Jump to content

Killing an old R+L=J/Kingsguard theory off for good: Fire & Blood


The Twinslayer

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Other reason that would still keep the story both compelling and logical? Nope, there's not. The "they just followed orders, nothing to see here, move on" variant makes it all bland and irrelevant, and I reject it simply because GRRM is not a shitty writer. (Lazy, though... that's another story).

Apples to oranges. Willis Fell wasn't three knights, who had lot of possibilities open for them, like splitting forces (Ser Willis physically couldn't). We don't have a POV character remembering Willis Fell boasting about how incredibly proud he was of his assignment. We don't know if there had been a situation when Aegon II was deprived of KG protection and Ser Willis was aware of that status quo. And Ser Willis is a footnote in tie-in material, not some legendary hero worshiped by a few central characters of the books. So, apples and dragons, really.

Nothing else can be compelling or logical to you besides the 3 KG crowned a infant as their King. Not swearing a vow to protect Lyanna and the baby no matter, not abandoning Lyanna and a trueborn baby  who are members of the Targaryen royal family and etc. Anything other then King baby Jon is bland and irrelevant to you, really? Do you feel it takes away from Jon's story if he wasn't crowned King as a baby? Does it take anything away from the last stand of the 3 KG, if they didn't crown Jon King?  Willis Fell is the closet example of the KG at the ToJ we have, no? He never returned to Aegon ll and never abandoned Jaehaera after Aegon ll  death and never crowned Jaehaera as his Queen. I used Willis Fell as a example when someone said that KG don't follow a dead Kings orders and KG go to their choosen King after their former King dies. What member of the KG at the ToJ was boosting about how proud he was of his assignment and who's POV is it in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2019 at 7:25 AM, Maia said:

No, not anymore. FaB proves that the KG could be guarding lesser members of the royal family instead of the king, even when the king was at risk.

 

Again, apples to oranges.  The overall political an military situations are different circumstances.  The notion that the Kingsgaurd must behave exactly the same in response to different situations is silly.  They are fully capable of exercising judgment about the overall political and military situation, in fact it's part of the job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no first or second or third, etc. duties of the Kingsguard. There is only one. Do as you are told. By the king or his representatives - which can be the queen, the Hand, other royal family, and clubfooted councilmen. The fact that you are allowed to call yourself 'Kingsguard' doesn't mean you actually have a right to guard the king.

No.  They swear to server the crown, not "blind obedience to random court officials ".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lomiller said:

No.  They swear to server the crown, not "blind obedience to random court officials ".

Then why did all KG go along with Maegor the Cruel's usurpation? Why did no KG openly contradict Criston Cole's stance on the succession of Viserys I?

These people do oversee the protection of the king, but they are not independent in this endeavor. They are told how to protect the king by others, people who run the show - if they allowed to do that and are not used for other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Nothing else can be compelling or logical to you besides the 3 KG crowned a infant as their King.

Frankly, no.

15 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Not swearing a vow to protect Lyanna and the baby no matter, not abandoning Lyanna and a trueborn baby  who are members of the Targaryen royal family and etc. Anything other then King baby Jon is bland and irrelevant to you, really?

Present something that isn't, and I'll reconsider. But I'm afraid that it can't be done, considering the countless failed attempts. (No, "they just followed orders" does not make a good story).

15 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

Do you feel it takes away from Jon's story if he wasn't crowned King as a baby?

Not in the slightest, it has been completely irrelevant. In all that matters, Jon Snow is the son of Ned Stark.

But there's that fat guy in New Mexico, and he wrote a story where Jon Snow at least has strong enough a claim to the Iron Throne to nail Ser Arthur Dayne ("the finest knight I ever saw" & co. ("marvel, a shining lesson to the world") firmly to the floor at the Tower of Joy. It's his story, and his intent is what I'm talking about.

You don't like the solution? That's perfectly fine. I, for example, feel seriously underwhelmed by the solution of the "who hired Bran's would-be-assassin" mystery, but it was Joffrey and it's pointless proving that it was, say, Littlefinger.

15 hours ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

What member of the KG at the ToJ was boosting about how proud he was of his assignment and who's POV is it in?

I don't know whether it's a serious question or a rhetorical one, either way it indicates I'm wasting time here, mine and yours alike. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Present something that isn't, and I'll reconsider. But I'm afraid that it can't be done, considering the countless failed attempts. (No, "they just followed orders" does not make a good story).

This isn't an argument. Your opinion on what 'a good story' is, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are discussing facts, your (or anyone's) tastes, nor do we discuss what constitutes a good or a bad story.

But even if we were doing that, there is little to no story to this entire Kingsguard thing there. This is just background detail. For plot purposes we have to get some information about Jon Snow's parentage, but we don't need all the details. George could completely drop the dream stuff and still give us all the plot details we need to understand his story.

2 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

But there's that fat guy in New Mexico, and he wrote a story where Jon Snow at least has strong enough a claim to the Iron Throne to nail Ser Arthur Dayne ("the finest knight I ever saw" & co. ("marvel, a shining lesson to the world") firmly to the floor at the Tower of Joy. It's his story, and his intent is what I'm talking about.

In the story George is telling Ser Arthur Dayne did not move his ass to save his king, and instead was nailed to a woman who was either a hostage, a whore, a mistress, or the secondary wife of a royal prince. If a Kingsguard should be with the king, Lyanna Stark was not worthy to receive Kingsguard protection. And yet she is the one who got it, not some unborn infant.

Oh, wait, Barristan Selmy told us that in George's story and world pretty much anyone can get KG protection. What does this tell us about KG being with people who aren't the king? That the king or his representatives decided they are worthy of KG protection no matter who or what they are.

2 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

You don't like the solution? That's perfectly fine. I, for example, feel seriously underwhelmed by the solution of the "who hired Bran's would-be-assassin" mystery, but it was Joffrey and it's pointless proving that it was, say, Littlefinger.

Again, this is not about your personal taste and opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

This isn't an argument. Your opinion on what 'a good story' is, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. We are discussing facts,

We are not. We're discussing a story. Which, unlike facts, is written with narrative purpose. Treating the pages of ASoIAF as, I don't know, evidence in a real-world criminal case, results of measurements in an real-world experiment, or any other kind of facts, is an awful methodological error.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But even if we were doing that, there is little to no story to this entire Kingsguard thing there. This is just background detail. For plot purposes we have to get some information about Jon Snow's parentage, but we don't need all the details. George could completely drop the dream stuff and still give us all the plot details we need to understand his story.

Yet he did not! Thank you, my lord. He wrote it with great love and care.

You're actually inventing alternative books by GRRM ("could completely drop the dream stuff") now. Seems George's books don't fit, how you call them, facts as well as you'd like. ;)

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, this is not about your personal taste and opinion.

That is true. It's about GRRM's personal taste and opinion. Not mine and neither yours.

It is perfectly obvious, for you and me alike, that the "true heir to the throne" trope was what GRRM was after, when he created Jon Snow's backstory. It's not that I like this trope, it's that he did at least in the 1990s and at least while writing the story. You don't like it, I'm not all that fond of it, either, but what's the point in denial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

We are not. We're discussing a story. Which, unlike facts, is written with narrative purpose. Treating the pages of ASoIAF as, I don't know, evidence in a real-world criminal case, results of measurements in an real-world experiment, or any other kind of facts, is an awful methodological error.

I assume you just pretend to not understand. Of course fictional stuff aren't 'facts'. But there are, on the fictional level, various meta-levels. Some things are facts within the fictional framework - like characters that *exist* in the story, and events that take place there - and then there are other things that are not such facts.

Your interpretation and taste and personal opinions do not matter when we discuss how the Kingsguard behaves in this world. This is not longer a matter of speculation and interpretation, it is a matter of comparison. We can compare the guys at the tower now to remarkable number of KG in rather similar circumstances and use this broad body of knowledge to make pretty good judgments.

Dragging in personal opinions about good stories has nothing to do with the matter discussed. Especially not when you decide to speak for the author or understand his intentions when writing certain things.

Quote

Yet he did not! Thank you, my lord. He wrote it with great love and care.

He wrote a lot of stuff with great love and care - and all the stuff that's not a fever dream counts more than fever dream stuff. But then, what do I know? Perhaps Rhaegar Targaryen and the dead Kingsguard really haunt the bowels of Casterly Rock...

Quote

It is perfectly obvious, for you and me alike, that the "true heir to the throne" trope was what GRRM was after, when he created Jon Snow's backstory. It's not that I like this trope, it's that he did at least in the 1990s and at least while writing the story. You don't like it, I'm not all that fond of it, either, but what's the point in denial?

LOL, no. George never used 'the true heir to the throne' trope. He goes by the bad fantasy cliché that there is a hidden prince/descendant of royal blood who doesn't know anything about that, but the world he has created has no place for 'true heirs to the throne'.

That is crystal clear to everybody who has read the series.

If George wanted to send the message that kingship and successions and the like are clear in this world, then he wouldn't have written a series about people killing each other to determine who has a right to sit on the throne. He would also not have sent the messages that kings have to go through certain rituals to become kings.

If there is a 'true heir to the Iron Throne' it is Prince Aegon right now. He presumes to be the firstborn son of Prince Rhaegar, the last male Targaryen alive. If the author wanted to send the message that there are true kings out there, that people actually believe when this or that guy who stands before you in the line of succession dies you become 'the king', then Connington, Haldon, Lemore, and the Golden Company would refer to this youth not as 'Prince Aegon' but rather as King Aegon VI.

Do they do that? No. Case closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2019 at 5:50 PM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. George never used 'the true heir to the throne' trope. He goes by the bad fantasy cliché that there is a hidden prince/descendant of royal blood who doesn't know anything about that, but the world he has created has no place for 'true heirs to the throne'.

That is crystal clear to everybody who has read the series.

If George wanted to send the message that kingship and successions and the like are clear in this world, then he wouldn't have written a series about people killing each other to determine who has a right to sit on the throne. He would also not have sent the messages that kings have to go through certain rituals to become kings.

Ok, so what did Martin actually write about his world?  Well, his "world" focuses a lot on Jon Snow.  So I'm not sure he should be equally compared to anybody else in terms of how candidates usually achieve rule in his world.  Jon Snow has survived multiple occasions when he should have died due to the miraculous intervention of his magical direwolf.  Jon Snow was elected Lord Commander with literally magical intervention as the final PR push.  Jon Snow is most likely going to be resurrected - something I believe you agree on last time I checked. 

There's only one other character that gets the special treatment Jon Snow does, and that's Daenerys.  The author is telling us they are special.  Accordingly, that means @Ferocious Veldt Roarer is entirely correct when he says that the only reason those 3 KG stayed there is because they were there to protect Jon.  Narratively, no other reason would be satisfactory for why it was included in the first place.  The guy on the street gets this before the dude who's been obsessed with arguing about this for decades.

Does that mean they were protecting Jon because he was "king" or even the heir apparent?  No.  Could just be because Rhaegar said protect my baby and they did so because they respected him.  I don't see why it matters either way, the difference isn't going to affect anything going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Ok, so what did Martin actually write about his world?  Well, his "world" focuses a lot on Jon Snow.  So I'm not sure he should be equally compared to anybody else in terms of how candidates usually achieve rule in his world.  Jon Snow has survived multiple occasions when he should have died due to the miraculous intervention of his magical direwolf.  Jon Snow was elected Lord Commander with literally magical intervention as the final PR push.  Jon Snow is most likely going to be resurrected - something I believe you agree on last time I checked. 

This doesn't mean he was born 'the rightful king', not that the men there believed he was 'the rightful king'. It just means that Jon Snow is one of the main characters of this series. And nobody ever doubted that. But I daresay that other main characters like Tyrion get special treatment, too. Only Jon seems to become a resurrected fellow, but aside from that Tyrion's magical surviving of a number of battles is rather striking.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

There's only one other character that gets the special treatment Jon Snow does, and that's Daenerys.  The author is telling us they are special.  Accordingly, that means @Ferocious Veldt Roarer is entirely correct when he says that the only reason those 3 KG stayed there is because they were there to protect Jon.  Narratively, no other reason would be satisfactory for why it was included in the first place.  The guy on the street gets this before the dude who's been obsessed with arguing about this for decades.

Well, I don't know. If Lyanna was in the tower, too, then they may (also) have been there to protect her, no? After all, they would have been assigned to her, not some child who wasn't even born yet when Rhaegar left, no?

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Does that mean they were protecting Jon because he was "king" or even the heir apparent?  No.  Could just be because Rhaegar said protect my baby and they did so because they respected him.  I don't see why it matters either way, the difference isn't going to affect anything going forward.

It apparently matters a lot to a certain group of people who cannot accept any other interpretation of events there but the one where the infant child is 'the rightful king' - despite the fact that such an interpretation goes against pretty much everything we know about kingship and succession and the behavior of the Kingsguard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This doesn't mean he was born 'the rightful king', not that the men there believed he was 'the rightful king'.

Right, that's why I said it didn't later in the post.

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I don't know. If Lyanna was in the tower, too, then they may (also) have been there to protect her, no? After all, they would have been assigned to her, not some child who wasn't even born yet when Rhaegar left, no?

But this is ignoring context.  If all they had to do was protect Lyanna, clearly they could have been mobile, no?  They stayed there because she apparently was not - otherwise I don't know why you'd stay there - which necessarily means they stayed there because of the baby.  Lyanna too, yeah, but the baby is the key variable.

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It apparently matters a lot to a certain group of people who cannot accept any other interpretation of events there but the one where the infant child is 'the rightful king' - despite the fact that such an interpretation goes against pretty much everything we know about kingship and succession and the behavior of the Kingsguard.

I dunno, not sure how many people here are saying Jon is inherently the "rightful king" because of this.  I agree that's not necessarily the case.  Just that it seems like you're posturing as "it means nothing," when clearly it does mean something -- and clearly that something is about Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

But this is ignoring context.  If all they had to do was protect Lyanna, clearly they could have been mobile, no?  They stayed there because she apparently was not - otherwise I don't know why you'd stay there - which necessarily means they stayed there because of the baby.  Lyanna too, yeah, but the baby is the key variable.

So you think a pregnant woman/woman weak from pregnancy would have been easier to move than a newborn infant? I don't buy that, unless we assume the child was sick and weak after its birth, too - but there is no indication that it was.

If Lyanna and the child were at the tower when Ned found them there they were there because of Lyanna - and only Lyanna - because she could not be moved to some other place without killing her.

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

I dunno, not sure how many people here are saying Jon is inherently the "rightful king" because of this.  I agree that's not necessarily the case.  Just that it seems like you're posturing as "it means nothing," when clearly it does mean something -- and clearly that something is about Jon.

When I say 'it means nothing' then I say it means nothing in relation to political statements about the status of the child. It, of course, means that it is very likely that the people protected there were part of the (extended) royal family, i.e. Lyanna was a either a royal mistress or Rhaegar's wife which would her and her child entitle to KG protection.

I don't think those men would have agreed to protect/guard/whatever Lyanna if she hadn't been very important for Rhaegar - and not just in a 'hostage sense'. Then they would have likely either insisted he find some other gaolers for her, or they would have found such men themselves after he had left - and would have then returned to court to attend their king (or Rhaegar).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

So you think a pregnant woman/woman weak from pregnancy would have been easier to move than a newborn infant? I don't buy that, unless we assume the child was sick and weak after its birth, too - but there is no indication that it was.

First off, what's with the "woman/woman" thing?  That was pretty funny.  Secondly, no, I think her pregnancy necessarily meant Rhaegar and/or the KG were most concerned about protecting the baby.  Because that's what the story is about.  If Lyanna wasn't having a baby, the story would be fundamentally different.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If Lyanna and the child were at the tower when Ned found them there they were there because of Lyanna - and only Lyanna - because she could not be moved to some other place without killing her.

Yes, again, why could she not be moved?  The key independent variable is always the baby, no matter how you argue it.  Which means, if you think that baby is Jon, that that means Jon's birth is important narratively.  If it wasn't, we wouldn't have gotten Ned's dream.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think those men would have agreed to protect/guard/whatever Lyanna if she hadn't been very important for Rhaegar - and not just in a 'hostage sense'.

Ok.  I think that's good to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

First off, what's with the "woman/woman" thing?  That was pretty funny.  Secondly, no, I think her pregnancy necessarily meant Rhaegar and/or the KG were most concerned about protecting the baby.  Because that's what the story is about.  If Lyanna wasn't having a baby, the story would be fundamentally different.

That was me pointing out that there would have been at first a pregnant woman to protect and then a woman who had recently given birth and her infant child.

You cannot give 'what the story is about' as a justification here. The stories we have read set in this world have confirmed that people who are not born as members of the royal family - i.e. queens, for instance - also do enjoy KG protection. The fact that the KG are there can - and should - be seen as much (or even more, considering we have more hints that Lyanna was with them than that a baby was there) in relation to Lyanna as it is to her child. Because as Rhaegar's mistress or wife she had just as much right to KG protection as a prince or bastard child.

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, again, why could she not be moved?  The key independent variable is always the baby, no matter how you argue it.  Which means, if you think that baby is Jon, that that means Jon's birth is important narratively.  If it wasn't, we wouldn't have gotten Ned's dream.

Because she may have been dying? And because her pregnancy may have troubled her so much that the men protecting her came to the conclusion they could not move her without risking her death or the death of the child or both? Or because she herself decided she would not be moved? We don't know who was in charge there at this point. Lyanna was a woman grown when she died, which means she could have actually commanded her sworn shields - if they were her sworn shields and not her gaolers.

If she was not prisoner as well as Rhaegar's lover/wife chances are pretty high that they didn't spend the entire war in that stupid tower. If that were so then they may have been on route to some other place when they decided to take refuge at that place for some reason, perhaps because Lyanna feared for the life of her child should it be born at some castle where the risk was not that low that people would learn about its existence and decide to tell Robert and/or sell it to him - or kill it for him.

At this point we have no idea how long they hung out at the tower.

The dream as such is not very important. It is more about Ned's feelings and fears than it is about Jon. Jon's parentage certainly is going to play a not exactly irrelevant part in the overall narrative, but we have to wait and see how important his parentage is in relation to his personality and actions. I'd say the latter is much more important than the former.

As for moving the child - that should have been easily doable, don't you think? They could have abandoned the dying Lyanna and ridden away with the infant. That they did not sort of implies that Lyanna Stark may have been actually more important to them than the child. After all, if she was Rhaegar Targaryen's true love then she may have been much more important than any child she may give birth to, at least while she was still healthy and fertile considering that she could give Rhaegar more children.

Granted, we don't know whether the child was already born when Ned arrived - could have been that it just happened right then and there while the men were fighting outside. Then Lyanna may have been feverish before the birth already, and she may have died because the birth caused her to bleed out. Could also be the child was already days or even weeks old and Lyanna only died a very slow death. Could be the child was born at some other place and they only made halt at the tower for Lyanna to die there - at the place Rhaegar for some reason named 'the tower of joy'.

We don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You cannot give 'what the story is about' as a justification here. The stories we have read set in this world have confirmed that people who are not born as members of the royal family - i.e. queens, for instance - also do enjoy KG protection. The fact that the KG are there can - and should - be seen as much (or even more, considering we have more hints that Lyanna was with them than that a baby was there) in relation to Lyanna as it is to her child. Because as Rhaegar's mistress or wife she had just as much right to KG protection as a prince or bastard child.

I can give 'what the story is about' as justification here.  And will continue to, because it is the only thing that ultimately matters.  Why is Lyanna's death so important to the story?  Because she had a baby.  Do you disagree with that?  If not, then that means that Ned's memory of Lyanna's death is necessarily about that baby.  Anything else would be bad storytelling.  And that's why 'what this story is about' is the exact right justification.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If she was not prisoner as well as Rhaegar's lover/wife chances are pretty high that they didn't spend the entire war in that stupid tower.

Then where did they spend it?

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

At this point we have no idea how long they hung out at the tower.

At this point you're trying my patience for overthinking this thing.  My point is the baby is the point of including Lyanna's story.  All you've said thus far just reinforces that.

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The dream as such is not very important.

The dream is not important?  The dream is almost literally all we have.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is more about Ned's feelings and fears than it is about Jon.

Ned's feelings and fears are informed by Jon, and indeed literally entail Jon.  Or do you not think 'promise me Ned' pertains to Jon?

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon's parentage certainly is going to play a not exactly irrelevant part in the overall narrative, but we have to wait and see how important his parentage is in relation to his personality and actions. I'd say the latter is much more important than the former.

I'd say his parentage is quite obviously really important considering the author set it up as the main mystery of the story.  That everybody figured it out so quick doesn't change that.

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

As for moving the child - that should have been easily doable, don't you think? They could have abandoned the dying Lyanna and ridden away with the infant.

Sure, if they were dicks.

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That they did not sort of implies that Lyanna Stark may have been actually more important to them than the child.

No it doesn't.  It just means they weren't dicks and weren't gonna abandon Rhaegar's wife and/or lover while she was dying.

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

After all, if she was Rhaegar Targaryen's true love then she may have been much more important than any child she may give birth to, at least while she was still healthy and fertile considering that she could give Rhaegar more children.

After Rhaegar is dead there's no reason why it matters how he felt about her, other than the KGs' sense of decency.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Could be the child was born at some other place and they only made halt at the tower for Lyanna to die there - at the place Rhaegar for some reason named 'the tower of joy'.

This possibility seems outlandish and nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

I can give 'what the story is about' as justification here.  And will continue to, because it is the only thing that ultimately matters.  Why is Lyanna's death so important to the story?  Because she had a baby.  Do you disagree with that?  If not, then that means that Ned's memory of Lyanna's death is necessarily about that baby.  Anything else would be bad storytelling.  And that's why 'what this story is about' is the exact right justification.

I'd say Lyanna's story is interesting background material. We don't need to know the story of her death in detail or anything to know that Jon Snow is her child. Those memories Ned has about Lyanna and his promise don't have to do much with Jon but with his mindset and how they influence his political actions.

Ned has the dream when he quarreled with Robert about murdering Targaryen children. He thinks of it when he decides to save Cersei's children. It also has relevance as bread crumbs for the Jon Snow stuff, but it is also highly significant for Ned as a character.

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Then where did they spend it?

How should I know? What makes you believe you can jump from the fact that persons X are at point B at time stamp C that they were there for days, weeks, or months? As long as you don't know you should treat the amount of time they were there as an unknown, not pretend you know things you don't.

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

At this point you're trying my patience for overthinking this thing.  My point is the baby is the point of including Lyanna's story.  All you've said thus far just reinforces that.

And I don't think it is actually the case. Or rather: It is not the only reason. Lyanna is important for Ned as part of his own personal story, independent of Jon.

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

The dream is not important?  The dream is almost literally all we have.

No, we have many other clues, too. We also have Ned actually remembering his promise to Lyanna independent of the dream. That is much more significant than the dream.

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'd say his parentage is quite obviously really important considering the author set it up as the main mystery of the story.  That everybody figured it out so quick doesn't change that.

I'd not describe it as 'the main mystery' considering it is not exactly a mystery people think a lot about within the framework of the series. You can simply accept the fact that Jon Snow's mother is unknown and move along from there. Not everything in a book series has to be known, and it is quite clear from Jon's arc that, at this point, there wouldn't be any political or other implications if his true parentage were to be revealed.

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, if they were dicks.

If the child was their priority they should at least have considered that. Especially if they feared they might be found at that tower.

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

No it doesn't.  It just means they weren't dicks and weren't gonna abandon Rhaegar's wife and/or lover while she was dying.

Them not being dicks mean they cared more about attending a dying woman than getting the child to a place where it would not be found or connected to Lyanna Stark.

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

After Rhaegar is dead there's no reason why it matters how he felt about her, other than the KGs' sense of decency.

Do you know when exactly those guys learned that Rhaegar was dead? We don't know at that point, so Lyanna may have well been the top priority, much more important than any child of hers could possibly be, even after said child was actually born.

56 minutes ago, DMC said:

This possibility seems outlandish and nonsensical.

See above. Outlandish and nonsensical is to assume those people spend months at some tower in the middle of nowhere. Especially while we have no reason as to why they may have considered that a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those memories Ned has about Lyanna and his promise don't have to do much with Jon but with his mindset and how they influence his political actions.

I think it's ridiculous to think there's not going to be some kind of payoff to "promise me Ned," which means it does have something important to do with Jon.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It also has relevance as bread crumbs for the Jon Snow stuff, but it is also highly significant for Ned as a character.

Of course it's both, not arguing that.  But it's definitely both.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What makes you believe you can jump from the fact that persons X are at point B at time stamp C that they were there for days, weeks, or months? As long as you don't know you should treat the amount of time they were there as an unknown, not pretend you know things you don't.

It's not that I'm pretending I know anything, it's that it doesn't matter narratively where they were in the meanwhile to the issue of why they were there when it's emphasized by the author.  And I think it's a fair assumption to say they were there because Lyanna was immobile, because she was having/just had Jon.  If you don't think that's a fair assumption you can whine all you want but I don't care.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Lyanna is important for Ned as part of his own personal story, independent of Jon.

Again.."Of course it's both, not arguing that.  But it's definitely both."

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, we have many other clues, too. We also have Ned actually remembering his promise to Lyanna independent of the dream. That is much more significant than the dream.

It'd be much less significant, and much more uncertain of a mystery, without the dream.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd not describe it as 'the main mystery' considering it is not exactly a mystery people think a lot about within the framework of the series.

I completely disagree and I don't view this as arguable.  It's ridiculous, really.  Run a poll asking people what the main mystery of ASOIAF is and get back to me.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If the child was their priority they should at least have considered that. Especially if they feared they might be found at that tower.

The Kingsguard does not flee.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Do you know when exactly those guys learned that Rhaegar was dead?

No, but the author gives us no impression they were surprised when Ned says I looked for on the Trident.  That indicates they knew, and there's no indication they didn't.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know at that point, so Lyanna may have well been the top priority, much more important than any child of hers could possibly be, even after said child was actually born.

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It's not that I'm pretending I know anything, it's that it doesn't matter narratively where they were in the meanwhile to the issue of why they were there when it's emphasized by the author.  And I think it's a fair assumption to say they were there because Lyanna was immobile, because she was having/just had Jon.  If you don't think that's a fair assumption you can whine all you want but I don't care.

But she wouldn't have had issues with her pregnancy for most of the war, right?

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Again.."Of course it's both, not arguing that.  But it's definitely both."

It'd be much less significant, and much more uncertain of a mystery, without the dream.

At this point? I don't think so. There are many other hints, too, not just the dream.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I completely disagree and I don't view this as arguable.  It's ridiculous, really.  Run a poll asking people what the main mystery of ASOIAF is and get back to me.

I personally find the nature and motivations of the Others much more mysterious than Jon Snow's parentage - because the latter is pretty much clear, whereas the former is not, at least not in ASoIaF. The Others are the endgame of this series, Jon's parentage is just a background detail. He could be anyone's son and still do exactly the same kind of stuff Rhaegar and Lyanna's son is going to do.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

The Kingsguard does not flee.

But apparently they hide in the middle of nowhere and allow their king and prince to die, no ;-)?

1 hour ago, DMC said:

No, but the author gives us no impression they were surprised when Ned says I looked for on the Trident.  That indicates they knew, and there's no indication they didn't.

In the dream dialogue, which we don't have to take at face value. But even if we did - it does not tell us whether they found out in time to actually allow that influence their decision-making process. Even more so considering we have no idea what their plan was or whether they actually had a plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But she wouldn't have had issues with her pregnancy for most of the war, right?

Sure.  If you wanna speculate about her and/or Rhaegar and/or the KG running around beforehand I'm not gonna argue.  But again, I just don't care.

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

At this point? I don't think so. There are many other hints, too, not just the dream.

Well, I'm not sure what "at this point" means.  But, all I'm saying is it's a big part of the case, and informs the reader more than most other hints.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I personally find the nature and motivations of the Others much more mysterious than Jon Snow's parentage - because the latter is pretty much clear, whereas the former is not, at least not in ASoIaF.

Well, yeah.  It's obviously not the main mystery for me at this point either.  But we're not exactly a random sample, at all.  Point is RLJ is obviously the most prominent "mystery" in the story, and you don't even need to go outside this forum, or even subforum, for proof of that.

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But apparently they hide in the middle of nowhere and allow their king and prince to die, no ;-)?

:)

51 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

it does not tell us whether they found out in time to actually allow that influence their decision-making process.

I guess, yeah.  So?  I don't get why this matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2019 at 10:10 PM, The Twinslayer said:

There is, or at least there was, an old theory that the Kingsguard oath demanded that one Kingsguard must always be with the king.  The purpose of this theory was to support the notion that Lyanna's child by Rhaegar Targaryen (presumed to be Jon Snow) must be a legitimate heir to the throne, otherwise the three Kingsguard who were present at the toj when Ned Stark arrived there would have abandoned Lyanna in order to try to protect the true king, Viserys Targaryen, on Dragonstone.  

This theory has taken a number of hits over the years.  When ASOS was published, we saw all of the available KGs assemble in the White Sword Tower leaving Tommen under the protection of non-KG knights.  The Princess and the Queen describes a scene where two KG knights are ordered by a member of the Small Council to leave the company of the (crippled) king to go do other things, and they obey the order.  Yet the "one KG must always be with the king, so Jon Snow must be legitimate" theory nevertheless has persisted on this forum.

Fire & Blood really puts that theory to bed.  Here is one quote:

"That night, under cover of darkness, King Jaehaerys and Princess Alysanne mounted their dragons, Vermithor and Silverwing, and departed the Red Keep for the the ancient Targaryen citadel below the Dragonmont...The Kingsguard arrived from King's Landing by galley a few days later."

Fire & Blood is full of other examples of kings who were not in the presence of their KGs.  I'd like to compile them all in one place.  If you have other handy examples, please post them in this thread so I can compile them in one place.

Thanks, all!

Lol, killing a theory for good... I think you may be a little full of yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...