The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread, Part X

[Dragonfish]

But according to Gerold Hightower, it was not Jaime's place to judge whether Aerys was fit to be king or not, as his oath was to protect him.

Yes, that's according to Gerold Hightower. But I think you could argue that it was Jaime's place to protect the residents of King's Landing, since he had also sworn an oath to protect the people. And I would argue that one of the themes of the book (at least, beginning with ASoS) is that any king who does not protect his people is no true king at all. Now, Gerold Hightower might very well disagree with this, but Gerold Hightower is not the ultimate arbiter of this sort of issue. And as others have said, who knows what the other members of the Kingsguard (including old Hightower) would have actually done if they'd known what Aerys was planning?

[Maestress Sand]

Not to mention, what the hell is a king for if not to protect his people? One could argue that any king who intends to burn his own citizens out of spite has forsaken his right to be protected by those who have sworn to do so. In other words, Aerys neglected his duty first, so Jaime was, conceivably, free to act on his other oath to protect the people.

I think most modern readers would definitely agree with this (I do). However, this is a very modern view on kingship and the responsibilities of being a king. In fact, this is one of the during the American Revolutionary War (at least idealistically - I'm not saying there weren't a lot of practical matters too - that's not the point). An American author and modern readers in a largely post-monarchical (and definitely post-absolute monarchical) world wouldn't necessarily have any other view on the matter. BUT in Medieval times this idea was not really at play. Westeros is a medieval society. In such times, the King is King by divine right (in our world) and that's it. Martin hasn't exactly spelled out a divine right idealism behind the throne in Westeros, but he's still operating under the same societal pattern. The worst criminals in medieval times were traitors. And this could happen by pretty much any political or personal act against the king (see: Henry VIII of England) and was punishable by death. End of story.

[Prince of the North]

...since he had also sworn an oath to protect the people.

Yes, conflicting oaths. Just what does one do with them? When faced with a no-win situation I guess one must then choose the course in which they lose the least or, perhaps, still win a little bit from their perspective. I think this is what Jaime did when he killed Aerys. He could live with the world calling him Kingslayer. After all, he's Jaime fucking Lannister. There are no men like him, there's only him, etc. What he seemingly didn't want to live with was the knowledge, if Aerys's plan to burn KL had been successful, that he could have done something to stop it.

Now, as I've said before, I subscribe to R=L=J and I believe Jon will quite likely be faced with some very big "doozies" in the conflicting oaths department as well :thumbsup: I give that a thumbs up because it would make for some more delicious storytelling from Martin :)

[Dragonfish]

I think most modern readers would definitely agree with this (I do). However, this is a very modern view on kingship and the responsibilities of being a king. In fact, this is one of the during the American Revolutionary War (at least idealistically - I'm not saying there weren't a lot of practical matters too - that's not the point). An American author and modern readers in a largely post-monarchical (and definitely post-absolute monarchical) world wouldn't necessarily have any other view on the matter. BUT in Medieval times this idea was not really at play. Westeros is a medieval society. In such times, the King is King by divine right (in our world) and that's it. Martin hasn't exactly spelled out a divine right idealism behind the throne in Westeros, but he's still operating under the same societal pattern. The worst criminals in medieval times were traitors. And this could happen by pretty much any political or personal act against the king (see: Henry VIII of England) and was punishable by death. End of story.

Yes, it's easy for us modern readers to accept what I wrote, while it's likely difficult for people in this story to accept it. That said, that doesn't mean that no one in the story accepts this notion. As I said in my last post, one of the themes of the story seems to be that a king who does not protect his people is no true king at all. So far only Stannis seems to have acknowledged this idea (ironic, given how hard-assed he is about people opposing his rule), but the idea is still present in the text itself. So I would say it's still a valid interpretation, at least with regards to the debate over the subjectivity of honor.

[Xenophon]

Wow, if this theory is true, that's impressive writing on Martin's part.

I read the books fairly quickly, and I never considered Jon's parentage much. I just assumed he was Ned's bastard and moved on. But at the same time, I wasn't really surprised when I saw the article on the theories regarding Jon's parentage either. I guess it just never seemed in character for Ned to have a bastard.

So GRRM was subtle enough that a casual reader like me never consciously realized that there is a mystery surrounding Jon's parentage, but also left enough hints that I didn't feel like this was some sort of shocking twist. Even with my hazy recollection of the story, Jon being Rhaegar's son seems like it fits. Very clever setup, if it's true.

[morbiczer]

The point is, Jon gets off on the oath due to a technicality because he swore it under a false name.

This is just stupid. If GRRM goes this way (he will not) I'll throw my book out of the window.

BTW, if the Wall falls, that's just one more reason to maintain the Night's Watch, and not a reason to disband it.

[Yarl Snow]

Wow, if this theory is true, that's impressive writing on Martin's part.

I read the books fairly quickly, and I never considered Jon's parentage much. I just assumed he was Ned's bastard and moved on. But at the same time, I wasn't really surprised when I saw the article on the theories regarding Jon's parentage either. I guess it just never seemed in character for Ned to have a bastard.

So GRRM was subtle enough that a casual reader like me never consciously realized that there is a mystery surrounding Jon's parentage, but also left enough hints that I didn't feel like this was some sort of shocking twist. Even with my hazy recollection of the story, Jon being Rhaegar's son seems like it fits. Very clever setup, if it's true.

You think you're impressed now, go re-read A Game of Thrones, and notice all the little subtle details. My favourite one is the scene where Ned gives up his handship.

Read his fever dreams in the black cells, even his conversations with Catelyn about Jon. I envy you. ;)

[Maestress Sand]

Wow, if this theory is true, that's impressive writing on Martin's part.

I read the books fairly quickly, and I never considered Jon's parentage much. I just assumed he was Ned's bastard and moved on. But at the same time, I wasn't really surprised when I saw the article on the theories regarding Jon's parentage either. I guess it just never seemed in character for Ned to have a bastard.

So GRRM was subtle enough that a casual reader like me never consciously realized that there is a mystery surrounding Jon's parentage, but also left enough hints that I didn't feel like this was some sort of shocking twist. Even with my hazy recollection of the story, Jon being Rhaegar's son seems like it fits. Very clever setup, if it's true.

Haha! I know! That's how I felt when I first came across the theory! And I'm generally a pretty astute reader (I'm notorious for ruining movies when I go see them with others by predicting the plot). It was like an epiphany (that someone else gave me, granted).

But it doesn't seem to click that way for everyone. Of course, I only finished the series within the last month and it seems like you might be a noob too, so maybe that's why we love it. :) Regardless, welcome!

[iamthedave]

I think that there's very much a 'divine right of kings' thing at work here.

Doesn't anybody else get a feeling like the narrative supports the notion that Robert was in the wrong to usurp the Taegaryens? I mean, the entire narrative paints this picture that only a Targ can possibly run things effectively, because everyone else is too selfish, stupid or insane to do so. Sure Aerys was bad, but things have hardly got better, and only Daeny can fix things.

This will be even MORE pronounced if this theory is true, because to date that would mean about two characters have proven to be effective leaders: Daeny (who will be effective) and Jon (who will be effective). And both of them will be Targs if this theory is true. I sincerely doubt that ADWD is going to be the story of their twin epic failures in command.

If it is, mind, I dread for the future of the series... I'm not the only one who feels like it's starting to spin its wheels a bit.

Not to mention, only the Targs - it seems - can save the world. The true kings.

So yeah. There's a pretty conservative undercurrent concerning kingship in the narrative, though it's far from too late for that to turn out to be balls and for Daeny to explode in a shower of angst and dragon bits, and Jon to turn out to be Ned's son after all.

[Whatever]

But according to Gerold Hightower, it was not Jaime's place to judge whether Aerys was fit to be king or not, as his oath was to protect him.

IMHO, Gerord Hightower, Arthur Dayne, barrisant Selmy and all of those knights in the shiny armor are very overrated. This is just hypocrisy, keeping a meaningless oath and pretending to not see the truth. I do prefer Jaime, who could be not honorable, but he has a sense of moral.. and i think this is more important.

As somebody already said

You know, that is why I like Jaime. Because he has no honour, but he's some morals, deep down. He sacrifices his honour to save a town. He betrays his family and his own son to save his brother. He is faithful in love. He tells his kingsguard that being robots at the back and call of a king is bullshit, so they have to use common sense and not obey when orders are becoming loony. He negotiates. He compromises. That's not erasing the terrible actions he did (Bran, Jory, Tyrion), nor his huge flaws (his arrogance, his temper, his violence), but it sure makes him more likeable than if he had been honourable instead of moral.

What, what, what? In the house of the Undying? Could you quote that for me?

Azz, I was wromg.. it's not from the HotU, but from ASOS

"That night she dreamt that she was Rhaegar, riding to the Trident. But she was mounted on a dragon, not

a horse. When she saw the Usurper's rebel host across the river they were armored all in ice, but she

bathed them in dragonfire and they melted away like dew and turned the Trident into a torrent. Some

small part of her knew that she was dreaming, but another part exulted. This is how it was meant to be.

The other was a nightmare, and I have only now awakened."

i still believe the others will go deep down into westeros

[zmflavius]

IMHO, Gerord Hightower, Arthur Dayne, barrisant Selmy and all of those knights in the shiny armor are very overrated. This is just hypocrisy, keeping a meaningless oath and pretending to not see the truth. I do prefer Jaime, who could be not honorable, but he has a sense of moral.. and i think this is more important.

And yet, this pretty much brings us back to the crux of our argument, which is to say, is honor subjective or objective.

Obviously, on this board, honor is subjective, partly because this allows for more discussion, and partly because some of us believe this is so. From the spirited discussion here, some of us believe that honor is in lockstep with morals, and others believe that it means sticking to your word and oaths, even when it conflicts with your morals.

But even if Gerold Hightower and the rest of Aerys' Kingsguard is overrated, has anyone from the Wall to Dorne ever considered that Kingsguard to be cowardly and dishonorable dogs, who closed their eyes and defended a vicious madman? Almost everyone considers them to be the height of chivalry and honor, trapped by circumstance. Ned calls Arthur Dayne, 'the greatest knight he ever met,' though obviously, they disagreed rather strongly on some principles. Even Jaime, while justifying his own actions, still considers them to be more honorable, comparing himself to the Smiling Knight when reflecting on how he opened Aerys' throat. I'm certain he doesn't at all feel sorry he killed him, but he might feel dishonored. Morals and honor are different, and in a class-bound world such as Westeros, codes of honor are more or less unified, non-negotiable, and rarely completely in step with morals.

[Maestress Sand]

Doesn't anybody else get a feeling like the narrative supports the notion that Robert was in the wrong to usurp the Taegaryens?

No, I think the narrative supports that Robert et. al were completely right to usurp Aerys III but that 1) Robert is not someone who should have been King, and 2) it left a bloody helluva mess afterward. The realm did have 13 years of peace and prosperity after Aerys was killed. But once Robert's unfitness hit the breaking point, it all fell to pieces.

My reading of this is that sometimes there's the right thing to do, sometimes there's the practical thing to do, but in Westeros (and the real world) there are consequences for everything. Sometimes nothing will lead to a peaceful resolution.

[Dragonfish]

Ned calls Arthur Dayne, 'the greatest knight he ever met,' though obviously, they disagreed rather strongly on some principles.

Ah, but this seems to be evidence that honor is fairly subjective, for both Ned Stark and Arthur Dayne were men who were honorable to a fault, yet both found themselves on opposite sides of the same conflict. So clearly, each one had a different interpretation of what they were honor-bound to do. Arthur Dayne stuck to his oath to protect a clearly insane king, while Ned broke his oath to obey that king. Both, I'm sure, thought they were being truly honorable in their actions.

[Huan]

Something that caught my attention when I started another read of GOT. In the Winterfell crypts, Robert tells Ned: "[Lyanna] should be on a hill somewhere, under a fruit tree, with the sun and clouds above her and the rain to wash her clean." Does this imply that Robert felt Lyanna was tainted because she had been raped by Rhaegar "hundreds of times," or on some level did he suspect that Lyanna had betrayed him and gone with Rhaegar willingly? Or neither?

[Mandurang]

Something that caught my attention when I started another read of GOT. In the Winterfell crypts, Robert tells Ned: "[Lyanna] should be on a hill somewhere, under a fruit tree, with the sun and clouds above her and the rain to wash her clean." Does this imply that Robert felt Lyanna was tainted because she had been raped by Rhaegar "hundreds of times," or on some level did he suspect that Lyanna had betrayed him and gone with Rhaegar willingly? Or neither?

Probably neither of those things. It is just an expression of how the open sky would be better than the confines of a crypt. It has to do with her spirit and character.

[KyleLitke]

But according to Gerold Hightower, it was not Jaime's place to judge whether Aerys was fit to be king or not, as his oath was to protect him.

And a minor note, Gerold Hightower's Kingsguard is almost universally regarded as being of infinitely higher calibre than the Kingsguard of the books, not just in songs, but also in memory of the characters, despite guarding (and in the case of five of them, dying for) one of the most depraved kings in history.

This is true, but I think it has more to do with them being regarded as the finest knights in the realm. Take the present day Kingsguard at the start of Game of Thrones...Barristan is considered one of the finest knights, but that's about it. Jaime would be as well had he not killed Aerys (and probably still is by many). The other 5 though, well, not so much. And that doesn't really seem to change over the course of the series. I'm sure it's also people remembering things as being better than they were.

[corbon]

I think that there's very much a 'divine right of kings' thing at work here.

I don't think so. Quite the opposite in fact.

I think it is very much feudal society - vassals at different levels.

The Divine Right of Kings is a post-feudal idea dating to the 16th century or so - around the Reformation when civil, political and religious conflict were all intertwined.

There does seem to be evidence of feudalism with respect to oaths of fealty and vassalage. The original Kings swore oaths to the Aegon after he conquered them. Robb was asked to swear an Oath to Joffrey. This site wiki (while not always correct, but it is the best reference I have without e-books to search) mentions vassalage many times - mostly with respect to major houses being vassals to the king, but also minor houses being vassals to major houses.

In our world, vassalage includes a two-way contract - protection down and service up. If the higher party fails to protect then he has broken the contract and the lower party is no longer bound by it. I don't see anything to support Westeros being different from the model it is based on.

What is common, is that the higher parties see the 'service' all the time, but rarely need to provide the 'protection'. So over time they come to expect the oath to work for them, while they forget their obligations. Then when their obligations arise, but are inconvenient, they don't always have the understanding that they have already been paid (with service, fealty) for the protection they offered to give.

Again, I don't see anything different in Westeros. In fact I see the same forces at work - this is why both Tywin (the Riverlands) and Robb (the Westlands) raid enemy territory in an attempt to make the enemy fight them on their terms. Because Hoster (the Riverlands) and Tywin (the Westlands) have contractual obligations to protect those territories.

Aerys failed the Starks. He didn't protect them from the depredations of his son (as they saw it). Brandon didn't react well, but Aerys reacted even worse. By the time he called for Ned and Robert's heads, he had broken his contract with their families, so they no longer owed him fealty.

Of course, if Lyanna went with Rhaegar willingly, then the whole 'protection' thing gets more complicated, and we have really the barest details of the events leading to the execution/murder of Brandon and Rickard so it is difficult to judge the true situation. Of course, Aerys was the temporary winner at that point, so he gets to PR his version round, which makes the Stark/Baratheon/Arryn alliance 'traitors' and 'oathbreakers' rather than the reverse.

Doesn't anybody else get a feeling like the narrative supports the notion that Robert was in the wrong to usurp the Taegaryens? I mean, the entire narrative paints this picture that only a Targ can possibly run things effectively, because everyone else is too selfish, stupid or insane to do so. Sure Aerys was bad, but things have hardly got better, and only Daeny can fix things.

Nope. I don't think any such picture is painted.

Robert actually had a good reign for a long time, but his failure was inevitable not because he wasn't a Targ, but because he was a man built for action and war and unable to handle other sorts of responsibilities.

Daenerys is currently struggling as a queen, despite being a Targ. She certainly isn't up to fixing things just yet.

Aerys obviously wasn't such a great king, although he did well enough earlier on while he used Tywin as Hand.

Clearly there are non-Targ rulers that have prospered (as have their domains) in their own areas. I don't see any particular showing of selfishness, stupidity or insanity in... well, anyone except Robert and Cersei. Tywin's damn selfish, but smart enough to look past 'immediate' selfishness and still be a good ruler it seems. Oh, and the isolated Starks are fairly politically naive outside their own context, but they seem to have been excellent rulers for the north.

[corbon]

I think most modern readers would definitely agree with this (I do). However, this is a very modern view on kingship and the responsibilities of being a king. In fact, this is one of the during the American Revolutionary War (at least idealistically - I'm not saying there weren't a lot of practical matters too - that's not the point). An American author and modern readers in a largely post-monarchical (and definitely post-absolute monarchical) world wouldn't necessarily have any other view on the matter. BUT in Medieval times this idea was not really at play. Westeros is a medieval society. In such times, the King is King by divine right (in our world) and that's it. Martin hasn't exactly spelled out a divine right idealism behind the throne in Westeros, but he's still operating under the same societal pattern. The worst criminals in medieval times were traitors. And this could happen by pretty much any political or personal act against the king (see: Henry VIII of England) and was punishable by death. End of story.

I think this is completely wrong.

Divine Right is a 16th century invention, post feudalism, after the reformation made politics and religion intertwine.

Westeros appears much more to be a feudal society with a 11th-14th/15th century feudal system. There is no Divine Right of Kings in such a system, but a vassal/overlord contract system of mutual responsibilities. If the King fails his oath, his vassals are no longer bound by their oaths.

Edit: Strictly speaking I think the King has to protect his vassals, not the common people. But presumably there is a point in the series on interconnecting and descending oaths of fealty where the common people are protected. Or perhaps not? We don't have enough information. In general though, if you can be taxed or have to pay levies, then you are probably in some way at least peripherally connected to the vassalage system or something similar - like the Communes of Paris and various parts of Italy.

[Yarl Snow]

Doesn't anybody else get a feeling like the narrative supports the notion that Robert was in the wrong to usurp the Taegaryens? I mean, the entire narrative paints this picture that only a Targ can possibly run things effectively, because everyone else is too selfish, stupid or insane to do so. Sure Aerys was bad, but things have hardly got better, and only Daeny can fix things.

....

Not to mention, only the Targs - it seems - can save the world. The true kings.

I don't know if GRRM says anything about right or wrong, I believe the story has simply unfolded, because Aerys was a crazy bastard, and because Robert became the mortal enemy of house Targaryen. But what I have seen on many occasions, not only in AsoIaF, but also in Dunk & Egg, is that Targaryens are characterised as having the potential of true greatness. Baelor Breakspear, Daemon Blackfyre, Bloodraven, Rhaegar, Daenerys. There is a regal and highly noble air about them, and also something strong and fearsome and magical. The others are simply human, while Targaryens are more than that.

IMHO, Gerord Hightower, Arthur Dayne, barrisant Selmy and all of those knights in the shiny armor are very overrated. This is just hypocrisy, keeping a meaningless oath and pretending to not see the truth. I do prefer Jaime, who could be not honorable, but he has a sense of moral.. and i think this is more important.

Azz, I was wromg.. it's not from the HotU, but from ASOS

"That night she dreamt that she was Rhaegar, riding to the Trident. But she was mounted on a dragon, not

a horse. When she saw the Usurper's rebel host across the river they were armored all in ice, but she

bathed them in dragonfire and they melted away like dew and turned the Trident into a torrent. Some

small part of her knew that she was dreaming, but another part exulted. This is how it was meant to be.

The other was a nightmare, and I have only now awakened."

i still believe the others will go deep down into westeros

Ah, that dream. I always thought of that as merely a dream, but you are right, the ice armor does change the meaning of the dream. That begs the question though, will they break the wall before or after Dany returns to Westeros? In that context, it feels like she should come afterwards, so that she can truly come to the rescue.

[BladeDancer]

It is quite clear that Jaime's actions in killing Aerys were terrible. It would be like a Secret Service member assassinating the US President. There is simply no acceptable justification for it that would prevent that person always being reviled as a traitor. There were bad kings before Aerys. The Kingsguard still served them though. There were incidents of betrayals that Jaime looks up, but none ever killed their King. Until the Kingslayer. Then there is the Lannister connection. The Lannisters had declared for Robert (although they sneakily had kept this secret - but Tywin had picked his side at this point). Jaime killing the King at the same time as his House and Bannermen were storming King's Landing looks like he was choosing his House loyalty over his Kingsguard duty. The Kingsguard duty has to take precedence over previous House loyalties. In Jaime that was not the case. We can see when reading about Barriston's actions at what he sacrificed in order to join the Kingsguard. If the Kingslayer had been not been part of an important family - he would have been banished if not executed for showing such treachery. The Kingsguard's principal duty is to safeguard the Royal Family. Jaime completely broke that oath and tarnished the reputation of the Kingsguard that went back hundreds of years.

Jaime's betrayal is vastly different from the uprising against Aerys by House's Stark, Baratheon and Arryn. Aerys killed the Lord Stark and his heir, killed the Arryn heir and wanted to kill Ned Stark and the Lord Baratheon. Of course they are going to raise the banners. It is not really explained why the Tully's joined them, maybe Hoster had his own grievance with Aerys. It is likely that he was longstanding friends with Jon Arryn and Rickard Stark, hence the betrothal of Brandon to Cateyn.

It is indeed the fact that the Kingsguard's principal duty to protect the Royal Family that lends huge weight. to the theory about Jon Stark being Rhaegar's son. Why else would a whopping 3 members of the Kingsguard be in the Tower of Joy when they should have been in the Trident, or KL or Dragonstone? They make it quite clear in Ned's flashback that the Kingsguard were not there because they had fled as the cause was lost. They explicitly state they do not run and they are upholding their vow. What is their vow? To protect the members of the Royal Family. So their presence and these lines are enough to imply MASSIVELY that a member of the Royal Family is present at Tower of Joy. The only other thing Ned says about the Tower of Joy is that Lyanna is there dying and makes his make a promise. So R + L = J.