of the kingsguard to simple guard duty in the middle of a civil war(And I think Hightower would have protested strenuously if he had) because this is rather obviously an immense waste of his services.

So I believe that Rhaegar sent them on a mission of some kind, likely relating to the prophecy and that they didn’t return before the war was decided THEN they moved to the TOJ and the next heir to the throne since they were aware of Lyanna’s child. This what I believe Hightower refer to when Ned asks them where they had been. And the answer is “Far Awayâ€(which is kind of strange reply if they had been sitting on their butts in sunny Dorne throughout the war)

The other thing that makes me believe this is their incredible arrogance. Despite losing virtually the entire royal family they aren’t bashful in the slightest. In fact they scorn the loyalists that actually were doing the bleeding for the king, which once a again is kind strange if all they did in during the Targayrens hour of destiny was roasting marshmallows.

Snake,

I believed that that you weren’t interested in the facts of the matter and simply twisted things to make them look like you wanted them to be. It seems like I was wrong so I apologize for my harsh tone. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhaegar didn't have to marry Lyanna to name Jon his heir, did he? He could just legitimize him, even before birth. That would definitely make Jon King after Aerys, Rhaegar and his kids died, wouldn't it? With a better claim than even Dany or Viserys. I'm not 100% sure on the timing of the deaths, but Rhaegar died before Aerys(I think

). Does that make Aegon or Viserys the heir?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny,

I’ve been advocating this theory for some 5-6 years know, so I’ve been through this discussion more times that I care to remember.

But my take of it is somewhat different then yours.

You see I don’t think Rhaegar assigned The Lord commander of the kingsguard to simple guard duty in the middle of a civil war(And I think Hightower would have protested strenuously if he had) because this is rather obviously an immense waste of his services.

So I believe that Rhaegar sent them on a mission of some kind, likely relating to the prophecy and that they didn’t return before the war was decided THEN they moved to the TOJ and the next heir to the throne since they were aware of Lyanna’s child. This what I believe Hightower refer to when Ned asks them where they had been. And the answer is “Far Awayâ€(which is kind of strange reply if they had been sitting on their butts in sunny Dorne throughout the war)

The other thing that makes me believe this is their incredible arrogance. Despite losing virtually the entire royal family they aren’t bashful in the slightest. In fact they scorn the loyalists that actually were doing the bleeding for the king, which once a again is kind strange if all they did in during the Targayrens hour of destiny was roasting marshmallows.

I agree with you that something very different, strange and important was taking place with the 3 KG - other than they were on guard duty for Lyanna and her unborn child. The 3 of them being there just doesn't make sense. One being there with other men at arms does makes sense so if a large band of armed men came for Lyanna she could be defended. The KG are great knights, but only 3 men. What if Ned had come with 50 men. They wouldn't have had a chance in winning and savings Lyanna.

And the deployment of the 7 KGs doesn't make sense at all. The King is most important; then Rhaegar; then Rhaegar's family and especially Rhaegar's heir, Aegon. But only 1 KG is at KL doing the most important task and that happens to be Jaime Lannister, the youngest, least experienced and as yet, unproven. How come Aegon doesn't have a KG to protect him?? nor Elia or Rhaenys? There was no one protecting them in the castle. Very strange. I know the Kings Landing guards were there to defend KL, but that is still very different than a King's Guard, who is a personal bodyguard, honored and trusted.

I agree with Enguerrand, that the 3 KG were on some important mission. I think they snuck out Aegon, Rhaegar's heir. Maybe Aegon was at the TOJ? or maybe he was already taken to the Free Cities and the 3 KG were returning to Westeros. I don't think we yet have enough information of exactly what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhaegar didn't have to marry Lyanna to name Jon his heir, did he? He could just legitimize him, even before birth. That would definitely make Jon King after Aerys, Rhaegar and his kids died, wouldn't it? With a better claim than even Dany or Viserys. I'm not 100% sure on the timing of the deaths, but Rhaegar died before Aerys(I think

). Does that make Aegon or Viserys the heir?

Only a king can remove the taint of bastardy and Rhaegar was never that, so no. Also I know of no case where a king legitimised someone before they were born, it seems rather strange, like pardoning someone for a crime before it’s committed.

Aegon would have been Rhaegar’s heir since he was Aerys. The greater part of Westeros and the Targaryens practice agnatic-cognatic primogeniture. It’s somewhat unclear were children of the second family is placed in the order of succession. (See the dance of dragons).

The King is most important; then Rhaegar; then Rhaegar's family and especially Rhaegar's heir, Aegon. But only 1 KG is at KL doing the most important task and that happens to be Jaime Lannister, the youngest, least experienced and as yet, unproven. How come Aegon doesn't have a KG to protect him?? nor Elia or Rhaenys?

Because such was king Aerys will. Hightower for instance wanted to stay with the king instead of Jaime but was overruled.

And it certainly makes sense to detach the majority of the Kingsguard to the field army since they have the greatest opportunity to make an impact there. And prince Rhaegar that is about face the enemy on the battle field is the most likely to need their service. As long as the loyalists are winning the king should be relatively safe.

It’s then things starts to get fishy IMO. That Rhaegar would place the kingdoms most celebrated warriors and leaders in the middle of nowhere at this crucial juncture seems mighty strange, Why would Lyanna warrant this kind of attention? Surely The crown prince could have scraped together dozen loyal men at arms that he could have entrusted this duty?

And even if he had, would the kingsguard really accept that such an order was the will of the king? For I certainly can’t see it.

I think they snuck out Aegon, Rhaegar's heir. Maybe Aegon was at the TOJ? or maybe he was already taken to the Free Cities and the 3 KG were returning to Westeros.

Rather unlikely since the king wanted Rhaegar’s children in King’s Landing to safeguard Dorne’s allegiance. The kingsguard would hardly defy the king.

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...