R+L=J v.165

[SirArthur]

On 9/12/2018 at 1:41 PM, AlaskanSandman said:

Up till that point, it was undecided, and Robert likely was just thinking about Lyanna.

or his head. But never mind, carry on seing Lyanna everywhere...

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The claim of the Targaryen-Baratheon also seems to change over time. Renly doesn't seem to be aware of grandma Rhaelle, for instance. She is first mentioned in AFfC.

But Rhaelle actually gives Robert Baratheon a very strong claim. He is next in line after all the (male) Targaryens alive. That makes him the default claimant and pretender as soon as it becomes clear the rebels want to seat one of their own on the throne.

He doesn't need the claim though. Of the leading rebels, only he and Jon Arryn were Lords at the start of the rebellion. Ned was only a replacement and a second son. And Tywin was too late for the rebels to accept him as king. So it only was between Jon and Robert. 

It is kind of neat that he has female ancestry, but then again the Targaryen rule knows no claim through a female line (which is consitent with the council of 101). Every king in the line has his rights through male lineage. This is also something Dany doesn't understand. 

 

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

He doesn't need the claim though. Of the leading rebels, only he and Jon Arryn were Lords at the start of the rebellion. Ned was only a replacement and a second son. And Tywin was too late for the rebels to accept him as king. So it only was between Jon and Robert. 

It is kind of neat that he has female ancestry, but then again the Targaryen rule knows no claim through a female line (which is consitent with the council of 101). Every king in the line has his rights through male lineage. This is also something Dany doesn't understand. 

That is what changed. He has the strong claim and that's why he became king. He even had 'the stronger claim' in comparison to Ned and Jon back in AGoT when we didn't have any idea about Rhaelle.

The fact that you lead a rebellion and topple a king doesn't make you king. Just look at all the medieval rebellions and uprisings against unjust kings, tyrants, or rulers following 'bad advice'. They may have toppled or severely limited the power of the kings but they did not replace them. 

And while the rebels did win the war it is one thing to win a war and another to make a king that is accepted by all the people. In a society where people are obsessed with blood claims victory in battle isn't enough.

You see what happens if you stress the 'my war hammer is my claim' thing. After Robert's death basically everybody thinks he is king, and even while he was alive Balon tried to do the same thing as Robert.

[SirArthur]

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is what changed. He has the strong claim and that's why he became king. He even had 'the stronger claim' in comparison to Ned and Jon back in AGoT when we didn't have any idea about Rhaelle.

The fact that you lead a rebellion and topple a king doesn't make you king. Just look at all the medieval rebellions and uprisings against unjust kings, tyrants, or rulers following 'bad advice'. They may have toppled or severely limited the power of the kings but they did not replace them. 

 And while the rebels did win the war it is one thing to win a war and another to make a king that is accepted by all the people. In a society where people are obsessed with blood claims victory in battle isn't enough.

You see what happens if you stress the 'my war hammer is my claim' thing. After Robert's death basically everybody thinks he is king, and even while he was alive Balon tried to do the same thing as Robert.

I think we can agree that it doesn`t make him king of the Iron Throne. But we can also agree that he has a male Baratheon line, one that goes back to the rumored half-brother of Aegon. At least to his hand. So while he may not have a Targaryen male line, he still has a male line and can claim a Stormlands kingdom on his own through rebellion. 

And no, I do not agree that everyone thinks he is king. Robb (North), Balon(Isles), Stannis (as oldest brother) and even Renly (Stormlands) have legit claims as kings in their own right (maybe not of the Iron Throne). Joeffrey is the bastard in the room. At the core everyone declared independence from the bastard.

[King Jon Targaryen I]

4 hours ago, SirArthur said:

or his head. But never mind, carry on seing Lyanna everywhere...

 

He doesn't need the claim though. Of the leading rebels, only he and Jon Arryn were Lords at the start of the rebellion. Ned was only a replacement and a second son. And Tywin was too late for the rebels to accept him as king. So it only was between Jon and Robert. 

It is kind of neat that he has female ancestry, but then again the Targaryen rule knows no claim through a female line (which is consitent with the council of 101). Every king in the line has his rights through male lineage. This is also something Dany doesn't understand. 

 

In the case of Dany, well its gonna be thru force if anything. 

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, SirArthur said:

I think we can agree that it doesn`t make him king of the Iron Throne. But we can also agree that he has a male Baratheon line, one that goes back to the rumored half-brother of Aegon. At least to his hand. So while he may not have a Targaryen male line, he still has a male line and can claim a Stormlands kingdom on his own through rebellion.

A man taking a throne by force is the kind of guy Ramsay is right now. He is not 'the Lord of Hornwood' in any way, much less the Lord of Winterfell while there are still children of Lord Eddard around.

Robert could have killed a hundred Rhaegars on the Trident, it didn't make him king. Just as him not killing Rhaegar wouldn't have stopped him becoming king if the rebels had won - thanks to his claim via his descent from Princess Rhaelle.

The whole Orys Baratheon thing doesn't come up in any discussion of Robert's claim.

7 hours ago, SirArthur said:

And no, I do not agree that everyone thinks he is king. Robb (North), Balon(Isles), Stannis (as oldest brother) and even Renly (Stormlands) have legit claims as kings in their own right (maybe not of the Iron Throne). Joeffrey is the bastard in the room. At the core everyone declared independence from the bastard.

I was using hyperbole here. But it is clear that the fraying of the Realm after Robert's death is due to the way Robert himself took the throne as well as how he justified it (war hammer). Back during the Dance or the days of Maegor nobody tried to secede from the Iron Throne. We all expected there to be some secessionist kings, etc. when the first excerpt of TPatQ showed up mentioning other kings aside from Rhaenyra and Aegon II. But that didn't happen. And there is a reason for this.

[Magnar, P.I.]

So I don't know if this thread has gotten a little off-topic or if I'm circling back to an old point (as there are 35 pages in this discussion and I'm not going that far back to check) however this all makes me think about Jon's potential claim to the Iron Throne if the books go in the same direction as the show with R/L/J. I feel like people view this as the twist that will explode the whole story when finally revealed. But if it's true, then how good is his claim, really? In this system of patrilineal succession, there's always room for debate, and I don't think Jon has much going for him in this regard. 

Put another way; if Jon were the trueborn son of Lyanna and Rhaegar, would that make him the "rightful king?" I don't think so... if he wants that he's going to have to take it by force, something that would be rather out of character for Jon. 

Currently the throne is held, at least legally and officially, by the Baratheons. Yes this is legitimized after the rebellion using a Targ ancestor of Robert's, however one could hardly argue that this alone makes Robert the heir over Viserys or Dany. In this case might has made right, Robert was the most powerful warrior and renowned military leader of the rebellion, hence they interpreted the rules to fit him. Still, inheritance works the same as ever, through the bloodline which Jon would now be on the wrong side of legally. I suppose given that common ancestor you could argue that Jon would be somewhere in this line, but below all trueborn Baratheon males at the least. 

If Jon wants to be king he he'll have to get it the same way as Robert or Aegon or Harren the Black- through conquest. Armies beat bloodlines every time. And if Robert isn't the rightful king because he took the crown, then neither is Aegon the Conqueror and his descendants (including Jon if we assume R+L=J) , or any of the Andal kings in their day who invaded the First Men, who themselves stole the land of the Children of the Forest. 

This of course leads to an important question- what would be the point of Jon being Rhaegar and Lyanna's trueborn heir? Given that we're all expecting it, maybe it's to set us up for some kind of trope smash, like Jon being the "true heir" but still dying and getting turned into a wight or something. Otherwise I'm not sure. One of the universal themes of the story is the inherent problems of feudalism, nationalism, patriarchy and nepotism and the tragedy they cause. If Jon is going to be the perfect Ken-doll superhero with the secret lineage then the story would be glorifying those things, a sudden and major change in direction for GRRM. 

[The Twinslayer]

20 hours ago, Ran said:

Both of the people who submitted those statements are very trustworthy, long-time members of the forums who also participated in the BwB. And these were providing comments on the same signing they both attended, so they're corroborative reports as well. (In fact, there's a third report from Huntington Beach as well, and while it touches on different aspects, I know that there was never any issues any of the three raised with one another's reports when they were made on the forum, beyond Aegon adding extra detail to BH's report.)

Many SSMs from signings and Q&As had duplicates or had more than one person confirm details, and often they came from people with long histories of trust in the community.

Thank you, Ran.  That is useful information.  The fact that you personally know the people who made these reports, and you are willing to say so here, satisfies me that GRRM probably said something along these lines.  As I said a little earlier on this thread, it is good to know that Ran has done some sleuthing on some of the SSMs.

But that does not really solve the problem the SSMs present.  When I read them, in most cases, I don't get any indication of who submitted them.  You indicated that one of these reports came from someone calling him or herself "Aegon."  But there is no way to tell that from the SSM:  I have to (and am willing to) take your word for it.  And I have to (and am willing to) take your word for it that you think "Aegon" is a reliable reporter. 

But if I just read through the SSMs without your assistance, for most of them I can't even see the avatar-name the reporter has given him or herself, much less know who the person behind the name is.  And there is no way you could go through the hundreds of SSMs to tell us which reporters you find credible and which you don't.  

Even where we conclude that an SSM is an accurate report of what GRRM said, there are still problems with drawing conclusions from the SSM.  Has GRRM given a lot of thought to the question before, or is he just trying to please a fan by having a ready answer (especially during the early days)?  Did GRRM say this at one time and then change his mind?  Is it possible that GRRM might change his mind about this some time in the future?  

My point is just that the SSMs should be taken with a grain of salt.  At best, they reflect whatever GRRM was thinking about at the time, which may be subject to change (e.g., the five-year gap).  At worst, they could reflect fans attributing to GRRM things he never said (either deliberately or by accident).  

[Eric George]

I suppose it basically comes down to the question of legitimacy when concerning a contender for the Iron Throne. Whether said contender claims the right to rule through blood such as is often the case, popular vote courtesy of the Great Council, or the classical fallback of bloody conquest if not a combination of all three. Pretty obvious I know but sometimes you just have to put it out there.

[Bael's Bastard]

8 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Thank you, Ran.  That is useful information.  The fact that you personally know the people who made these reports, and you are willing to say so here, satisfies me that GRRM probably said something along these lines.  As I said a little earlier on this thread, it is good to know that Ran has done some sleuthing on some of the SSMs.

But that does not really solve the problem the SSMs present.  When I read them, in most cases, I don't get any indication of who submitted them.  You indicated that one of these reports came from someone calling him or herself "Aegon."  But there is no way to tell that from the SSM:  I have to (and am willing to) take your word for it.  And I have to (and am willing to) take your word for it that you think "Aegon" is a reliable reporter. 

But if I just read through the SSMs without your assistance, for most of them I can't even see the avatar-name the reporter has given him or herself, much less know who the person behind the name is.  And there is no way you could go through the hundreds of SSMs to tell us which reporters you find credible and which you don't.  

Even where we conclude that an SSM is an accurate report of what GRRM said, there are still problems with drawing conclusions from the SSM.  Has GRRM given a lot of thought to the question before, or is he just trying to please a fan by having a ready answer (especially during the early days)?  Did GRRM say this at one time and then change his mind?  Is it possible that GRRM might change his mind about this some time in the future?  

My point is just that the SSMs should be taken with a grain of salt.  At best, they reflect whatever GRRM was thinking about at the time, which may be subject to change (e.g., the five-year gap).  At worst, they could reflect fans attributing to GRRM things he never said (either deliberately or by accident).  

It's your prerogative to take SSMs with a grain of salt. Just don't expect others to see it the same way you do, or your take to convince others to see it the same way as you. You can go on and on about why you take them with a grain of salt, or why you discount an SSM because it changed a detail inconsequential to the gist of the SSM. But people are intelligent enough to take into account the context of an SSM to determine for themselves how relevant it still is or how irrelevant it has become. The five year gap is obviously didn't make it into the series. Ashara as Elia's lady companion at least up to the end of 281 AC obviously did.

[SirArthur]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I was using hyperbole here. But it is clear that the fraying of the Realm after Robert's death is due to the way Robert himself took the throne as well as how he justified it (war hammer). Back during the Dance or the days of Maegor nobody tried to secede from the Iron Throne. We all expected there to be some secessionist kings, etc. when the first excerpt of TPatQ showed up mentioning other kings aside from Rhaenyra and Aegon II. But that didn't happen. And there is a reason for this.

Hmm. I'm circling back and forth and around Duskendale and later Aerys demand of Ned's head. Short of killing the king or secession, there is not much I can think of, that demands a head. More or less the only possible secessions are from any of the lord paramounts. 

And that happened to Robert during Greyjoy's rebellion. I would say there was a balance of power that Aerys destroyed. 

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

A basic flaw that I find with R+L=J is you do not have a character like Lyanna acting too out of character .

Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna , then after Ned finds her . he returns to Winerfell with Jon at that point R+L=J WORKS for me, but when add Lyanna little monologue about Robert and fidelity to Ned and then her actions at the Harrenhal tourney  . Led me to believe that this is not a woman-child who would have relationships with a married man.

 

[Bael's Bastard]

4 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

A basic flaw that I find with R+L=J is you do not have a character like Lyanna acting too out of character .

Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna , then after Ned finds her . he returns to Winerfell with Jon at that point R+L=J WORKS for me, but when add Lyanna little monologue about Robert and fidelity to Ned and then her actions at the Harrenhal tourney  . Led me to believe that this is not a woman-child who would have relationships with a married man.

That doesn't make any sense. R+L=J simply means that Jon was born to Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Now, many people have good book based reasons to believe that there was a consensual relationship at some point, and even consensual marriage, between Rhaegar and Lyanna, and that Jon was born within the confines of that relationship and marriage.

But the basic theory that Jon was born to Rhaegar and Lyanna does not require any more or any less than that.

R+L=J if Jon was born to an unwed Lyanna that was raped against her will by Rhaegar.

R+L=J if Jon was born to a wed Lyanna that was forced to wed and raped against her will by Rhaegar.

R=L=J if Jon was born to a wed or unwed Lyanna/Rhaegar with a mutual sexual attraction and nothing more.

R+L=J if Jon was born to a wed or unwed Lyanna/Rhaegar that were in love.

R+L=J if Jon was born to a wed or unwed Lyanna/Rhaegar that were on some prophecy trip.

All that said, Lyanna is a young human being, and is more than capable of being a hypocrite, or of trying to justify why she might love or want to wed a marriage Rhaegar despite nor loving or wanting to wed an unmarried but whoring Robert.

[Geddus]

On 9/13/2018 at 2:44 PM, SirArthur said:

Of the leading rebels, only he and Jon Arryn were Lords at the start of the rebellion. Ned was only a replacement and a second son. And Tywin was too late for the rebels to accept him as king. So it only was between Jon and Robert. 

Ned was already Lord Stark when the rebellion started.

[King Jon Targaryen I]

On 8/2/2018 at 11:54 PM, Ygrain said:

Well, one would think that Lyanna's abduction, since it was supposedly the reason why Brandon did what he did, might at least get a honorable mention.

Besides, note how Cat says that "Brandon heard about Lyanna", but doesn't specify what it was he heard.

There's definitely more to the story, I agree, but Catelyn doesn't seem angered or surprised by the line, she merely carries on. 

"It was a rash thing to do.” She remembered how her own father had raged when the news had been brought to Riverrun. The gallant fool, was what he called Brandon.

Your beliefs seem to clash with the characters' assessment of Brandon's action, and you are forgetting that Brandon is the guy who nearly came to blows with Rhaegar over Lyanna's crowning as a stain on her honour. Her abduction/elopement, which practically meant sex with Rhaegar, was a far worse "offence", and Brandon wouldn't need to be unreasonably angry to want to avenge it.

There is also the matter of the curious word choice in Hoster's reaction - was "gallant" meant as "brave", or as "chivalrous"?

 

There's the need for an explanation why Brandon went to look for Rhaegar in KL when Rhaegar wasn't there. It was hardly a secret that Rhaegar's seat was Dragonstone and that he and Aerys were not on best terms.

Pretty late in terms of the response but you do have a point there, Brandon would've have known the crown prince usually was on Dragonstone, for all we know Rhaegar could've gone to Dragonstone with Lyanna and then to Dorne. But hey that is speculation we don't know. Brandon going to KL is rather odd as all he need to do is head to Dragonstone.

[Stuart Littlefinger]

I wouldn't usually get involved in this discussion but I'm on my third full re-read (well, I've actually read them twice and I'm audiobooking it this time) and came across a little quote in Chapter 22 of A Game of Thrones Arya, which I thought to be of some significance:

"Ah, Arya. You have a wildness in you, child. ‘The wolf blood,' my father used to call it. Lyanna had a touch of it, and my brother Brandon more than a touch. It brought them both to an early grave." 

This little slip by Ned seems to suggest that it was Lyanna's own actions that got her into her situation and brought her to an early grave. It seems to me that this pretty much confirms Ned knows she wasn't a victim, and wasn't just simply forcefully kidnapped and raped by Rhaegar.

 

And another slightly unrelated thing for all those Rhaegar is still alive theories out there. I remember in an earlier chapter Robert saying he killed Rhaegar "only once" 

[Ygrain]

18 hours ago, Stuart Littlefinger said:

This little slip by Ned seems to suggest that it was Lyanna's own actions that got her into her situation and brought her to an early grave. It seems to me that this pretty much confirms Ned knows she wasn't a victim, and wasn't just simply forcefully kidnapped and raped by Rhaegar.

Indeed :-)

There are a couple other similar instances, such as Ned mentioning that Rhaegar named the place "tower of joy", which is rather weird for a rape place unless one is called Ramsay, or when Robert's whoring brings Ned to musing whether Rhaegar possessed the same vice, which equals to comparing Lyanna's betrothed with her rapist, and that would be one hell of weird thinking on Ned's part.

 

18 hours ago, Stuart Littlefinger said:

And another slightly unrelated thing for all those Rhaegar is still alive theories out there. I remember in an earlier chapter Robert saying he killed Rhaegar "only once" 

Not sure which way you are leaning here, but GRRM's response to what happened with Rhaegar's corpse was "he was cremated, as is traditional for fallen Targaryens." This, of course, brings about the question who called the shots to honor Rhaegar like that because it couldn't have been Robert. Methinks, the answer is Ned, and that would constitute another clue, IMHO.

On 9/18/2018 at 7:07 PM, King Jon Targaryen I said:

Pretty late in terms of the response but you do have a point there, Brandon would've have known the crown prince usually was on Dragonstone, for all we know Rhaegar could've gone to Dragonstone with Lyanna and then to Dorne. But hey that is speculation we don't know. Brandon going to KL is rather odd as all he need to do is head to Dragonstone.

I hope that when TWOW come at the long last, we'll get some an infodump on the events preceding the Robellion, it's definitely long overdue.

[King Jon Targaryen I]

39 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Indeed :-)

There are a couple other similar instances, such as Ned mentioning that Rhaegar named the place "tower of joy", which is rather weird for a rape place unless one is called Ramsay, or when Robert's whoring brings Ned to musing whether Rhaegar possessed the same vice, which equals to comparing Lyanna's betrothed with her rapist, and that would be one hell of weird thinking on Ned's part.

 

Not sure which way you are leaning here, but GRRM's response to what happened with Rhaegar's corpse was "he was cremated, as is traditional for fallen Targaryens." This, of course, brings about the question who called the shots to honor Rhaegar like that because it couldn't have been Robert. Methinks, the answer is Ned, and that would constitute another clue, IMHO.

I hope that when TWOW come at the long last, we'll get some an infodump on the events preceding the Robellion, it's definitely long overdue.

Could agree more with that, some of the things about Robert's Rebellion just doesn't add up. I have pondered if Lyanna ever went to Dragonstone first before heading to Dorne for the TOJ but it's pure speculation on my part. Dragonstone I feel is an important location imo for Dany as I have speculated that is where Dany will land when she arrives in Westeros. In relation to Rhaegar I wouldnt be surprised if he stopped by there and I wondered what was Elias interaction over it.  

[Slaver's Dread]

The only question I'm looking forward to having answered is who told Brandon that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna.

[Ygrain]

8 hours ago, Slaver's Dread said:

The only question I'm looking forward to having answered is who told Brandon that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna.

And what they told. Because we only know  that Brandon "heard about Lyanna". If he heard, say, that she left a letter saying "screw Robert, I'm leaving with Rhaegar because I love him and will become his second wife", I can imagine that Brandon would still be pretty miffed and consider Rhaegar a seducer who filled his sister's head with bullshit to get into her pants.

 

 

 

[The Sleeper]

Just to put things into perspective taking a minor without her family's permission, even with said minor's consent or even complicity, still counts as a kidnapping in any context.