Jon was born a bastard and remains a bastard.

[teej6]

Lord Varys:

You asked me for an example where your opinion/conclusion seemed subjective and biased.

You stated: “I agree that there will be war but it is also effectively already confirmed that Daenerys will conquer Westeros. That was supposed to be the topic of the second book, A Dance with Dragons, in the original outline. So we can safely say that she will lead Westeros against the Others after her conquest of the continent, not somebody else. That she will survive this conquest of hers is also already confirmed because we know she will live until the very end of the series, alongside Jon, Tyrion, Bran, and Arya.”

I couldn’t find a version of the original outline that I could copy and paste. But please tell me where did you get the Dany leading Westeros part from the original outline? According to the original outline Dany’s invasion of Westeros with her Dothraki horselords and barbarian horde (not a very endearing term wouldn’t you say?) is the gist of the second book. How did invasion translate to conquering? No where in the outline does GRRM state that Dany conquers Westeros. No where does it indicate that Dany will be triumphant and rule Westeros. That is your interpretation and yours alone. In fact, I interpret GRRM's words in the outline indicating Dany’s invasion as a looming threat to Westeros not the coming of the chosen one.

Also, GRRM clearly states in his outline that the “heart” of the third book will be the story of the Wall and men who defend it. Yes, I agree that he states that the final battle will draw together those left standing (including Dany). But to conclude from this that Dany will conquer Westeros, let alone lead Westeros against the Others is again a classic example of you twisting facts to suit your narrative.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

7 hours ago, Julia H. said:

while in Westeros we already have a character whose life-purpose is to protect the realm against the Others. 

And that someone just betrayed the Night Watch, the Wall, and the realm he was supposed to protect, all for the sake of fake Arya.  Yeah, some savior that bum turned out to be.  He's not evil.  He's just not cut out to lead.  Jon will fight against the Others, yes, but he will not be the one leading. 

[teej6]

11 minutes ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

And that someone just betrayed the Night Watch, the Wall, and the realm he was supposed to protect, all for the sake of fake Arya.  Yeah, some savior that bum turned out to be.  He's not evil.  He's just not cut out to lead.  Jon will fight against the Others, yes, but he will not be the one leading. 

If by betrayal you mean Jon's decision to march with the Wildings to answer Ramsay's challenge, then no he didn't do it for Arya nor did he betray his NW vows. Ramsay had just threatened the Night's Watch and its LC's life, so it was Jon's right to defend himself and his men. If, on the other hand, you define betrayal by Jon's tacit approval to Mel to sent Mance to find his sister who btw was already on her way to CB according to Mel, then you may have an argument as to what constitutes the NW's vows.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

None of the issues with the Targ line of succession is relevant in terms of whether Jon was the legitimate child of Rhaegar and Lyanna, which is the point of this thread. 

Well, you wanted to know what changed/influenced my mind on that question. It is indeed not relevant for the question whether he was born in wedlock or not but it greatly influences his status at the time of his birth.

And that's relevant to the question whether he was a royal prince or even 'the rightful king', a question that's often implicitly or explicitly drawn into this.

Quote

Jaehaerys I skipped his eldest son's line because this line would have continued through a daughter/female.

That might be the case but we did know that previously. The impression we had prior to that is that a grandchildren (regardless whether male or female) comes before a younger son. For instance, Shireen before Renly, a daughter of Robb's before Bran, etc.

Quote

Similarly, Viserys was picked in the end because he came from the male line. 

And because he was a grown man already while Laenor Velaryon was a boy of seven. But Laenor was a dragonrider and Viserys no longer and Laenor's father was the richest man in Westeros. Primogeniture was favoring him, not Viserys. This is important because it means that primogeniture as a principle does not always win the day.

Quote

Aegon V became king because the other options for the Council were a dumb-witted girl, an infant child, and a grown man who did not want the throne. 

If there were a line of succession as we thought may have existed previously then either Vaella or Maegor should have gotten the throne, not Aemon of Aegon V.

Quote

Again, I don't see how any of this is relevant to the legitimacy of Jon's birth. It may arise if Jon is ever a contestant for the IT.

I think those two issues are often discussed. In principle, we have are mostly in agreement on the parentage question. Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son, and I think these two were married, possibly even in public ceremony. And if you don't think that greatly shaped or affected Jon's claims to anything then we might agree on that, too.

That is a pretty good feeling, isn't it?

Quote

And I think I stated upthread that I don't believe it's Jon's Targ heritage that will win him the throne if it happens, although it might provide some legitimacy to those surviving Lords who seek it. If anything the events for the line of succession in TWOIAF diminishes Dany's claim against Aegon's claim as we see male claimants were preferred in the past.

Robert Baratheon's legal claim inadvertently strengthened Dany's claim because his blood claim goes through the female line, setting precedent for that. Dany's claim certainly will be contested by Aegon but his own claim is sort of weak because he may not be who he says he is (and the same goes for Jon). It becomes a matter of belief not public knowledge.

In addition we have Dany as the chosen and anointed heir of her brother, King Viserys III (she is styled Princess of Dragonstone in AGoT) and he, in turn, was the chosen heir of his father, King Aerys II. Dany could very well argue that Rhaegar's entire branch lost its claim when her father chose Viserys instead of Aegon.

And then Dany has the divine sign of the dragons on her side which, we are introduced to in TMK, should play a very crucial factor in all that. The true dragon is the one riding on an actual dragon. And we know dragons beat elephants.

Quote

Aegon, IMO, is the character in-story who will challenge Dany's claim to the IT or vice versa, not Jon. I believe the addition of Viserys being named heir in TWOIAF is for Dany's benefit, for her to have a stronger claim against Aegon when it comes to second dance.

We are in agreement there.

Quote

Anyway, my point is the succession conflicts in Targ history in no way affects Jon's legitimacy as Rhaegar's and Lyanna's child.

The polygamy thing does. As well as the fact that a king decides who is a member of his royal family, not the accidents of birth. If a prince were to pick a bride the king does not want him to take or marry without his permission he can easily enough found himself in exile, with his children (and he himself) being disinherited. That is what happened to Daemon Targaryen and Laena Velaryon when they married each other and had to go into exile. Their children were only legitimate members of the extended royal family after they were presented to the king. Maegor and Alys suffered a similar fate (although they never had issue Aenys I could cut out of the succession).

Lyanna and her child were never formally accepted or recognized as members of the royal family. That is a problem. As a prince Lyanna's son doesn't even exist. 

Quote

In my reading of TWOIAF, it does not state that polygamy was outlawed. It may have been considered a sin by the Faith but not downright outlawed.

I've quoted from 'The Sons of the Dragon' in the past. It is pretty clear that polygamy was not permitted even before the Targaryens came to Westeros. Aegon and Maegor don't constitute a change in law and customs. They are exceptions, not the rule. And they were kings. Rhaegar was not. Maegor's second marriage while he was still a prince was seen as invalid by the entire Realm. The Faith, the Hightowers, and Aenys I himself condemned it and only considered Ceryse Hightower to be Maegor's real wife.

And Maegor did not even want to have two wives. He saw Ceryse as barren and wanted a new wife in Alys. That was the Henry VIII scenario. He wanted a divorce, not two wives. Later on he had multiple wives at the same time but Ceryse, Maegor, and Alys never lived together as a polygamous couple.

Rhaegar's case is remarkable different in the sense that nothing indicates he wanted to discard Elia and the children they had together in favor of a new wife Lyanna. He seems to have wanted to keep both.

Quote

And Rhaegar probably did not care about polygamy being a sin to begin with, especially if he thought his child with Lyanna was the prophesied savior of Westeros. Now, you can argue as to whether the 3KG viewed the marriage as legitimate based on their beliefs. If Rhaegar convinced them it was legitimate and if he had the blessing of the king -- which IMO is probably what he negotiated with Aerys in return for his participation in the war -- I don't think it would have been their place to dispute it.

I'd agree that beliefs about the savior figured into all that but I don't think they had any effect on the beliefs other people had on the validity of a marriage. Would you think your husband's marriage was valid if he told you some weird story (like Joseph Smith did) why this was necessary for the good of humanity? I don't think so. Marriage is a union between two people in the Seven Kingdoms.

Quote

The comment by Barry does not muddy the waters that much as to doubt the KG's motives in protecting Lyanna. Barristan's statement is not some great revelation here. It was always obvious that the king could order the KG to protect anyone who he chose and the KG was under oath to obey their king. 

This was greatly contested back before ADwD came out. It was always sort of obvious but there was a group of people who did not want to see that. Just as people today are desperately trying to avoid the fact that Viserys was the heir of Aerys II.

Quote

It may be that Aerys through Rhaegar ordered Hightower to stand guard for Lyanna. This was probably the only way that Aerys could get Rhaegar to lead his army. Besides, order or no order, after the death of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon, there is no compelling reason for all 3 KG to be guarding Lyanna and her child especially if they believed Viserys was their true king and Lyanna's child was simply a bastard.

What little we know about that (through an SSM) indicates that Rhaegar gave the order that glued the knights to Lyanna, not Aerys. In Whent and Dayne's it is obvious that they would have followed Rhaegar's lead anyway. Hightower is somewhat of a mystery there but it is not far-fetched that even he had begun to prefer Rhaegar to Aerys.

The impression we have Hightower as this Aerys sycophant is not necessarily correct. It is one thing to ensure that a young Kingsguard like Jaime never contradicts a royal order or oversteps him bounds and quite another to actually stand back do nothing if a royal prince confines his mad father to his apartments and takes the governance of the Realm into his own hands.

We don't know the knights actually knew about Aegon's death. And we have no reason to assume they had the time or felt the need to send one of their own to Dragonstone. Selmy is content protecting Daenerys' throne in Meereen. He does not search for her. Rhaegar's child - regardless whether legitimate or illegitimate - could easily have been more important to those three men than to split up to add one more man to the defense of Viserys III on Dragonstone.

Rickard Thorne and Willis Fell presumably felt the same way when they abandoned their king in favor of protecting the man's children despite the fact that the life of the king was infinitely more precious during a war than the life of a lackwit girl and two year old prince.

Quote

And if they believed Viserys to be their true king, the question arises why didn't one or more of them travel to DS to protect him? If one is of the opinion (as I am) that in not protecting Viserys, the 3KG did not believe that they were in dereliction of their prime duty, then the logical conclusion is  that they viewed Lyanna's child as the heir to the Targ throne.

But that is just an opinion, based on nothing. It would not be dereliction of duty to follow the last orders given to you as Kingsguard by somebody you consider an authority (and a friend, even). Nobody expected those men to send one of their own to Dragonstone. That's an entirely weird assumption.

We don't even know whether they knew that no Kingsguard was with them on Dragonstone (if they knew that Viserys had gone there). Aerys could have kept two KG in KL, sending one of them to Dragonstone. Or he could have made new White Swords after the Trident. Viserys III, too, could have named new Kingsguard.

Quote

From the statements of the three at the ToJ, it is reasonable to conclude that they didn't believe they were breaking their vows in not going to Viserys and instead staying at the ToJ and protecting Lyanna and her child. And you yourself said that until ADWD you believed Jon to be true born and therefore I assume the statements by the KG in Ned's fever dream should have convinced you of such.  

I still believe Jon Snow is a trueborn child of Rhaegar and Lyanna insofar as polygamous marriages in Westeros can be seen as valid (with sufficient pressure they certainly can - but for that you have to be a king). What I don't think is that this fact is going to have any relevance in the political game unless certain powerful people (Daenerys and Tyrion, perhaps also Aegon) develop a vested interest in formally adopting Jon Snow into the Targaryen family.

And from there he sure as hell can become king in the end. If he is not a zombie. Either alone (if Dany dies) or at her side. After all, Daemon Targaryen was also a great man yet he still never became king. Prince Consort is a nice position, too. And considering that even Hizdahr is a king consort rather than a prince consort at Dany's side (and Arianne thinking Quentyn would also be styled 'King Quentyn' as Dany's husband) Jon certainly could be king as Daenerys' consort in a very real sense.

I've never set Dany will grant Jon some titles, etc. out of the goodness of her heart. I think that is going to be some love story, and Jon certainly will have to have proven his worth with quite a few great features to even catch Dany's eye.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Yes, I admit I was wrong about Aragorn's self-doubt. In fact, come to think of it, Jackson's interpretation of Aragorn and diminishing the character's importance in the story is why I disliked the movies. Anyway, I still think, in many ways, Aragorn depicts the reluctant hero trope. Granted he's no hidden prince, but his right to the throne of Gondor and Arnor and his lineage is only really known by the high Elves. His identity is not well known and his acts of bravery are definitely not public knowledge. He does not announce himself as king or with a thousand and one titles and even Gimli and Legolas see him as a peer. The only time he acted kingly with them early on in the books was when Gimli questions his right to look through the Palantir.  I'm not denying that he accepted the throne when offered but that was not the central purpose of the character in the story (unlike a certain silver-haired princess) and he definitely did not expect it to become king. Like I said to LV, Aragon to me epitomizes the humble king and Dany, on the other hand, is just the opposite. 

I've just searched for 'son of Arathorn' in my LotR copy. Those are the results:

Quote

‘I am Aragorn son of Arathorn; and if by life or death I can save you, I will.’ [followed by the unpacking of the broken sword]

The Argonath scene:

Awe and fear fell upon Frodo, and he cowered down, shutting his eyes and not daring to look up as the boat drew near. Even Boromir bowed his head as the boats whirled by, frail and fleeting as little leaves, under the enduring shadow of the sentinels of Númenor. So they passed into the dark chasm of the Gates. [...]

‘Fear not!’ said a strange voice behind him. Frodo turned and saw Strider, and yet not Strider; for the weatherworn Ranger was no longer there. In the stern sat Aragorn son of Arathorn, proud and erect, guiding the boat with skilful strokes; his hood was cast back, and his dark hair was blowing in the wind, a light was in his eyes: a king returning from exile to his own land.
‘Fear not!’ he said. ‘Long have I desired to look upon the likenesses of Isildur and Anárion, my sires of old. Under their shadow Elessar, the Elfstone son of Arathorn of the House of Valandil Isildur’s son, heir of Elendil, has naught to dread!’

When meeting Éomer:

Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame as he swept it out. ‘Elendil!’ he cried. ‘I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil’s son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!’

When meeting Gandalf again:

The grey figure of the Man, Aragorn son of Arathorn, was tall, and stern as stone, his hand upon the hilt of his sword; he looked as if some king out of the mists of the sea had stepped upon the shores of lesser men.

Then there is the bickering about the swords at the gates of Meduseld which I will skip.

Faramir handing the city to Aragorn:

Faramir met Aragorn in the midst of those there assembled, and he knelt, and said: ‘The last Steward of Gondor begs leave to surrender his office.’ And he held out a white rod; but Aragorn took the rod and gave it back, saying: ‘That office is not ended, and it shall be thine and thy heirs’ as long as my line shall last. Do now thy office!’
Then Faramir stood up and spoke in a clear voice: ‘Men of Gondor, hear now the Steward of this Realm! Behold! one has come to claim the kingship again at last. Here is Aragorn son of Arathorn, chieftain of the Dunedain of Arnor, Captain of the Host of the West, bearer of the Star of the North, wielder of the Sword Reforged, victorious in battle, whose hands bring healing, the Elfstone, Elessar of the line of Valandil, Isildur’s son, Elendil’s son of Númenor. Shall he be king and enter into the City and dwell there?’
And all the host and all the people cried yea with one voice.

I'd say this is way more melodramatic as well as way more entitled than anything Daenerys ever does.

She is the daughter of a king and the sister of an exiled king and the widow of a great khal. Aragorn is just the descendant of a king that lived a thousand years ago. Just as I am, actually.

It is quite clear that no man is Aragorn's equal. He behaves humbly enough, but that is just an act. Or rather, it is prerogative of a really noble and royal man to hang out with the rabble on his terms. And we have not even touched upon Aragorn's magical healing hands (a feature attributed to the English kings in the middle ages), his unnaturally long life (a sign that he is from a better breed of noble men who were gifted with long life by the emissaries of god himself), and the fact that he crowned king by an angel incarnate and his victory and kingship first announced by a singing eagle, an emissary of the Elder King Manwe himself.

Tolkien is writing mythology in which divine kingship is one of the main features.

That is remarkably different from George's world were politics actually are real. And gods and their emissaries stay in heaven (or wherever they are).

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Lord Varys:

You asked me for an example where your opinion/conclusion seemed subjective and biased.

You stated: “I agree that there will be war but it is also effectively already confirmed that Daenerys will conquer Westeros. That was supposed to be the topic of the second book, A Dance with Dragons, in the original outline. So we can safely say that she will lead Westeros against the Others after her conquest of the continent, not somebody else. That she will survive this conquest of hers is also already confirmed because we know she will live until the very end of the series, alongside Jon, Tyrion, Bran, and Arya.”

I couldn’t find a version of the original outline that I could copy and paste. But please tell me where did you get the Dany leading Westeros part from the original outline? According to the original outline Dany’s invasion of Westeros with her Dothraki horselords and barbarian horde (not a very endearing term wouldn’t you say?) is the gist of the second book. How did invasion translate to conquering? No where in the outline does GRRM state that Dany conquers Westeros. No where does it indicate that Dany will be triumphant and rule Westeros. That is your interpretation and yours alone. In fact, I interpret GRRM's words in the outline indicating Dany’s invasion as a looming threat to Westeros not the coming of the chosen one.

That is a pretty easy extrapolation. We have Evil Jaime (Dany's main antagonist, the murderer of her father) set himself up as king after Joffrey, Sansa's son, any other claimants are dead.

Dany would have cast down him, certainly is some great (and possibly devastating) war.

The idea that somebody else besides Dany would then rule the Realm is certainly possible but not very likely in light of the fact that Dany was supposed to be one of the characters to live until the very end. What was she supposed to do after the war up until the ending. Do some housework?

Quote

Also, GRRM clearly states in his outline that the “heart” of the third book will be the story of the Wall and men who defend it. Yes, I agree that he states that the final battle will draw together those left standing (including Dany). But to conclude from this that Dany will conquer Westeros, let alone lead Westeros against the Others is again a classic example of you twisting facts to suit your narrative.

I honestly don't have a clear-cut picture of the final story. But, you know, we can use the present situation (which indicates, most likely, that Aegon becomes the obstacle Evil Jaime was in the original outline). Dany will conquer Westeros, that much seems clear to me. Anything else would make her story an utter waste of time.

And we also have always 

Spoiler

the show to look for if we want to get hints about the very broad strokes of the story. They effectively also spelled it out that Dany and Jon will marry each other.

33 minutes ago, teej6 said:

If by betrayal you mean Jon's decision to march with the Wildings to answer Ramsay's challenge, then no he didn't do it for Arya nor did he betray his NW vows. Ramsay had just threatened the Night's Watch and its LC's life, so it was Jon's right to defend himself and his men. If, on the other hand, you define betrayal by Jon's tacit approval to Mel to sent Mance to find his sister who btw was already on her way to CB according to Mel, then you may have an argument as to what constitutes the NW's vows.

I'm with you on that second part. But even the first is somewhat problematic. Do you think the Night's King, Runcel Hightower, or any of the other bad Lord Commanders had the right to declare war on the realms of men after receiving an insulting letter from, say, Brandon the Breaker? I don't think so.

[teej6]

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm with you on that second part. But even the first is somewhat problematic. Do you think the Night's King, Runcel Hightower, or any of the other bad Lord Commanders had the right to declare war on the realms of men after receiving an insulting letter from, say, Brandon the Breaker? I don't think so.

Stepping away but I thought I'd respond to your last comment before I do so. "...Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it." Are you really telling me that you read that just as an "insulting letter" and do not see it as threatening in any way? Again, an example of your skewed view of the story 

[Lord Varys]

11 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Stepping away but I thought I'd respond to you last comment before I do so. "...Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it." Are you really telling me that you read that just as an "insulting letter" and is not threatening in any way? Again, an example of your skewed view of things

If you are a politician you should not allow yourself to be ruled by your emotions. Trump and Erdogan are really stepping on the nerves of Angela Merkel these days. Does that mean she should declare war on Turkey or the United States? No. Jon could have just waited what would happen if ignored Ramsay. Just as he ignored he previous letter.

I mean, it could be that the letter was full of lies, Stannis might be still alive, winning the coming battles, right? Jon may not have died if he had kept a cooler head. And believe it or not, I actually did not want Jon to die. Nor do I want him to suck at his job at the Wall.

Oh, and enjoy the rest of the day. Do something productive. Have fun!

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

That Ned and the KG talked before having their fight to the death is supposed to be extraordinary information that no one in Westeros has?

And for the record, the dwarf I played in D&D was kickass.

Oh, come on, this one was lame. Do you really expect Ned to babble every single detail of the encounter? Once more, the crucial part is that the KG know what transpired and that Viserys had no KG with him, and there is zero reason for Ned (or HR etc) to spread this particular detail. And without it, the Westerosi have no reason to obsess with why the KG were at ToJ like we do.

I played next to anything - a flirtatious bard, a cold-blooded assassin, a cheerful alchemist with a penchant for cooking - but one that particularly stands out in this context is a certain knight and a man of honour, with a particular feature which in the Rolemaster system is called "Faithful Vassal". As you might guess, it means that you are sworn to an unworthy liege, yet must follow every order.

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Yes, I admit I was wrong about Aragorn's self-doubt. In fact, come to think of it, Jackson's interpretation of Aragorn and diminishing the character's importance in the story is why I disliked the movies. Anyway, I still think, in many ways, Aragorn depicts the reluctant hero trope. Granted he's no hidden prince, but his right to the throne of Gondor and Arnor and his lineage is only really known by the high Elves. His identity is not well known and his acts of bravery are definitely not public knowledge. He does not announce himself as king or with a thousand and one titles and even Gimli and Legolas see him as a peer. The only time he acted kingly with them early on in the books was when Gimli questions his right to look through the Palantir.  I'm not denying that he accepted the throne when offered but that was not the central purpose of the character in the story (unlike a certain silver-haired princess) and he definitely did not expect it to become king. Like I said to LV, Aragon to me epitomizes the humble king and Dany, on the other hand, is just the opposite. 

Yeah, it was one of many reasons I've come to thorouhly detest the movies, and I don't even mention The Hobbit ;-)

Aragorn is mostly behaving with dignity without excessive epithets, but he does have a couple of "Dany" moments, e.g. when meeting Éomer the first time and showering the poor guy with almost all of them

[Rippounet]

49 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Once more, the crucial part is that the KG know what transpired and that Viserys had no KG with him,

Ok, right.  So, in your scenario, the KG, upon learning that crucial -and quite specific- piece of information, should have immediately left Jon if he wasn't legitimate, right?
And what allows you to assert that they wouldn't have done that, had they won the fight?

What Hightower says is: "The Kingsguard does not flee. [...] We swore a vow." This is very different from saying "The Kingsguard don't have to flee. [...] We swore a vow." Nothing in the text allows you to say that the KG did not intend to join Viserys on Dragonstone eventually.

[Damein Blackfyre true king]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Ok, right.  So, in your scenario, the KG, upon learning that crucial -and quite specific- piece of information, should have immediately left Jon if he wasn't legitimate, right?
And what allows you to assert that they wouldn't have done that, had they won the fight?

What Hightower says is: "The Kingsguard does not flee. [...] We swore a vow." This is very different from saying "The Kingsguard don't have to flee. [...] We swore a vow." Nothing in the text allows you to say that the KG did not intend to join Viserys on Dragonstone eventually.

What vow do you think they swore? The most important vow is to protect the king.  Aerys is dead, Rhaegar is dead, Aegon was killed obvious he could be alive as faegon or not.  

The fact that Hightower stayed after intending to find Rhaegar tells me Jon was Rhaegar's heir or at the very least was a legitamate prince of the blood.    

I see no reason the 3 kingsguard to be present if not for them protecting someone they feel is heir to the throne.  If not they should be else where.  

[Julia H.]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We should reserve judgment on Dany's campaign in Westeros until we can reasonably guess how it will work out. Just as we should reserve judgment on Jon's heroic and kingly deeds in the future until after we see him return from the dead.

I am not judging anyone's future actions. I'm only drawing conclusions from their current motivations. At the moment, Dany has dragons and an army of cruel savages that she wants to take to Westeros. She wants to take revenge and get back her birthright and does not think of saving Westeros from any war or destruction or suffering. Maybe she will in the future. Hopefully. But at the moment we don't know that. And it also remains to be seen if she is the one who has or will have the true means to protect the realm against the Others. Of course, she can kill off the likes of Littlefinger and Euron and so on easily, but she will have to kill a lot of innocents before she can get to the evil guys. Also, she has very little objective information about Westeros, therefore I'm not sure she will be the right person to judge who should live or die. 

Jon has already decided to dedicate his life to the protection of humanity. He is also one of the most compassionate and selfless characters in the story, and his storyline so far has had the regular elements of a hero's journey. It is true that he doesn't have the means to defeat the Others at the moment, but that can and probably will change. It is no accident that he identifies himself as the shield that protects the realms of men. Of course. GRRM may decide on a sudden twist that turns Jon into a completely different character (evil or selfish or whatever), just as he may suddenly turn Euron into a good guy, but I don't think it is likely, nor do I think it would be a good idea. 

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I am not judging anyone's future actions. I'm only drawing conclusions from their current motivations. At the moment, Dany has dragons and an army of cruel savages that she wants to take to Westeros.

Right now she lacks those still, actually. Khal Jhaqo has taken her prisoner, not the other way around. And the sellswords, freedmen, and Unsullied she has are not exactly savages.

3 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

She wants to take revenge and get back her birthright and does not think of saving Westeros from any war or destruction or suffering.

Actually, it is heavily foreshadowed that she is the one who is going to serve her people. She has done that with the slaves and if the standard interpretation of the dwarfs brutalizing the young girl in the House of the Undying is right - it being an embodiment of Westeros and the dwarfs the false kings cutting it to pieces - then her final purpose in the story is pretty clear.

And I'm still not really convinced that Dany will actually face much opposition when she finally arrives. It will be winter, so who is going to marshal any armies against her if she just sweeps in and takes KL? She is a Targaryen, and a Targaryen is not likely to have to beat the people of Westeros into submission. They will gladly accept a scion of that house as their ruler. Now, Aegon could be a problem there but presumably he will be at KL and this will be over pretty quickly. If not, then the people will have to choose between him and Daenerys. That could then cause a Second Dance when people from various houses all across the Realm declare for this or that Targaryen pretender. Then things could get ugly. But the chances for long military campaigns and large armies marching through the snow is not very likely. Not by the time Dany arrives since then winter should already have arrived and set in everywhere in the Realm.

But even then the people of Westeros will be so weakened by the continuous civil war they are facing right now that they are not likely to stand a chance against Daenerys even if they all united against her. Drogo's khalasar alone had 40,000 warriors and 100,000 people. All the Dothraki khalasars might have millions of people, and at least a million of warriors. Now, I don't think she will take all those people with her but even half of them should allow her to conquer Westeros.

And that's not even counting all the freedmen and sellswords she will have by then. She already has her own companies of the former and if the Volantene slave army joins her, and is willing to die for her as the reborn Azor Ahai she will have an army of professional soldier fanatics that might be as powerful as the Fremen of Dune (perhaps there is a parallel, after all).

The idea that Daenerys will have to make a lot of compromises with the Westerosi locals (or care about their customs and laws) does not sound all that convincing to me. Sure, she should better try to win some allies and such, but if that doesn't work she can just conquer the place. She is likely to have the power to do so.

Aegon and the Faith could easily enough demonize her, painting her as an evil/mad witch or a foreign savage conqueress. Whether that's going to work all that effectively when the people see dragons in winter I'm not sure.

I'm trying to think of scenarios how she could really get in trouble but she will most likely have Tyrion and Marwyn teaching her about Westeros (and Selmy, if he is still alive by then). The best scenario I can come up with is Euron amassing a very large fleet and attacking her in the Summer Sea or the Narrow Sea before she can make it to Westeros. If he rips the fleet attack (with a lot of magic involved) than a decent portion of her armada might be destroyed and the survivors might washed ashore along the entire eastern coast of Westeros. That would be a disaster. But that would then meet that there is going to be large long story from there on until she has regrouped, won some victories, etc., making the story ever longer.

3 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Maybe she will in the future. Hopefully. But at the moment we don't know that. And it also remains to be seen if she is the one who has or will have the true means to protect the realm against the Others.

It is heavily implied that the dragons will help with that.

3 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Of course, she can kill off the likes of Littlefinger and Euron and so on easily, but she will have to kill a lot of innocents before she can get to the evil guys. Also, she has very little objective information about Westeros, therefore I'm not sure she will be the right person to judge who should live or die. 

Again, Tyrion and Marwyn will help with that. And aside from Jaime all of the Usurper's Dogs are long dead. She is not likely to establish some terror regime, attempting to butcher Stark, Lannister, Arryn, or Tully children for the deeds of their fathers and grandfathers.

3 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Jon has already decided to dedicate his life to the protection of humanity. He is also one of the most compassionate and selfless characters in the story, and his storyline so far has the regular elements of a hero's journey.

The same goes for Daenerys, too. They are very much alike in that regard. But, quite honestly, Brienne, Davos, Sansa, and Ned are all much more compassionate than either of these two. 

3 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

It is true that he doesn't have the means to defeat the Others at the moment, but that can and probably will change. Of course. GRRM may decide on a sudden twist that turns Jon into a completely different character (evil or selfish or whatever), just as he may suddenly turn Euron into a good guy, but I don't think it is likely, nor do I think it would be a good idea. 

If Jon was the sole main hero of the story then he would have been an amalgam of Dany and himself. He would have found dragons beyond the Wall. Or he would have been Aegon, a hidden prince in faraway land, being groomed and prepared to take what is his (to rule wisely and justly, of course, as Varys says). Instead he is in a very precarious position of the leader of a very small and ill-equipped and underfunded group of aging warriors, whose top priority should now be not to starve soon (because they have a lot of wildling refugees to deal with.

Jon (or rather Bran) is likely to find out something more about the Others but they are not creatures a mere mortal can just defeat. We are so much discussing who the hell is the subject of the promised prince prophecy that nobody really cares how the Others can actually be defeated. I'm pretty sure burning swords and dragonfire are a problem for them, but one assumes they also have means to counter any of those.

This whole thing is an ensemble story. Dany, Jon, and Tyrion might lead humanity against the Others eventually but they won't singlehandedly destroy them. They will need the help of their people. And perhaps even more. 

[The Ned's Little Girl]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ok, right.  So, in your scenario, the KG, upon learning that crucial -and quite specific- piece of information, should have immediately left Jon if he wasn't legitimate, right?
And what allows you to assert that they wouldn't have done that, had they won the fight?

Both Hightower and Ser Arthur Dayne asserted that they wouldn't have done that. When Ned said Darry and the royals had "fled to Dragonstone", Hightower pointed out in response to that statement, "The Kingsguard does not flee". If they rushed off to Dragonstone - even if they leisurely ambled - it would be fleeing; they don't do that. Then Arthur Dayne added, "Then or now". They didn't flee then (when Rhaella did) and they aren't going to now.

 

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

What Hightower says is: "The Kingsguard does not flee. [...] We swore a vow." This is very different from saying "The Kingsguard don't have to flee. [...] We swore a vow." Nothing in the text allows you to say that the KG did not intend to join Viserys on Dragonstone eventually.

Yes, "The Kingsguard don't have to flee" is a different statement, but how is that relevant, since Hightower didn't actually say that?

The "we swore a vow" statement is something in the text that allows me to say that the 3 KG did not intend to join Viserys on Dragonstone "eventually". KG vows don't allow for their fulfillment to happen "eventually". They said, "We swore a vow"; they didn't say, "We swore a vow and I'm sure we'll get around to abiding by it at some point". If Viserys was the king and had no KG beside him, they (or at least one of them) should have been enroute to him immediately, if not sooner. 

[SFDanny]

More thoughts, Lv. As promised.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They are not men ruled by competing duties. They may have completely taken on the duty to care about Lyanna and the child, simply ignoring everything else.

I really think this is a non-existing problem. As long as we don't know what their priorities were nor when exactly they learned what they knew this is a topic that can't be discussed.

We were so close to an agreement here. It is obvious they are men with competing duties. But it appears we are near agreement on the reason why they choose to stay and fight instead of do the duty their oaths demand of them. They do indeed stay to care for Lyanna and her child. They stay because Lyanna is near term and shouldn't be moved. They stay because Lyanna isn't doing well after the child is born. They stay because they will not abandon Lyanna and child to Ned and Robert's justice. They die protecting them. Not guarding them from escaping. Not because Rhaegar ordered them long ago not to move from that spot. Not because they are so motivated by thoughts of revenge they cannot see the other calls of duty that would tell them to not fight. Not because of dreams of a new Targaryen dynasty based on Jon aa their new king. They die protecting them from Ned and the "justice" Robert would have on this Targaryen child and the woman who "betrayed" him by loving another man. That I think is the simple solution to our puzzle. It is a solution hidden behind shining armor and lots and lots of talk of vows, oaths, and honor. But it is a solution that solves the mystery to me, at least.

And a puzzle it is. It is not a "non-existing problem." We are given Ned's fevered dream for a reason. The mistake many make is they either take it unquestionably as a faithful representation of what happened at the Tower or they dismiss it altogether because it is a dream. The point, I think, is that Ned is still dreaming a dream of things that haunt him from long ago. Things he still can't explain. In his dream he asks three men questions of why they are there preventing him from getting to his sister.  Not just any men, but men he killed in his waking life, but now exist in exquisite detail in his memory while the faces of his friends have blurred into wraith-like images the years have distorted. He wonders why these men are not where he thought to find them. It that isn't a hammer to the readers head of a clue that it is important for them to also question why the men won't let Ned pass, then I don't know what would be clue.

If we dismiss this scene, we dismiss one of the most important clues in the books. If we just accept it at face value we do the same thing. Understanding why these men do what they do helps us in unravelling the events that led to the rebellion. It helps us to understand the nature of Ned's promise to the dying Lyanna. Why Lyanna eyes are full of fear until Ned makes that promise. It helps us understand Jon's origins and why Ned raises him as his son in Winterfell. It helps us understand why Ned hold his secrets so dear he doesn't even tell his wife or Jon himself the truth. So, no, my friend, I don't think this is a "non-existing" problem we should set aside. 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Is Dorne truly friendly territory to them after what Rhaegar did to Elia? And what Aerys II threatened to do her and her children?

After Tywin's murder of Elia and her children all thought in Dorne are turned to revenge on the rebels, not on Aerys's paranoia. Dorne may be the safest place on Martin's planet for escaping loyalists. Combined with lack of a rebel fleet between Dorne and Dragonstone means the way through Dorne and on to Dragonstone is as open as it ever will be. During this time, the Red Viper is trying to raise Dorne in rebellion and the soon to be signed pact between Oberyn and Ser Willem shows the Martells thinking towards the Targaryens. That would certainly include a member of the Kingsguard trying to make it to Viserys.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They might have had equally good men at that time. What changes things is the destruction of the royal fleet at Dragonstone during the night of Dany's birth. And there was still sufficient time to go to Dragonstone if they wanted to. They were in no hurry.

On this we just have to disagree. There are no equally good men to go to Dragonstone. Not only are Hightower and Dayne accomplished generals, but as sworn members of the Kingsguard their loyalty in protecting Viserys would not be questioned. That they don't show up there is a blow to his claim to the throne. As to the hurry, not only is the Lord Commander the leader of the king's bodyguard, and bound to him by oath, he is also one of his chief councilors, sworn to advise him. Something both Rhaella and Viserys sorely need.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I can see your final option there. But I really don't think we have to make things overly complicated with the second option or even the first. They may have just been occupied with ensuring that Lyanna can properly give birth to her child, doing everything in their power to keep the boy and the mother alive. Politics might have been as much on their mind as it is with Bran and the Reeds during their travel.

As I've said, the last option is the one I've come to favor as well.. I just don't think we can dismiss the other two.

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not necessarily true. Again, a king is made. The decrees of a dead king may be overturned. As a Kingsguard, subject, courtier, royal official, etc. you should honor your kings wishes but this is not always done. When Maegor the Cruel usurped the throne in place of his nephew Aegon no Kingsguard seems to have tried to stop the usurper. Does this mean the surviving members of the Kingsguard of Aenys I were all traitors? I don't think so.Things are no always easy.

LV, can you show me any member of the Kingsguard who decided not swear fealty to a new king, and instead decided to retire? I don't think it is a voluntary act to chose not to be a Kingsguard. They serve for life, until Joffrey tried to pension off Ser Barristan. Now, in time of contention for the throne they may serve one king or queen or the other, but they never retire. What their oaths tell them to do is to follow the designated successor from the last monarch. It is part of their oaths to follow the orders of their king. Some Kingsguard have chosen not to follow those orders, for whatever reasons, and have violated their oaths in doing so. My answer is to your question is, yes, those who served Maegor were traitors to their king, and to their oaths they violated by doing so. Following an oath is not always easy, especially when doing so likely means your death. I'm sure all those who served Maegor knew the would die if they went over to his nephew and rightful king, but that doesn't change the fact they did so in contravention of their oaths and the orders of their king. Now, my notes do not show any names of Kingsguard who served Maegor the Cruel, so enlighten me of who they were. It maybe possible none did.

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even I think you are too harsh against the Cole's brothers who supported Aegon II here (and I'm as clearly in Rhaenyra's camp as you possibly can). The Kingsguard do follow orders, Criston Cole was their Lord Commander, and Otto Hightower was the Hand of the King, speaking with the late King Viserys' voice until the new king was crowned. They were bound to obey these two.

Were they bound to obey the usurper and his small council? I don't think so. They knew Viserys made Rhaenyra his heir. It was done in open court and Lords from all over the realm were made to come and swear their fealty to her as the king's chosen successor. When the coup came they had a choice to make. Follow their oaths and die like Lord Beesbury, or follow the Queen, the Lord Commander, and the Hand in their treason. But they also had a third choice, and that was what Ser Steffon Darklyn did. He awaited the time in which he could leave and made his way to his Queen. A choice Ser Barristan could have used as an example of many years later.

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd not be so eager to follow Selmy's assessment of Viserys' mental health. The man wasn't all that stable when we meet him but unlike his royal sire he had no cruel streaks, and a child would always be a better figurehead king than an infant. Even if Aerys II hadn't named Viserys his heir we could be pretty sure that nobody would be as suicidally stupid as declaring an infant king.

Having read his treatment of Daenerys, I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion Viserys "had no cruel streaks." Moreover, Ser Barristan surrenders himself to Dany's justice and his only defense is what madness he saw in Viserys from an early age. Daenerys pardons him in part for not coming to them as his oath demanded because she knew the truth of Viserys's madness, and cruelty, from an early age.

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is our assumption but TWoIaF is actually less explicit about that as our speculations are:

Quote

When King Maekar died in battle in 233 AC, whilst leading his army against a rebellious lord on the Dornish Marches, considerable confusion arose as to the succession. Rather than risk another Dance of the Dragons, the King’s Hand, Bloodraven, elected to call a Great Council to decide the matter.

This is not (necessarily) because Maekar did not name an heir but rather because there factions vying for the throne and many powerful people having doubts about this or that possible heir.

I'm inclined to agree that Maekar might not have named an heir but perhaps he did, naming his grandson Maegor, but Bloodraven, Egg, and many other people in the Realm did not like that. The succession can be contested even if there is clearly named and anointed heir as the first Dance and the struggle after the death of Aenys I prove. Not to mention the avoided succession war at the end of the reign of Jaehaerys I.

When we have evidence Maekar named an heir then this point should be discussed, but facts we know point to no heir being named as the greater likelihood. It also might make a difference if we knew for sure when and who among Maekar's Kingsguard served a claimant to the throne.  Sadly we will likely have to wait for the publishing of the later Dunk and Egg stories to find out. My notes show no names for Maekar's Kingsguard. Do you have any?

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I really don't think that is the case. A royal succession is always a difficult matter. It is a time of crisis, essentially a power vacuum. The king is the state, the source and power of all authority. While a new king is not yet proclaimed, crowned, installed, in charge, etc. he cannot command the Kingsguard or really anyone. He can try but it is not ensured that he can use the same authority people would usually grant and see in him if he was already in charge.

Authority in such medieval societies is still very much personal. A Kingsguard (or any retainer and lord, really) swears a personal oath of fealty to his liege or king, and that fealty only extends until the death of the king or the retainer, not further. It does not encompass the heirs of either unless it is included in such an oath. And we do know that each new king demands new oaths of fealty from his lords. We even see that happening when Joffrey becomes king (and essentially nobody shows up for the ceremony).

In that sense the Kingsguard of Jaehaerys II was only bound to him, and then later chose to accept Aerys II as their king. Upon his death they would have choose a new king, too, either Viserys III or Robert I.

Else we would have to say there was a clear path between black and white when the Dance broke out (or Maegor took the throne) and I don't think that's the message of that story. Sure, the Greens staged a coup, etc. but not all men complicit in that are equally guilty or had a much of a choice in the matter.

I agree that royal succession is always a difficult matter, but that is not the same thing as saying the path a loyal member of the Kingsguard should take is not, in most if not all cases fairly clear. The Kingsguard serve for life and their oaths tell them they should follow the orders of their king, including in matters of succession. If, as it appears likely in Maekar's case no heir is named it becomes more complicated, but in the case of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent a successor was named and that was Viserys. Loyal members of the Kingsguard owed Viserys their service. Yet none did so. That is a clue.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think those about Ned and Howland would be pretty accurate. I'm willing to entertain that some of the others were great swordsmen but even then it would been 4-5 (if Ethan was also some great warrior) against three of the greatest knights in the Realm. We see that Garlan Tyrell routinely fights against three men in the practice yard. We can be pretty sure that the knights at the tower all also had experience in that field.

I'm always loathe to participate in these kinds of debates. They remind me too much of my childhood long ago when my brother and I would make lists of superheroes or cowboys and argue who was the strongest, the smartest, the fastest draw, etc. In my experience the only opinion that matters is the writer's.

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't consider that idea all that likely, either. But who knows what Aerys might have done if he had found out that Lyanna was important in the prophecy thing? Rhaegar is not necessarily the only one thinking about that. Prophecies were more real in the life of Aerys II than the life of Rhaegar. They ruled his marriage and the most likely the sex life with his sister-wife.

Rhaegar may have inherited his mad obsession about fathering some savior from his father.

 We both agree it is unlikely that Aerys controlled Lyanna's fate at the tower. I think it more likely that Aerys's view of prophecy is limited to the number of sons he could sire with Rhaella. Yes, prophecy forced his marriage to his sister, but his life seemed obsessed with the birth of his new sons. Likely he had mixed feelings about all those years with Rhaegar as the only child who made it from infancy to childhood. Pride in his son, yes; wanting more that one to perhaps fulfill the prophecy, very much so.

I don't doubt that Aerys influenced Rhaegar, as did Rhaella, his maesters, his teachers of all kinds. It seems, likely, the dominant influence of his life concerning prophecy was the Lady Jenny's woods witch, Ghost of High Heart. 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But we don't know how long they were there, do we? That has never been addressed in any of the books as of yet. Nor do we know what they original command given to them by Rhaegar was. Protect Lyanna? Or keep her prisoner (say, because she was not willing to allow Rhaegar to ride to war against her brother and former betrothed and saving the throne of the madman who had killed her brother and father)?

No, we don't know how long they were at the Tower.  We do have this from the app.

Quote

Lord Robert, Lyanna's betrothed, was consumed by the need to avenge himself on Rhaegar, but the prince could not be found for eh first months of the war. Rumor had it that he was in the south with Lyanna, at a place he called the Rower of Joy, near the red mountain of Dorne. But eventually his father sent Ser Gerold Hightower to recall Rhaegar to his duties, though Rhaegar ordered Ser Gerold, Ser Arthur, and Ser Oswell to keep guard over Lyanna in the south. (Rhaegar Targaryen entry)

This would seem to indicate Ser Gerold found them at the Tower of Joy and they had been there from before he left on his trip south. Obviously, Ned finds them there after his trip to Storm's End. That indicates a stay of many months. Now, that doesn't mean all of them were there all of the time. It is likely Lyanna is there as she gets farther along in her pregnancy. Missions away from the tower for the Kingsguard are also possible during this time.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If it's truly the case that they spend the entire time at the tower then I think the chances that they were gaolers rather than protectors is pretty high.

Too much points to that not being the case.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, The Ned's Little Girl said:

Both Hightower and Ser Arthur Dayne asserted that they wouldn't have done that. When Ned said Darry and the royals had "fled to Dragonstone", Hightower pointed out in response to that statement, "The Kingsguard does not flee". If they rushed off to Dragonstone - even if they leisurely ambled - it would be fleeing; they don't do that. Then Arthur Dayne added, "Then or now". They didn't flee then (when Rhaella did) and they aren't going to now.

 

Yes, "The Kingsguard don't have to flee" is a different statement, but how is that relevant, since Hightower didn't actually say that?

The "we swore a vow" statement is something in the text that allows me to say that the 3 KG did not intend to join Viserys on Dragonstone "eventually". KG vows don't allow for their fulfillment to happen "eventually". They said, "We swore a vow"; they didn't say, "We swore a vow and I'm sure we'll get around to abiding by it at some point". If Viserys was the king and had no KG beside him, they (or at least one of them) should have been enroute to him immediately, if not sooner. 

So the Kingsguard don't even flee when the king himself flees? How are they going to protect him then?

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

We were so close to an agreement here. It is obvious they are men with competing duties. But it appears we are near agreement on the reason why they choose to stay and fight instead of do the duty their oaths demand of them. They do indeed stay to care for Lyanna and her child. They stay because Lyanna is near term and shouldn't be moved. They stay because Lyanna isn't doing well after the child is born. They stay because they will not abandon Lyanna and child to Ned and Robert's justice. They die protecting them. Not guarding them from escaping. Not because Rhaegar ordered them long ago not to move from that spot. Not because they are so motivated by thoughts of revenge they cannot see the other calls of duty that would tell them to not fight. Not because of dreams of a new Targaryen dynasty based on Jon aa their new king. They die protecting them from Ned and the "justice" Robert would have on this Targaryen child and the woman who "betrayed" him by loving another man. That I think is the simple solution to our puzzle. It is a solution hidden behind shining armor and lots and lots of talk of vows, oaths, and honor. But it is a solution that solves the mystery to me, at least.

I think that is pretty good and solid theory. And I like it. I hope it is somewhat of that sort, actually. I'm just not sure we have enough information as of yet to spin such a crucial and detailed story. I think it will turn out that Lyanna had a much more active role in all that. I can't see her being stuck in some tower at the end of the world while her family and friends are about to be butchered by Rhaegar or his father. That would be out of character for her.

I'm pretty sure Lyanna loved Rhagar, too, and I'm very convinced Rhaegar was madly in love with Lyanna, but they could have still have quarreled. Lyanna could have (helped to) end(ed) the war. Instead she did essentially nothing. That is very odd if we keep her character in mind. Arya would not go down like that unless you imprisoned her in a tower and put some very competent guardsmen in charge of her...

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

And a puzzle it is. It is not a "non-existing problem."

The non-existing problem I mean is our need to investigate or speculate about hypothetical scenarios we don't even know where real. Like, when exactly learned the knights this or that, or whether they had to follow this or that cause of action under these or those circumstances, etc. While we don't even know for sure they entertained the notion of going to Viserys we don't have to assume that they did.

And Hightower could have said what he did in any scenario. The only prerequisite there is that he thought it was necessary that he was where he was and do what he was about to do. But he could just as well have said what he did when he thought Lyanna's son was a bastard, a prince, the savior of the world, or just a child he thought was in danger at it was his duty to protect him. We can not really deduce all that much from those words. They are deliberately very vague.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

We are given Ned's fevered dream for a reason. The mistake many make is they either take it unquestionably as a faithful representation of what happened at the Tower or they dismiss it altogether because it is a dream. The point, I think, is that Ned is still dreaming a dream of things that haunt him from long ago. Things he still can't explain. In his dream he asks three men questions of why they are there preventing him from getting to his sister.  Not just any men, but men he killed in his waking life, but now exist in exquisite detail in his memory while the faces of his friends have blurred into wraith-like images the years have distorted. He wonders why these men are not where he thought to find them. It that isn't a hammer to the readers head of a clue that it is important for them to also question why the men won't let Ned pass, then I don't know what would be clue.

It certainly is important for him. But as we have once discussed in detail it is very much relevant to him as a character, and the things that are haunting him in the present (the plans to murder Daenerys and Viserys) and later, when Lyanna and Rhaegar's children comes up again, the impending death of Cersei and her innocent children should Robert learn the truth.

There is also a good chance that Ned's question and the ritualistic manner of the exchange there sort of symbolize the mental walls Ned has built around the secret of Jon Snow's parentage. He never ever finishes a thought connected to that in his waking life, and even his dreams seem to dance around the truth in this symbolic way, hiding behind those ritualistic exchanges. In that sense, the dream knights might very well embody both his promise to Lyanna as well as Jon himself.

The major unrealistic aspects of the fever dream is the fact that nobody is talking sense there. There are no terms, no inquiries about intentions, no nothing. And it is very odd that Ned or the knights were meeting there to finish at high noon. Usually there is a parley before that. But that's missing in the dream.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

If we dismiss this scene, we dismiss one of the most important clues in the books. If we just accept it at face value we do the same thing. Understanding why these men do what they do helps us in unravelling the events that led to the rebellion. It helps us to understand the nature of Ned's promise to the dying Lyanna. Why Lyanna eyes are full of fear until Ned makes that promise. It helps us understand Jon's origins and why Ned raises him as his son in Winterfell. It helps us understand why Ned hold his secrets so dear he doesn't even tell his wife or Jon himself the truth. So, no, my friend, I don't think this is a "non-existing" problem we should set aside.

I think you should now understand that this never was the 'non-existing problem' ;-).

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

After Tywin's murder of Elia and her children all thought in Dorne are turned to revenge on the rebels, not on Aerys's paranoia. Dorne may be the safest place on Martin's planet for escaping loyalists. Combined with lack of a rebel fleet between Dorne and Dragonstone means the way through Dorne and on to Dragonstone is as open as it ever will be. During this time, the Red Viper is trying to raise Dorne in rebellion and the soon to be signed pact between Oberyn and Ser Willem shows the Martells thinking towards the Targaryens. That would certainly include a member of the Kingsguard trying to make it to Viserys.

Not sure when exactly Oberyn returned to Dorne. I was thinking of ambitious men playing both sides or trying to win the favor of the new king. Such men exist everywhere. Just think how both Ned and Davos could convince two different Lords Borrell to get off his island. But there might have been some Dornishmen more inclined to do what, according to Godric Borrell, Lord Triston Sunderland would have done to Davos had he captured him - sell him to Cersei.

But overall Dorne could be a pretty good place. Which raises the question why the hell the knights did not have a Dornish army at the tower...

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

On this we just have to disagree. There are no equally good men to go to Dragonstone. Not only are Hightower and Dayne accomplished generals, but as sworn members of the Kingsguard their loyalty in protecting Viserys would not be questioned. That they don't show up there is a blow to his claim to the throne. As to the hurry, not only is the Lord Commander the leader of the king's bodyguard, and bound to him by oath, he is also one of his chief councilors, sworn to advise him. Something both Rhaella and Viserys sorely need.

Sorry, but we don't know that. The Velaryons usually were very loyal and competent men, and we know Lord Lucerys Velaryon, Lord Monford's father, was Master of Ship under Aerys II around the time of Harrenhal. There would also have been the castellan of Dragonstone (one of Rhaegar's men, presumably, since Rhaegar had lived on Dragonstone), the garrison, and the other Lords of the Narrow Sea. Certainly not enough to retake the Iron Throne. But still more than enough to keep Rhaella and Viserys safe.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

LV, can you show me any member of the Kingsguard who decided not swear fealty to a new king, and instead decided to retire? I don't think it is a voluntary act to chose not to be a Kingsguard. They serve for life, until Joffrey tried to pension off Ser Barristan.

That is correct. Barristan is the first precedent for a Kingsguard who is dismissed from the order. However, this doesn't mean that you automatically serve a succession of kings just because you joined the Kingsguard. You don't have a right to demand. It depends on the goodwill of the king to uphold the rules Queen Visenya once established.

The idea that a Kingsguard only swears an oath to a king once, when he joins the Kingsguard, does not seem to be the case. We see that Joffrey's entire court, Kingsguard included, do swear oaths of fealty to King Joffrey. And it is made explicitly clear that Tommen is not Arys Oakheart's king because he never swore a vow to him.

And we should keep in mind that certain kings (like Maegor) actually executed Kingsguard instead of retiring them. That could resolve the problem of divided or uncertain loyalties, too.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Now, in time of contention for the throne they may serve one king or queen or the other, but they never retire. What their oaths tell them to do is to follow the designated successor from the last monarch. It is part of their oaths to follow the orders of their king.

In Rhaenyra's case that would be true, at least for those who swear that oath of obeisance to her, and to defend her rights, but we don't know if that standard procedure when anointing an heir. In fact, it doesn't seem to be case since nobody indicates half the Realm of more has sworn an oath to defend Joffrey's succession and he clearly was his father's Heir Apparent. Stannis, Renly, etc. are not seen as oathbreakers in the sense Lyman Beesbury sees his peers on the Small Council as turncloaks and traitors.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Some Kingsguard have chosen not to follow those orders, for whatever reasons, and have violated their oaths in doing so. My answer is to your question is, yes, those who served Maegor were traitors to their king, and to their oaths they violated by doing so. Following an oath is not always easy, especially when doing so likely means your death. I'm sure all those who served Maegor knew the would die if they went over to his nephew and rightful king, but that doesn't change the fact they did so in contravention of their oaths and the orders of their king. Now, my notes do not show any names of Kingsguard who served Maegor the Cruel, so enlighten me of who they were. It maybe possible none did.

Unfortunately we have no idea who they were as of yet. All we know is that two of Maegor's White Sword defected to Jaehaerys shortly before Maegor's death. Now, if those men were given their cloaks by Maegor they would have been traitors because they took Maegor as their king when they swore their oaths.

We know that Ser Raymont Baratheon gave his life to save Aenys I and his family when the Poor Fellows tried to murder them in their apartments, suggesting that Aenys I was down to six Kingsguard when he arrived on Dragonstone and died there shortly thereafter.

Three of four of the others might have been with Aenys' heir, Prince Aegon and his sister-wife Rhaena on their royal progress which led to them being besieged in Crakehall Castle and later searching asylum at Casterly Rock. A royal progress is a major event, and Kingsguard would certainly have been with the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. Some of them might have been killed when the progress was attacked, others could have supported Aegon against Maegor at the Gods Eye in 43 AC.

Any remaining with Alyssa and her children on Dragonstone might have been killed when Maegor seized the crown (assuming they dared to object to his succession). Or he might have commanded them to fight at his side during the Trial of Seven which means they would have died there. That is actually a very likely scenario.

Afterwards Maegor would have named a new Kingsguard, all men of his own choosing.

I think 'The Sons of the Dragon' will shed at least some light on those matters.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Were they bound to obey the usurper and his small council? I don't think so. They knew Viserys made Rhaenyra his heir. It was done in open court and Lords from all over the realm were made to come and swear their fealty to her as the king's chosen successor. When the coup came they had a choice to make. Follow their oaths and die like Lord Beesbury, or follow the Queen, the Lord Commander, and the Hand in their treason. But they also had a third choice, and that was what Ser Steffon Darklyn did. He awaited the time in which he could leave and made his way to his Queen. A choice Ser Barristan could have used as an example of many years later.

That is true. But now what do you think Robert's Kingsguard (Selmy as Lord Commander and the others) should have done had Eddard Stark had had the opportunity to share his information about the crimes Queen Cersei committed against King Robert? For all they know Cersei's children were Robert's children, too, and Joffrey was definitely his Heir Apparent. He is introduced as the Crown Prince very early on in AGoT. Ned has no proof which is why he intended to stage a coup, like the Greens did. Theirs worked, but Ned's did not. And just as you say the Kingsguard should have opposed Otto and Alicent's coup one could say Barristan and his men did the right thing when they supported Cersei against Ned.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Having read his treatment of Daenerys, I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion Viserys "had no cruel streaks." Moreover, Ser Barristan surrenders himself to Dany's justice and his only defense is what madness he saw in Viserys from an early age. Daenerys pardons him in part for not coming to them as his oath demanded because she knew the truth of Viserys's madness, and cruelty, from an early age.

None that put him in Joffrey territory. He was pitiful creature not a megalomaniacal madman.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

When we have evidence Maekar named an heir then this point should be discussed, but facts we know point to no heir being named as the greater likelihood. It also might make a difference if we knew for sure when and who among Maekar's Kingsguard served a claimant to the throne.  Sadly we will likely have to wait for the publishing of the later Dunk and Egg stories to find out. My notes show no names for Maekar's Kingsguard. Do you have any?

Nope, unless some of the White Swords from THK stick around into the 220s and 230s.

Another one of those problems is the succession of Baelor the Blessed. The succession was discussed after his death by the Small Council (and some other people), Prince Viserys against Princess Daena and her sisters, with the known outcome, but it is very odd to assume that Baelor had not named an heir. But if he did then there would (most likely) not have been a discussion.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

We both agree it is unlikely that Aerys controlled Lyanna's fate at the tower. I think it more likely that Aerys's view of prophecy is limited to the number of sons he could sire with Rhaella. Yes, prophecy forced his marriage to his sister, but his life seemed obsessed with the birth of his new sons. Likely he had mixed feelings about all those years with Rhaegar as the only child who made it from infancy to childhood. Pride in his son, yes; wanting more that one to perhaps fulfill the prophecy, very much so.

I'm pretty sure his father, mother, or both must have been the ones who showed him the prophecy about the promised prince, telling him that he was the one. At least to the belief of his (late) royal grandfather and his great-granduncle at the Wall.

Both Aerys and Rhaegar's obsession with sons/children might have been connected to the prophecy stuff. As well as Aerys' insane fear that his children would die, were killed, threatened by magic, etc. That sounds mad but if you think about him thinking they were destined for great and magical things of an unclear nature it is no longer that mad. The Others would most likely really have prevented the return of the dragons or kill the person that is playing a huge role in their defeat in the cradle.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I don't doubt that Aerys influenced Rhaegar, as did Rhaella, his maesters, his teachers of all kinds. It seems, likely, the dominant influence of his life concerning prophecy was the Lady Jenny's woods witch, Ghost of High Heart.

In the end, perhaps. If he ever met her.

17 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

No, we don't know how long they were at the Tower.  We do have this from the app.

Yeah, I know that, but I would really reserve any judgment on that until the series is done. This stuff is not binding to George. And we are likely going to get more details on Rhaegar and Lyanna as well as on the tower of joy name and story.

[The Twinslayer]

On 3/25/2017 at 10:41 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If Jon wasn't legimate Viserys would  had been the King and they as the KG would had to be with the King. They knew that Aerys was dead and Viserys was away and they still were with Jon, meaning that in the line of succession Jon was before Viserys.

There is nothing to indicate that the KG believed Aegon to be dead.  Aegon is never mentioned.  But if they do know that Aegon is dead, it seems impossible that they don't also know that Viserys is the "new heir."

On 3/25/2017 at 1:48 PM, SFDanny said:

Let me throw this into the mix of the discussion, because it seems to be getting lost. It doesn't matter if Jon was the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna because Aerys named Viserys his heir before his death. One has to assume that the Kingsguard knows all the information in Ned's dream dialogue, and yet does not know of this fact. They are protecting the wrong king. One has to consider the likelihood they knew Viserys was their lawful king and they chose, just as Ser Barristan did, to not go to him.

Indeed.  Again, it is likely they did not know that Aegon was (supposedly) dead and they also chose not to try to go protect him in KL.

On 3/25/2017 at 2:50 PM, Julia H. said:

I've never before heard Jon Connington being described as "the next best thing to Rhaegar". Anyway, I don't think that anything we know about Connington excludes the possibility of Rhaegar's second marriage for several reasons.

One reason is that even though we have JC's POV, we don't have access to everything he knows. How many times does Eddard think of Lyanna on page? Yet, we never catch him thinking of Jon Snow being Lyanna's son even though he must be aware of this piece of information. Jon Connington thinking of Rhaegar and Elia's wedding does not tell us anything about his knowledge or lack of it about another wedding. The context in which he recalls Rhaegar and Elia's wedding on page is when the possibility of a marriage - an alliance - between Aegon and Dorne is suggested. The parallel is obvious enough, and since Jon wants to refuse the suggestion, he thinks of Dornish Elia - and how she was "unworthy" of Rhaegar. This neither proves nor disproves that JC might have known of another wedding.    

Secondly, I don't have the impression that JC necessarily knew all Rhaegar's secrets. For him, Rhaegar was certainly very important, but was that feeling truly reciprocal? Didn't Rhaegar keep Arthur Dayne in higher regard, weren't they closer friends than JC and Rhaegar? Can you direct me to the part of the World Book that strongly suggests that JC was with Rhaegar on that journey? BTW, do we ever get Connington's opinion about the Lyanna affair? If he was truly with Rhaegar in those days, yet, he never thinks of Lyanna, it's further proof that he hasn't shared all his knowledge with the reader yet. 

 

Jaime says in his third POV chapter (ASOS) that when Rhaegar could not be found, Aerys turned to the next best thing and raised Connington to the Handship.

I don't have the world book handy but it lists Rhaegar's closest companions, including Connington, and then gives the number of companions that went with Rhaegar when he left on the journey that ultimately led him to Lyanna.  It matches up with the list of his closest companions. 

On 3/25/2017 at 3:04 PM, Rippounet said:

Nope, it doesn't. That's your confirmation bias again. The one element that might objectively hint at that is the use of the term "usurper" by Oswell.
And that's the problem. You're so biased that you're not able to present your case in an objective way. I end up rejecting this theory not on the basis of its merits, but because I'm annoyed by its proponents...

The use of the term "usurper" to describe Robert does not imply that they knew that he sat the Iron Throne.  In AGOT, Varys calls Stannis a "usurper."  In ACOK, Tyrion calls Stannis a "usurper."  Stannis calls Renly a usurper.  Melisandre calls Balon Greyjoy a usurper.  And so on.  

People were looking at Robert as a replacement for Aerys since the Battle of Gulltown.  As long as the KGs knew that a rebellion was underway, they would refer to Robert as a usurper even if they did not know about the Trident or the Sack.  

On 3/25/2017 at 3:31 PM, Ygrain said:

Well, that's kinda your problem if you let your emotions cloud your judgement.

And as for the "only" element: fine, let's presume that the KG are absolutely in the dark about the events of the last couple of weeks or months. Then how do they know why Ned looked for them at the Trident and that the usurper was present? Why do they believe Ned when he informs them that their sworn brother has done the unimaginable and became a kingslayer? Why don't they wonder what Selmy, Martell and Darry were doing while Aerys was being slaughtered and why Viserys has no KG with him, why don't they ever enquire about the queen and Rhaegar's children? Their responses are completely out of place for people who hear about these events - and what grave, devastating news they are! - for the first time, those are responses of people who know the context of Ned's statements. If the dream relays the events as they happened, i.e. the convo and the fight taking place immediately upon Ned's arrival, then they had known beforehands; if Ned himself brought the news, then the dream's set up for the fight is unrealistic and the circumstances prior the fight were vastly different. Either way, the gist of the dream informs us that they knew what they were doing, and why, when they chose to fight Ned, and what Ned knows about their motives makes him keep them in highest regard. They may have been mistaken or misinformed, but as far as Ned knows, they must have kept their vows and done what would have been the right thing for the KG to do. 

 

On 3/25/2017 at 6:50 PM, Ygrain said:

Then why did GRRM write the Kingsguard at all? Why establish a sworn order whose main purpose in life is to protect the king, why write a scene where they emphasize so much their status?

 

That works both ways.  There is absolutely no plot-relevant reason for Barristan to say that the KGs guard mistresses and bastards if we aren't going to see them guarding a mistress and bastard.  In all the books -- main series, world book, TRP, TPATQ, and Dunk & Egg -- the only candidates so far are Lyanna for the mistress and Jon for the bastard.  

On 3/25/2017 at 7:04 PM, Ygrain said:

Oh, and one more thing: why exactly should Rhaegar and Lyanna, after disregarding practically every single social norm that forbade them to be together, respect the non-polygamy norm?

Perhaps for the same reason men of the Night's Watch visit the brothels in Mole's Town but don't marry the prostitutes.  And the same reason Aegon IV did not marry any of his mistresses.  The swore a vow that prevented it.  

On 3/25/2017 at 7:58 PM, SFDanny said:

Not only is it likely they disregarded all the social norms you indicate, they also have reason to think their child is needed to recreate the three headed dragon. That dragon refers to Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys, the three trueborn children who won the battle for Westeros. Not Aegon,  Rhaenys and Orys Baratheon.

Rhaegar has this powerful reason to buck tradition and marry Lyanna as his second wife, and Lyanna is unlikely to accept being a mistress and her child the life of a bastard. Add to this, the strong indications they loved each other, and it is hard to see why they wouldn't get married. To hell with what Aerys said.

There is no need for Jon to be born legitimate in order to be a dragon.  Daemon Blackfyre (black dragon) and Bloodraven (white dragon) are both bastard-dragons.  And Jon, with his white (instead of gray) dire wolf can be a dire wolf without being a legitimate Stark. 

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

There is no need for Jon to be born legitimate in order to be a dragon.  Daemon Blackfyre (black dragon) and Bloodraven (white dragon) are both bastard-dragons.  And Jon, with his white (instead of gray) dire wolf can be a dire wolf without being a legitimate Stark. 

The three head dragon is the sigil of House Targaryen because it references three specific Targaryens - Aegon the Conqueror, and his two sister wives, Visenya and Rhaenys. The dragonlords of old did not use the heraldic symbols the other kings and lords of Westeros used. This is a symbol of the three siblings and the beginning of their conquest.

When Dany travels through the House of the Undying she sees a vision of Rhaegar with Elia and with the newborn Aegon, and he says the following:

Quote

"Aegon," he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. "What better name for a king?"

"Will you make a song for him?" the woman asked.

"He has a song," the man replied. "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire." He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed sh could not say. "The dragon has three heads." (ACoK 527) bold emphasis added

So the evidence points to Rhaegar trying to recreate Aegon and his sisters in his children as somehow important to the prophecy of the prince who was promised. The reference isn't to the many Targaryens who called themselves "dragons" but to the siblings who established Targaryen rule over Westeros and started the new Westerosi dynasty. He wants to bring back the power, including dragons, of the founders to fight the war of the dawn.

The three founders where all trueborn siblings, although they had a baseborn brother in Orys Baratheon. When Rhaegar tells Elia the dragon has three heads, he isn't talking about Aegon and Rhaenys and a bastard child. He is talking about three of his own trueborn children. That is evidence of a powerful reason Rhaegar would want his child with Lyanna to be trueborn, and why he would look to the traditions of the founders to polygamy to make it happen. Not the only reason, but strong evidence of his motives.

[teej6]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you are a politician you should not allow yourself to be ruled by your emotions. Trump and Erdogan are really stepping on the nerves of Angela Merkel these days. Does that mean she should declare war on Turkey or the United States? No. Jon could have just waited what would happen if ignored Ramsay. Just as he ignored he previous letter.

I mean, it could be that the letter was full of lies, Stannis might be still alive, winning the coming battles, right? Jon may not have died if he had kept a cooler head. And believe it or not, I actually did not want Jon to die. Nor do I want him to suck at his job at the Wall.

Oh, and enjoy the rest of the day. Do something productive. Have fun!

I wouldn't compare today's diplomacy to medieval politics. And besides, Trump and Erdogan aren't threatening to cut out Merkel's heart and eat it. Your argument here is that Jon was impulsive after receiving Ramsay's letter and he probably was. My argument to the poster who said Jon broke his NW vows for Arya was that in answering Ramsay's challenge, he didn't break his NW vows nor did he do it for Arya. In deciding to face Ramsay, he was well within his rights to defend himself and his men. 

[IceFire125]

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

The use of the term "usurper" to describe Robert does not imply that they knew that he sat the Iron Throne.  In AGOT, Varys calls Stannis a "usurper."  In ACOK, Tyrion calls Stannis a "usurper."  Stannis calls Renly a usurper.  Melisandre calls Balon Greyjoy a usurper.  And so on.  

People were looking at Robert as a replacement for Aerys since the Battle of Gulltown.  As long as the KGs knew that a rebellion was underway, they would refer to Robert as a usurper even if they did not know about the Trident or the Sack.  

...

That works both ways.  There is absolutely no plot-relevant reason for Barristan to say that the KGs guard mistresses and bastards if we aren't going to see them guarding a mistress and bastard.  In all the books -- main series, world book, TRP, TPATQ, and Dunk & Egg -- the only candidates so far are Lyanna for the mistress and Jon for the bastard.  

 

Regarding your interpretation about "usurper", I'm not so sure.  The term usurper applies to the fullest in the case with the 3KG at the tower.  Not out of their own, but out of the insistent of a rebel leader, Eddard Stark.

“When King’s Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”

“I came down on Storm’s End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, “and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

It is very clear, from Ned's own mouth, he projected to the 3KG that the oath to their dynasty they swore their vow on has ended.  It was not to Ned that the Lords at Storm's End bend their knees to, but to the leader of the Rebellion that was made clear to be the new king and authority, a person worthy to have knees bend to for fealty.

Again, stop bringing up about KG guarding mistresses and bastards.  Yes maybe during peace time and no wars/battles are being fought.  In a time of chaos and uncertainty, where at any moment the royal family will be killed, ONLY one rule apply! Kingsguard protect the king or protect the heir(s) of the king when possible.

And if you wanna go along that line, guess what, this cancels your presumptions that since it's in the book it should apply as a narrative stance and plot... Targaryens practiced polygamy and had precedent in taking more than one wife.  Why would GRRM insert the line about Aegon marrying Visenya out of duty and Rhaenys out of love/desire?? --- if it won't apply to Rhaegar marrying Elia out of duty and Lyanna out of love. 

 

 

 

[Ygrain]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ok, right.  So, in your scenario, the KG, upon learning that crucial -and quite specific- piece of information, should have immediately left Jon if he wasn't legitimate, right?
And what allows you to assert that they wouldn't have done that, had they won the fight?

What Hightower says is: "The Kingsguard does not flee. [...] We swore a vow." This is very different from saying "The Kingsguard don't have to flee. [...] We swore a vow." Nothing in the text allows you to say that the KG did not intend to join Viserys on Dragonstone eventually.

Others have already replied but perhaps the third time makes the charm. Do with it what you will.

Yes, once they learned, at least one of them should have left for Dragonstone, this would allow them to keep both Rhaegar's orders and their vows. If the dream shows the real sequence of events, then there shouldn't have been three KG but only one or two. If the dream is further from reality, Ned would still fight three KG, but in either scenario, they shouldn't be describing their necessary and legitimate journey to their king as fleeing, nor should they be drawing a parallel to Willem Darry leaving the king's side and saying that they won't do that. 

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

The use of the term "usurper" to describe Robert does not imply that they knew that he sat the Iron Throne.  In AGOT, Varys calls Stannis a "usurper."  In ACOK, Tyrion calls Stannis a "usurper."  Stannis calls Renly a usurper.  Melisandre calls Balon Greyjoy a usurper.  And so on.  

People were looking at Robert as a replacement for Aerys since the Battle of Gulltown.  As long as the KGs knew that a rebellion was underway, they would refer to Robert as a usurper even if they did not know about the Trident or the Sack. 

Oh yeah, I said "might" not "does."
I'm not sure the use of the term "usurper" necessarily means that the KG already know that Robert sits on the IT. But... It's an argument I would have been willing to accept, at least, given the full context.

That such an argument wasn't even used shows to me the quality of this whole exchange. This isn't about people discussing ideas on a theory. This is a bunch of people adamantly presenting their theory as fact while refusing to hear any argument that there are alternative explanations and/or that it's not as simple as they say.

2 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 in either scenario, they shouldn't be describing their necessary and legitimate journey to their king as fleeing,

Perhaps what they describe as "fleeing" is the fact of avoiding a fight... As in "to run away often from danger or evil" which happens to be the literal definition of the verb.
In other words of avoiding to die for their king, which they are no doubt sworn to do.

Which would nicely explain the "then or now" from Dayne of course. They didn't flee to Dragonstone after Rhaegar or Aerys's deaths, but kept obeying their orders instead. And they won't flee now in front of Ned either.

But honestly? At this point I know that your purpose is to affirm, again and again, that Jon MUST be legitimate, regardless of what the text or the facts say. You're not talking about ASOAIF, you're a fangirl defending her pet character and the vision she has of him as the perfect prince.