The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II

[Mezeh]

Mezeh, I'd love to see Lord Connington alive and answering questions, but I think snake's right on this one. Unless there is something more to go on, one should expect that Jon Connington is dead, just as Jaime remembers (AFfC 408.)

Well, the spoiler is mentioned but even without of spoilers. Connington is mentioned too many times by many people during the series. And the matter of his supposed death implies rumor and not reliable witness of evidence. Knowing GRRM style this means that Connington should be alive and well. Of course this raises a question why he faked his death or better why there was false rumor about his death and why he avoided any notice all these years. But we surely will learn about it in ADWD. The obvious purpose of this character is to reveal some secrets so he is one the most intriguing personages to come on the scene.

[SFDanny]

Mezeh, the spoiler convinces me. I put up a question in the spoiler thread, if you have a response I'd love to see it.

edit: nevermind. I see you already have.

[the silent speaker]

but we also get to know the "good" characters and get to understand that their actions are not always good.

*coughRhaegarcough*

[SFDanny]

*coughRhaegarcough*

And Ned, and Arya, and Sansa, and Jon, and Robb, and Catelyn, and Daenerys, and....

If one is looking in Westeros for cardboard cut-outs of heroes, then they are reading the wrong series. That doesn't mean there's no difference between the heroes and the villains, but only that it isn't a story painted in black and white.

[snake]

And Ned, and Arya, and Sansa, and Jon, and Robb, and Catelyn, and Daenerys, and....

If one is looking in Westeros for cardboard cut-outs of heroes, then they are reading the wrong series. That doesn't mean there's no difference between the heroes and the villains, but only that it isn't a story painted in black and white.

So you're willing to concede that Rhaegar could quite possibly have done something terrible even though he was quite a decent guy before?

[SFDanny]

So you're willing to concede that Rhaegar could quite possibly have done something terrible even though he was quite a decent guy before?

Not only do I admit it, I think his conduct shows one of the continuing themes of the series, the conflicting needs of love and honor. Rhaegar falls in love with Lyanna and runs away from the court to be with her. All the while the rebellion grows, and his father's responses - from the the initial arrest of Brandon and his companions to his arbitrary dismissal of the King's Hand, and through to his insane wildfire plot - only spur the rebels on. Do I believe it was terrible to set aside his responsibilities because of his love? In some ways, absolutely. It's the same mistake Robb makes much later. What I don't believe is that there is any real case to be made, that just because Rhaegar is a human being with human frailties who makes errors, that means he abducted Lyanna. It takes more than Robert's curses at the Targaryens to override everyone else's view of the man.

[Rhaegon Targaryen]

Before becoming knights of the KG, Whent, Hightower and Dayne became plain and simple knights. And knights vow to protect the weak, among other things.

Then later they swore the additional vow - to protect the king.

Then these 3 KG were put in a position where they could either protect the weak (Lyanna and child) OR protect their king (Viserys). A conflict of oaths.

Is it therefore fair to say that these three chose to keep the first of their oaths, and were at the TOJ, not protecting their king, but instead fulfilling their duty as true knights, by keeping the first of their knightly vows?

I mean, what kind of knights would they be if they broke their first oath as a knight, and abandoned the weak on this occasion?

ETA: Sorry, its "Protect the innocent. Defend the weak." according to Jaime, not protect the weak.

The oath to protect and obey the king ALWAYS comes first as exhibited when in a Jaime recollection Aerys is beating and/or raping Rhaella and Jaime and I think Dayne are outside Jaime makes a move to go in saying we have to protect her. The more senior Kingsguard says "Not from him". So in this instance their oaths to the king trump their oaths to defend the weak or innocent. If there was no royal in the tower then the Kingsguard's duty was clearly elsewhere and they would have KNOWN that. They certainly would not need to protect some woman and her non-royal bastard from her own brother. Of course the child was Rhaegar's and likely legitimate i.e they married before Jon's birth. YES R+L=J!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SFDanny]

Not only does the Kingsguard oath take primacy over other responsibilities, it is also the reason explicitly stated in the text as to why Ser Gerold, Ser Arthur, and Ser Oswell are at the Tower of Joy, and not on Dragonstone with Viserys:

"Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him."

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold point out. "The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold. (AGoT 355)

emphasis added

Note that this is the first time in Ned's recollection of the events that the "vow" is referenced, and it is referenced in regard to why they are not with Viserys and are, in fact, at the Tower of Joy. Ser Willem has the same responsibilities any loyal knight has to his King and any knight has to defend the weak, but the Kingsguard - we are explicitly told are different- they have sworn a vow. That vow is to defend their King, and it is to "not flee" when their king is threatened, and is most certainly in regards to that vow the Kingsguard gives as their reason why they are at the Tower of Joy and not on Dragonstone.

Why it is so difficult for some to see this straightforward reading of the text is beyond me.

[snake]

Why it is so difficult for some to see this straightforward reading of the text is beyond me.

Well, explain what Ser Arthur means by "then or now" since you convieniently ignored that part of the exchange.

Do I believe it was terrible to set aside his responsibilities because of his love?

Love is sweet, SFDanny, but it doesn't change a man's nature.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Well, explain what Ser Arthur means by "then or now" since you convieniently ignored that part of the exchange.

It took me a while to figure out what your point was about ser Arthur...is it that he's implying they should have fled with Viserys "then", if they were allowed to flee? I can't see the not-fleeing aspect of their job being more important than the king-guarding part. They're not called the 'Neverfleeguard", they're called the Kingsguard.

Still it was odd, given that there weren't any KG with Viserys and Rhaella anyway.

[SFDanny]

Well, explain what Ser Arthur means by "then or now" since you convieniently ignored that part of the exchange.

How did I ignore it? I quoted the line.

Again, this is pretty straightforward. Ser Arthur is saying they didn't flee with Viserys then (when Ser Willem goes to Dragonstone with them) nor will they now as they stand before the Tower of Joy. Ned thinks they should have followed their oaths and gone with Viserys and wonders why they are still here, and Ser Arthur reply is to say we will stay and do our duty. What big mystery do you read into this simple line?

Other-in-law's comment about the Kingsguard's oath not meaning they never flee under any circumstances is a good one. I've tried to make it a couple of times now, and he has done a better job.

Love is sweet, SFDanny, but it doesn't change a man's nature.

Without looking it up, I think that is an accurate paraphrase of Lyanna's response to Ned about Robert. She wants more than Robert's love and finds it with Rhaegar.

[snake]

is it that he's implying they should have fled with Viserys "then", if they were allowed to flee?

I think he meant if they would let themselves flee rather than being allowed to flee, but other than that you state exactly what I think he was implying.

Which fits with my thinking that they abandoned Aerys to his fate.

I mean, they could have tried to rally the Targaryen supporters behind Rhaegar's heir but instead they felt that they needed to die by making a fool's last stand. They served no one in that way. Not Viserys or any hypothetical heir of Rhaegar's. They had weeks after Rhaegar's fall to move Lyanna somewhere safe and out of harms way. They chose not to. There has to be some reason for that. I mean, even if the Lyanna and the child died they still had Viserys to rally behind. Just sitting there waiting for their doom seems a rather foolish thing for them to do if they were hell bent on ensuring that the Targaryen dynasty remained in tact.

Without looking it up, I think that is an accurate paraphrase of Lyanna's response to Ned about Robert. She wants more than Robert's love and finds it with Rhaegar.

Well, the great wisdom of this 14 year old girl seems to suggest that the noble Rhaegar Targaryen wouldn't change his stripes because of love. Love doesn't change a man's nature after all. Robert would always be a whoremonger. So Rhaegar would still be the driven, single-minded person that he always was and that he would stop at nothing to see his prophecy fulfilled.

[SFDanny]

I think he meant if they would let themselves flee rather than being allowed to flee, but other than that you state exactly what I think he was implying.

Which fits with my thinking that they abandoned Aerys to his fate.

You're reading way too much into the statement. It takes a gigantic leap in logic to get from not fleeing with Ser Willem and Viserys "then or now" to abandoning Aerys. The logical conclusion is that they viewed their oaths to bind them to other duties than going to Dragonstone either then or now - not that Ser Arthur is telling Ned they abandoned their oaths and Aerys.

I mean, they could have tried to rally the Targaryen supporters behind Rhaegar's heir but instead they felt that they needed to die by making a fool's last stand. They served no one in that way. Not Viserys or any hypothetical heir of Rhaegar's. They had weeks after Rhaegar's fall to move Lyanna somewhere safe and out of harms way. They chose not to. There has to be some reason for that. I mean, even if the Lyanna and the child died they still had Viserys to rally behind. Just sitting there waiting for their doom seems a rather foolish thing for them to do if they were hell bent on ensuring that the Targaryen dynasty remained in tact.

You're missing a few things, snake. For instance, their location at the Tower of Joy has up to then been a secret. No, one location maybe safe forever, but it did give them a hideout from the rebels for a long period. Also, a woman in her last stages of pregnancy isn't necessarily able to travel. This is especially true if there are any complications in the pregnancy - which, given the outcome, may well have been the case. It is quite likely the "fool's last stand" is because they can't move due to Lyanna's health.

Well, the great wisdom of this 14 year old girl seems to suggest that the noble Rhaegar Targaryen wouldn't change his stripes because of love. Love doesn't change a man's nature after all. Robert would always be a whoremonger. So Rhaegar would still be the driven, single-minded person that he always was and that he would stop at nothing to see his prophecy fulfilled.

snake, first let's remember Lyanna's words are directed at Robert's infidelities, not problems of Rhaegar. I know you think they fit both situations, but they really give us no insight into what Lyanna thinks of Rhaegar - other than to say it does bolster the idea she wouldn't accept the same situation with him.

Second, you are constructing a view of Rhaegar that is based wholly on Robert's statements. I give you Rhaegar appears to be a driven individual who is dedicated to trying to save his family and fulfill what he sees as his role in the prophecy. He is also a highly respected, intelligent and talented individual who has marked melancholy and romantic tendencies. We are to believe he is someone who treats others with respect. Yet, you focus on only one aspect of his personality in order to conclude that, even though all indications from everyone but Robert say differently, his personality changes and he becomes a kidnapper and rapist. You've got to do better than call names to convince me, snake.

But most of all, snake, it isn't a question of whether you are right and he is capable of such actions, it is a question of did he? The evidence that convinces me he didn't is Ned's respect for Rhaegar. If Rhaegar had committed these crimes against his beloved sister, I would expect an intense hatred for Rhaegar instead of the respect he shows. Certainly, Ned has no problem showing us his hatred for the child-killing Lannisters. Why not for the kidnapping/raping Targaryen?

[SFDanny]

OK, I put the idea in the sidetracked thread in the Feast section, so I thought I'd put the question here - where it belongs- as well. What ever happened to Rhaegar's silver harp? Could it be in Lyanna's tomb? There doesn't seem to be another object more associated with Rhaegar, and it would start Jon down a series of questions if he found it there. By itself, not enough, but it would be interesting if it turned up there. What do people think?

[The Wolf Maid]

OK, I put the idea in the sidetracked thread in the Feast section, so I thought I'd put the question here - where it belongs- as well. What ever happened to Rhaegar's silver harp? Could it be in Lyanna's tomb? There doesn't seem to be another object more associated with Rhaegar, and it would start Jon down a series of questions if he found it there. By itself, not enough, but it would be interesting if it turned up there. What do people think?

That's interesting. I've never thought about Rhaegar's harp before. The last time we'd 'seen' it was in Dany's time in the House of Undying, when in the scene with Elia, Rhaegar and Aegon.

[Jon Targaryen]

What ever happened to Rhaegar's silver harp?

Never really thought about it. I imagine it was pillaged during the sack of KL.

[SFDanny]

Never really thought about it. I imagine it was pillaged during the sack of KL.

If he leaves it anywhere (meaning he didn't take it with him to the Trident,) doesn't the Tower of Joy sound more likely than King's Landing?

[snake]

You're reading way too much into the statement. It takes a gigantic leap in logic to get from not fleeing with Ser Willem and Viserys "then or now" to abandoning Aerys. The logical conclusion is that they viewed their oaths to bind them to other duties than going to Dragonstone either then or now - not that Ser Arthur is telling Ned they abandoned their oaths and Aerys.

Everyone is reading a lot into a few lines from a fever dream. And the fact that all three remained at the ToJ during such a perilous time indicates, IMO, that something was not right. So I don't think it's such a great leap of logic to conclude that they decided not to be with Aerys when his need was most critical.

You're missing a few things, snake. For instance, their location at the Tower of Joy has up to then been a secret. No, one location maybe safe forever, but it did give them a hideout from the rebels for a long period. Also, a woman in her last stages of pregnancy isn't necessarily able to travel. This is especially true if there are any complications in the pregnancy - which, given the outcome, may well have been the case. It is quite likely the "fool's last stand" is because they can't move due to Lyanna's health.

Their location was not so secret after Rhaegar had been found. The thre Kingsguard were well aware of all the events that had happened before Ned arrived, or so it seemed, so they weren't in some isolated area. And if they were that well hidden then it would have taken Ned some time to find them. I mean, after the Trident you had the sack of Kingslanding, then the arrival of Robert and his coronation. Then you had the lifting of the seige at Storm's End. Then there were other battles Ned fought in the south to end all resistance. After that Ned arrives at the tower. How long all this took is not certain but Ned was gone long enough for everyone to believe that he had fathered a child on some women in the south. So Lyanna might well have been able to travel by the time they learned of Rhaegar's demise. And even if she was far along and there was risk it seems odd that they would not take that risk. Were they hoping that only Ned and a few staunch friends would show up? What if Robert had been there with a thousand men? I think they were very foolish to not move at that point in time if they were trying to protect a child of Rhaegar that might be heir to the throne.

And where does everyone get this idea that Ned had respect for Rhaegar? Because he thought that Rhaegar didn't visit brothels? Now that's an enormous leap of logic. Ned doesn't hold onto any hatred of any of the Targaryens. In fact, he's surprised that Robert still holds such malice after so many years. I think Ned was able to let go of his anger and move on. Perhaps because he had a happy life afterwards but it doesn't seem like Lord Eddard Stark dwelled much on the past.

And I don't think there is anything in Lyanna's tomb other than her bones and perhaps some personal items of hers so I'm against the idea of anything of Rhaegar's being there. I doubt that comes as a surprise to anyone.

[Jon Targaryen]

If he leaves it anywhere (meaning he didn't take it with him to the Trident,) doesn't the Tower of Joy sound more likely than King's Landing?

Uh, yeah, I guess. Really, I haven't thought about it much. I don't think his harp is that important.

[SFDanny]

Everyone is reading a lot into a few lines from a fever dream. And the fact that all three remained at the ToJ during such a perilous time indicates, IMO, that something was not right. So I don't think it's such a great leap of logic to conclude that they decided not to be with Aerys when his need was most critical.

Well, it's a leap to draw the conclusion you do from "then and now" when the phrase makes perfect sense in the context of a response to Ned's question to mean simply they did not flee with Viserys when Ser Willem took him to Dragonstone and they will not flee as they stand there before Ned and his men. Only by taking the phrase out of context and adding other assumptions (they have agreed to abandon Aerys to his fate - which, btw, in the context of events also means they abandoned Aegon, Rhaenys, and Elia) to get to your conclusion. I'm all for close readings, snake, but this one looks to be reading a mirage.

Their location was not so secret after Rhaegar had been found. The thre Kingsguard were well aware of all the events that had happened before Ned arrived, or so it seemed, so they weren't in some isolated area. And if they were that well hidden then it would have taken Ned some time to find them. I mean, after the Trident you had the sack of Kingslanding, then the arrival of Robert and his coronation. Then you had the lifting of the seige at Storm's End. Then there were other battles Ned fought in the south to end all resistance. After that Ned arrives at the tower. How long all this took is not certain but Ned was gone long enough for everyone to believe that he had fathered a child on some women in the south. So Lyanna might well have been able to travel by the time they learned of Rhaegar's demise. And even if she was far along and there was risk it seems odd that they would not take that risk. Were they hoping that only Ned and a few staunch friends would show up? What if Robert had been there with a thousand men? I think they were very foolish to not move at that point in time if they were trying to protect a child of Rhaegar that might be heir to the throne.

I'll have to do some further research to see if I can nail down a better timeframe from the sack of King's Landing to Ned's arrival at the Tower of Joy, but I think you are stretching it quite a bit. Ned doesn't have time to wander around a lot. He certainly doesn't have time to father a child that turns out to be Jon, while traveling around after the lifting of the siege at Storm's End - no matter the assumptions made about him.

It might well have been a mistake not to travel from the Tower of Joy after they receive the news of Rhaegar's death, but that doesn't mean they have reason to believe their location is widely known. Remember this location was secret to even Aerys' searches. Somehow Ned finds out - a subject of many earlier posts - but the leaking of information only tells us that the plan didn't work, not that it wasn't the best option available. I still think Lyanna's health is the major factor here, and the only way we are going to find out is when Wylla tells her story.

And where does everyone get this idea that Ned had respect for Rhaegar? Because he thought that Rhaegar didn't visit brothels? Now that's an enormous leap of logic. Ned doesn't hold onto any hatred of any of the Targaryens. In fact, he's surprised that Robert still holds such malice after so many years. I think Ned was able to let go of his anger and move on. Perhaps because he had a happy life afterwards but it doesn't seem like Lord Eddard Stark dwelled much on the past.

If the last is true, then how do we explain his bitterness towards the Lannisters from the start. I don't see a willingness on Ned's part to forget the events at King's Landing and what the Lannisters did some fourteen years earlier. None of which targeted him or his family. Why is he so forgiving of past events that involve the kidnap, rape, and in essence - murder of his beloved sister? As for not dwelling on the past, how can one square that with Ned's thoughts about the price he has had to pay to keep his secrets? I think he lives with the past everyday.

And I don't think there is anything in Lyanna's tomb other than her bones and perhaps some personal items of hers so I'm against the idea of anything of Rhaegar's being there. I doubt that comes as a surprise to anyone.

No, not surprised.