The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII

[jefe91]

This is a great forum, I have read and listened to these books around 6 time and have long suspected the whole r+l= j theory. Love reading all the speculation. Seems to me the largest discussion revolves around the KG oath, I'm of the mind that if the three KG that fought Eddard and his gang stated that the KG do not run, then one must assume that their oath is specifically tied to the reigning king and they live and die with him. I think they were at the ToJ based on orders recieved and got news of what went down at kings landing and the trident and decided that the would make their last stand at the ToJ, so I don't think they were guarding the new heir, because the rightful heir was stll Viserys at the time.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

I think they were at the ToJ based on orders recieved and got news of what went down at kings landing and the trident and decided that the would make their last stand at the ToJ, so I don't think they were guarding the new heir, because the rightful heir was stll Viserys at the time.

But if that's so...that they knew Rhaegar, Aerys, and Baby Aegon were all dead, then they're totally neglecting their duty to their new king Viserys, who had to flee Dragonstone in the middle of the night before Stannis caught him.

[SFDanny]

But if that's so...that they knew Rhaegar, Aerys, and Baby Aegon were all dead, then they're totally neglecting their duty to their new king Viserys, who had to flee Dragonstone in the middle of the night before Stannis caught him.

Absolutely, and while such a reading is possible, it turns the character of the three men on its head from what we are led to expect from them.

[jefe91]

The oath is to the reigning king not the heir, that is why when a new king is crowned the KG make new oaths to the new king. They did not have a responsibility to anyone but Aerys and so they decided to die when the heard news of his death.

[SFDanny]

The oath is to the reigning king not the heir, that is why when a new king is crowned the KG make new oaths to the new king. They did not have a responsibility to anyone but Aerys and so they decided to die when the heard news of his death.

Hmmmm ... where do we see the Kingsguard retaking their oaths? Certainly not when Joffrey takes the throne. The only thing I can think of that comes close is when Jaime receives his pardon - a very different circumstance following a usurpation of the throne - and even then we don't see anything about retaking the vows of the kingsguard. And as to not having "responsibility to anyone" but the king, we have plenty of evidence of that kingsguard must follow the orders of not only the immediate heir but other members of the royal family as well. The idea that the KG are some kind of free agents after the death of Aerys just flies in the face all the examples in the series to contrary, including Ser Barristan's response after Robert's death, and is also ruled out by the author's own words which tell us point blank that the trio would follow an order by the Crown Prince.

[jefe91]

Hmmmm ... where do we see the Kingsguard retaking their oaths? Certainly not when Joffrey takes the throne. The only thing I can think of that comes close is when Jaime receives his pardon - a very different circumstance following a usurpation of the throne - and even then we don't see anything about retaking the vows of the kingsguard. And as to not having "responsibility to anyone" but the king, we have plenty of evidence of that kingsguard must follow the orders of not only the immediate heir but other members of the royal family as well. The idea that the KG are some kind of free agents after the death of Aerys just flies in the face all the examples in the series to contrary, including Ser Barristan's response after Robert's death, and is also ruled out by the author's own words which tell us point blank that the trio would follow an order by the Crown Prince.

This is eluded too when Eddard confronts the Queen/Joffery in the throne room at the end of Game of Thrones. The KG follow the orders of the King or the Queen Regent/Protector so if asked by one of these to protect members of the royal family they do because it is done in the name of the King they swore an oath to, so they would follow a direct order from the crown prince. There can be zero arguement that Visery's was the rightful heir to the throne, and given the level of honor and loyalty that the three KG had there is little doubt that they would have broken their oath. This is why I stil believe that the KG did not run and choose to die fighting

[corbon]

There can be zero arguement that Visery's was the rightful heir to the throne,

Not entirely true. If Rhaegar married Lyanna and she birthed a son, then it is possible that such a son wold be ahead of Viserys in succession. Usually, since Rhaegar died before Aerys, Viserys would be higher, but we don't expressly know all the necessary details to be sure.

and given the level of honor and loyalty that the three KG had there is little doubt that they would have broken their oath.

There are some crazy statements on this forum sometimes, but unless there is a typo here this one beats them all!

Those three KG break their oath? For the girlfriend and illegitimate child of a dead friend/crown prince? I think not!

That is why this is one of the strongest clues that Viserys is not necessarily the rightful king for some reason. These guys all elected to stay, despite Viserys escaping Kings Landing. Something made them choose that way.

[Enguerrand]

Sorry for the late response.

]I went to great lengths to try to establish the authority of the royal family members to give orders to the Kingsguard. I'm assuming from your response that you don't disagree that as a member of the royal family Rhaegar had the authority to command the Kingsguard - assuming there isn't a contradictory order from the king - to take up certain tasks and do certain things. Do we agree?

Yes

[*]I too have problems with some absolutist interpretations of Martin's quote and have gone round and round about what it does and doesn't mean. I agree that the idea that the trio would just follow the last order of Rhaegar, regardless of circumstance - like the presence of a new unguarded king - or content of the order - like killing the king - would be absurd. What it does tell me is that the Kingsguard trio are there on orders from someone, and, because Martin volunteers Rhaegar's name plus the fact their location and Lyanna's presence all point to Rhaegar, it is most likely this order comes from the Crown Prince. Do you agree?

I have no idea, I don't recall Martin said exactly, but I believe it was that if Rhaegar gave the Kingsguard an order to guard TOJ they would, not that Rhaegar did.

[*]In case you don't agree with the last question, who do you think could have given the order that sends the Trio to the Tower of Joy? Your response to the last post seems to rule out Aerys as well, am I right in thinking so? Do you think another Royal - Elia or Rhaella for instance - could have been behind it? Perhaps the Hand of the King? If so which of Aerys's Hands are we talking about? Or do you think, contrary to Martin's response, in this case the Kingsguard did make up their own order?

I guess it was a while a go, :) My theory: The latter part of the war Higtower, Dayne and Whent were sent on a mission by Rhaegar, something really important, (Far away). None the less they are aware of a secret trueborn child of Rhaegar. When they get back to westeros, They notice that the king, the crown prince and his son are dead. So what to do? Following the succession order and making certain the king is safe I would think, apparently it's not Viserys since they don't make any attempt to protect him. But if there were a trueborn child of Rhaegar's at the tower of joy there is were they would go, The Kingsguard doesn't need anyone to order them to keep the king safe. In fact I would think they would be bound to dismiss any order or concerns, while the king is in peril.

[*]I agree that at least some of the Trio would not do anything to protect Lyanna from Aerys, but I don't think that means Aerys is no threat to Lyanna. I don't think it is an accident that Rhaegar doesn't take Lyanna back to King's Landing with him. Aerys actions from Harrenhal through his torture and murder of Brandon and Rickard and his paranoia about the Dornish alliance all seem to give good reason for Rhaegar to hide Lyanna from his father. It also maybe the one of the reasons he chooses - for the sake of argument assume he chooses - the three men he does, especially Hightower, for the assignment in the south - is he keeps them away from his father's orders. Do you agree?

Not really, if he really want to keep Lyanna safe from the king, he shouldn't be using the king's most devouted servants. I guess its possible that they would silently obey an order even though they know it would meet their masters disapproval, a man of honor, keeps to the spirit of an oath though, he doesn't hide behind technicalities.

[Dammascus]

If the R+L=J theory holds true. Would you rather have Martin reveal it in the preview chapter in ADWD rather than leave it in the next book? The reason Im saying is that if its in the book when it comes out, I think the surprise factor would definitely be there, however the potential huge spoiling for everyone else would be impossible to resist.

Even though mostly everyone believes that theory, I think Martin may just want to get it out there.

So to sum up! lol....would you rather have the reveal, if it happens, in the middle of a book? Or to just have to be out there already in a preview chapter for the upcoming book?

[Enguerrand]

Not entirely true. If Rhaegar married Lyanna and she birthed a son, then it is possible that such a son wold be ahead of Viserys in succession. Usually, since Rhaegar died before Aerys, Viserys would be higher, but we don't expressly know all the necessary details to be sure.

The standard order of succession would put all Rhaegar's issue over his siblings, that he died before them doesn't matter the slightest.

[jefe91]

There are some crazy statements on this forum sometimes, but unless there is a typo here this one beats them all!

Those three KG break their oath? For the girlfriend and illegitimate child of a dead friend/crown prince? I think not!

That is why this is one of the strongest clues that Viserys is not necessarily the rightful king for some reason. These guys all elected to stay, despite Viserys escaping Kings Landing. Something made them choose that way.

I was trying to imply that i find it impossible that the three KG would break their oath. Some folks on this board use this as the basis of their premise that somehow John is the Targ heir. I agure that this is proof that the KG oath is to the reigning King not the royal family. If you look at it from my perspective the KG stated that the do not run meaning they live and die with the reigning King. Their oath did not bind them to the heir to the throne. I believe both arguments have their strenghts, but the John as heir theory requires a bit of speculation regarding a possible marrige between R+L which I find a bit of a leap. Either way cant wait to find out how it all plays out

[SFDanny]

This is eluded too when Eddard confronts the Queen/Joffery in the throne room at the end of Game of Thrones.

Could you quote the reference you are relying on for this theory?

btw - don't you think Ser Barristan's statement when he is stripped of his cloak that the Kingsguard's vows are for life kind of runs totally counter to your theory? It's clear Ser Barristan is talking about his life, not that of a particular king.

The KG follow the orders of the King or the Queen Regent/Protector so if asked by one of these to protect members of the royal family they do because it is done in the name of the King they swore an oath to, so they would follow a direct order from the crown prince.

Wait. I thought the KG was only sworn to the King, under your theory, so why would they follow orders from anyone else - the Queen or the Crown Prince or any of the members of the Royal family - unless the kings says specifically to do so? Yet, for instance, when Prince Maekar, the fourth son of the King, orders the Kingsguard to fight in the trial of seven at Ashford Meadow to protect his first and second sons they do so. There is obviously no order by the King to do so, why do they fight if they are not bound by Maekar's order? They don't volunteer to protect Aerion or demand to fight in the trial. They do so on Maekar's order.

There can be zero arguement that Visery's was the rightful heir to the throne ...

There are many arguments over who is the rightful heir based on whether you believe Aegon is alive or if Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. What there can't be any real argument about is, what Enguerrand rightly points out, that:

• If Aegon is alive he is the rightful King before anyone esle
  
• If Rhaegar and Lyanna had a legitimate son, he is the rightful heir over Viserys
  
• That Viserys is the heir to the Targaryen throne only if the above are not true
  

If you doubt this, I'd suggest looking at the Targaryen succession as laid out in the Hedge Knight series. The first Aerys only becomes king after Baelor Breakspear dies at Ashford Meadow and King Daeron and Baelor's sons, Valarr and Matarys, die in the Great Spring Sickness.

... and given the level of honor and loyalty that the three KG had there is little doubt that they would have broken their oath. This is why I stil believe that the KG did not run and choose to die fighting

I, too, look at this and wonder if there is not a typo. Just how do you get from "given the level of honor and loyalty" to "they would have broken their oath" is beyond me. If these men threw away their lives in some macho display of an absolutist interpretation of "the Kingsguard does not run" then they not only broke their oaths, but they also have no honor in fulfilling their vow as members of the Kingsguard or loyalty to the Targaryens. Doesn't sound like these three men to me.

Enguerrand, thanks for the response. I'll respond myself later. Have to go to work right now.

[jefe91]

Could you quote the reference you are relying on for this theory?

btw - don't you think Ser Barristan's statement when he is stripped of his cloak that the Kingsguard's vows are for life kind of runs totally counter to your theory? It's clear Ser Barristan is talking about his life, not that of a particular king.

Wait. I thought the KG was only sworn to the King, under your theory, so why would they follow orders from anyone else - the Queen or the Crown Prince or any of the members of the Royal family - unless the kings says specifically to do so? Yet, for instance, when Prince Maekar, the fourth son of the King, orders the Kingsguard to fight in the trial of seven at Ashford Meadow to protect his first and second sons they do so. There is obviously no order by the King to do so, why do they fight if they are not bound by Maekar's order? They don't volunteer to protect Aerion or demand to fight in the trial. They do so on Maekar's order.

There are many arguments over who is the rightful heir based on whether you believe Aegon is alive or if Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. What there can't be any real argument about is, what Enguerrand rightly points out, that:

• If Aegon is alive he is the rightful King before anyone esle
  
• If Rhaegar and Lyanna had a legitimate son, he is the rightful heir over Viserys
  
• That Viserys is the heir to the Targaryen throne only if the above are not true
  

If you doubt this, I'd suggest looking at the Targaryen succession as laid out in the Hedge Knight series. The first Aerys only becomes king after Baelor Breakspear dies at Ashford Meadow and King Daeron and Baelor's sons, Valarr and Matarys, die in the Great Spring Sickness.

I, too, look at this and wonder if there is not a typo. Just how do you get from "given the level of honor and loyalty" to "they would have broken their oath" is beyond me. If these men threw away their lives in some macho display of an absolutist interpretation of "the Kingsguard does not run" then they not only broke their oaths, but they also have no honor in fulfilling their vow as members of the Kingsguard or loyalty to the Targaryens. Doesn't sound like these three men to me.

Enguerrand, thanks for the response. I'll respond myself later. Have to go to work right now.

When Eddard confronted the Queen in the throne after Roberts's she asked that everyone bend the knee and swear fealty to Joffery and eluded to the fact that the new KG had done so already

As far as the KG taking orders from the Queen Regent they have done this all through out the books because it is understood that the Regent or the named Protector of the realm governs until the King comes of age. The would follow the orders of the Crown prince if commanded too by the reigning King.

As far as lines of succession Rhaegar's childern are not in the line of succession until he is crowned King, becuase he died on the Trident before Aerys I would assume that the oldest living male son of the living King would be next in the line of succession, meaning Viserys. Given this there is zero way John can be the heir to the throne since Rhaegar was never crowned king.

"Posted Before"

I was trying to imply that i find it impossible that the three KG would break their oath. Some folks on this board use this as the basis of their premise that somehow John is the Targ heir. I agrue that this is proof that the KG oath is to the reigning King not the royal family. If you look at it from my perspective the KG stated that the do not run meaning they live and die with the reigning King. Their oath did not bind them to the heir to the throne. I believe both arguments have their strenghts, but the John as heir theory requires a bit of speculation regarding a possible marrige between R+L which I find a bit of a leap. Either way cant wait to find out how it all plays out

Ser Bariston broke his oath when he remained on Robert's KG, he confessed this mistake to Danerys and stated that the KG oath should be for life, and begged her forgiveness for betraying his original oath to her father.

[Prince of the North]

As far as lines of succession Rhaegar's childern are not in the line of succession until he is crowned King, becuase he died on the Trident before Aerys I would assume that the oldest living male son of the living King would be next in the line of succession, meaning Viserys. Given this there is zero way John can be the heir to the throne since Rhaegar was never crowned king.

I agree with most of your post but the above is simply not the case. Check out our good friends at Wiki for an explanation :)

[Guest Other-in-Law]

As far as lines of succession Rhaegar's childern are not in the line of succession until he is crowned King, becuase he died on the Trident before Aerys I would assume that the oldest living male son of the living King would be next in the line of succession, meaning Viserys. Given this there is zero way John can be the heir to the throne since Rhaegar was never crowned king.

This is simply flat out wrong. The example of Baelor Breakspear's sons Valar and Matarys has already been given which disproves it. Nor was the system you posit in any way commonplace in comparable RL European succession rules...Richard II became on his grandfather's death before his uncle John of Gaunt, even though his father the Black Prince was never king.

Viserys I succeeded his grandfather Jaehaerys I despite his father being already dead. We don't yet know if Jaehaerys had any surviving brothers, but if there was a requirement that one's father was king, then either some uncle of Jaehaerys would have succeeded or the dynasty would have died out, which is absurd when there are still living grandsons.

[Enguerrand]

As far as lines of succession Rhaegar's childern are not in the line of succession until he is crowned King, becuase he died on the Trident before Aerys I would assume that the oldest living male son of the living King would be next in the line of succession, meaning Viserys.

Do you have anything that support this assumption?

[Stalker]

"Posted Before"

I was trying to imply that i find it impossible that the three KG would break their oath. Some folks on this board use this as the basis of their premise that somehow John is the Targ heir. I agrue that this is proof that the KG oath is to the reigning King not the royal family. If you look at it from my perspective the KG stated that the do not run meaning they live and die with the reigning King. Their oath did not bind them to the heir to the throne. I believe both arguments have their strenghts, but the John as heir theory requires a bit of speculation regarding a possible marrige between R+L which I find a bit of a leap. Either way cant wait to find out how it all plays out

Since Aerys is dead at that point, there is no reigning king, and as such that can't be used as an argument for either side.

[jefe91]

Do you have anything that support this assumption?

My assumption on the details of succession are based on what I feel would have happened had Aerys, baby Aegon, and Viserys lived. Viserys would more than likley have been named crowned prince. Given that he was the only living male son of Aerys after the Trident and the fall of Kings Landing, Viserys had to have been the heir apparent. Since Rhaegar was never crowned king the sons of Aerys have a better claim to the throne than the sons of the dead crowned prince. Again just my opinion I still believe most of what has been stated just dont believe Jon was the Targ heir, plus I think Jon will remain Lord Commander of the Nights Watch until his death.

[Prince of the North]

You may be right that Jon will remain LCotNW until his death but IF (and it's a big IF) R+L=J AND R+L were married then Jon most certainly was the legitimate Targ heir. You see, it doesn't matter in primogeniture that Rhaegar was never crowned King. What matters is that Rhaegar was the eldest son of King Aerys and, thus, any surviving son of Rhaegar's would come before his younger brother Viserys in the succession. That's what primogeniture is - succession always flows through the eldest male of the line. Now, there are other types of primogeniture but I don't think they apply here. This was/is a pretty straight forward application of the concept and a pretty good possible explanation for why there were three KG at the ToJ :)

[Dr. Acula]

Jon being legitimate or not probably won't have any major impact as I can't see any way for him to be King or why anyone would believe he should be unless Dany somehow learns it and tells everyone which I think is unlikely. For me it's more likely that the purpose of R+L=J is that Jon will turn out to be AAR which I don't think him being a bastard or not would make any difference to.