3 babies, only 1 mother

[Howlin' Howland Reed]

That all depends of course whether Reed considers the Others are the threat they're advertised as being. :cool4:

You seem to find a way peddle your "wares" in every thread... :laugh:

[Jem]

Robert's Rebellion lasted about a year. Aegon was about a year old when he died. Therefore Aegon was born at approximately the same time as the Rebellion started. The Rebellion was triggered by Rhaegar running off with Lyanna. Therefore, if Rhaegar knew that he was about to cause a realm-wide shit storm, it might be a good idea to hide his newborn son away, just as a precaution. Not that he necessarily knew that something bad would happen - if he did I think he would have tried to protect his Elia and their daughter too. But it is easy enough to switch out a newborn, so he may as well do it, just to be safe. It is much harder to switch an older child and impossible really to switch an adult, so Elia and Rhaenys had to stay put.

My crackpot is, though, that Elia and Ashara had already done a baby swap before Rhaegar and Varys did their baby swap. I think that both Elia and Ashara got pregnant to Rhaegar (who was desperate to get his three kids) at approximately the same time - at or slightly after the tourney at Harrenhal. Elia's pregnancy was made known, but Ashara's was kept secret from everyone except for Rhaegar, Elia, Wylla and a few other discreet servants.

Both women delivered at approximately the same time - with only Wylla in attendance. Elia's baby daughter died and Ashara's baby son lived. Ashara, feeling sorry for Elia, let Elia pretend to Rhaegar that the healthy baby boy was hers and Ashara took on the dead baby girl. Rhaegar thought that after these two women delivered, he would finally have his three kids. Unfortunately, with the stillborn daughter, he was still one child short. Fortunately, Rhaegar believed that he could convince Lyanna to mother his third child, but he needed to get her away from her family and Robert, which may cause trouble, so best get newborn Aegon - really Rhaegar's son with Ashara, though he thinks it is his son with Elia - into hiding. Varys - who also thinks that Aegon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Elia - does the switch.

Ashara is given the real Aegon - her real son, though only she, Elia and Wylla know it - to take back to Starfall to hide. After Rhaegar dies and the Targs are disposed, Varys helps Ashara and Aegon flee to the Free Cities where Ashara takes on the guise of Septa Lemore to raise the boy. Ashara knows of the plan to put Aegon on the throne, but as she knows he is really her bastard son with Rhaegar, she keeps this to herself and maintains the fiction that Aegon is Elia's legitimate son.

[MtnLion]

It's the difference between him and Jaime Lannister. The ilk of Arthur Dayne will obey.

If you want to talk about stupid, we could go over "the kingsguard does not flee" too. Yeah, sure, your overlords all died, and you know it, Ned is even surprised to find you still there, yet you apparently think committing suicide by battling the whole enemy army is any useful. This stupidity also directly goes counter to the whole "There definitely a royal kid to protect": you don't protect anyone by confronting the enemy three against who knows how many, and leaving them go kill what you stupidly put in the way of danger.

The three King's Guard, described by Ned as a wonder, were facing only seven northern men. It seems that mother and child would not bear immediate removal to a safer place, hence they were grounded to defend the Tower of Joy. They had sworn a vow that at least one of their membership be with the king at all times. There is no King's Guard with Viserys, the apparent heir. Ned offered this to avoid the confrontation, possibly allowing them free passage to Dragonstone to guard that heir. No, "They swore a vow", and thus had to make a stand. That means only one thing, that the child was legitimate and was the heir.

Whether it was stupid to try to defnd against a mere seven, or not, is unclear until we know what actually happened. It is probably another case of 20/20 hindsight. Rhaegar is going to go in for baby switching and hurried pllans for fathering children, because he knows that he si going to die on the Trident at Robert's hands.

[Dragonfish]

Rhaegar is going to go in for baby switching and hurried pllans for fathering children, because he knows that he si going to die on the Trident at Robert's hands.

I doubt Rhaegar knew he was going to die on the Trident, unless he was just putting on a show for Jaime when he told him about the changes he would make once he got back.

[MtnLion]

I doubt Rhaegar knew he was going to die on the Trident, unless he was just putting on a show for Jaime when he told him about the changes he would make once he got back.

Yeah, I was being kind of facetious in the last paragraph..

[Dragonfish]

Yeah, I was being kind of facetious in the last paragraph..

Ah, well, I guess I didn't pick up on that.

[MtnLion]

Ah, well, I guess I didn't pick up on that.

20/20 hindsight ... Then Rhaegar knows he isn't going to get back. :P

The point was that we are viewing events from a different persective than the characters in the story, and wonder why our views differ from the character's. The King's Guard, using Barristan as the example, would not fear seven men any more than the six King's Guard when he was forced into retirement. He says, "I could cut through you all like so much cake." Three of them, including Arthur who I think of as being an even better fighter than Barristan, had no reason to fear seven. Even if one of the seven happened to be brother to Brandon, and son of Rickard and was carrying Ice.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

About this, there's that discussion with Martin relayed by Ran:

Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

... Yeah, this doesn't really prove anything.

Whatever orders Rhaegar gave would have expired with him. The guy died and they would, in theory, be obligated to protect the new king. If Viserys (say) is the king, Rhaegar's orders before he died would no longer apply. They'd be sworn to Viserys. You see kind of an extreme version of this when Cersei shreds Robert's will and testament. They act freaked out and she says, not wrongly, that they have a new king now. Tough shit, etc.

What you have there are two discrete things (Rhaegar's orders to protect Lyanna and Jon, and Jon being the rightful heir) that result in the same outcome (the Kingsguard being at the Tower of Joy after Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are dead). Martin answered the question more or less correctly/honestly — the Kingsguard would have followed Rhaegar's orders — but he conveniently (deliberately) left out the fact that if Rhaegar is dead, his orders no longer apply. Yet they're still there. Why? Because Jon's the freaking king.

As to your assertion that the Kingsguard is undertaking a suicide mission, remember that "these were no ordinary three." You have the Lord Commander and Arthur Dayne, plus Oswell Whent. Arthur Dayne, who could've killed five modern-time Kingsguard members with one hand and pissing with his other hand. I think they had a reason to like their chances, and, for whatever reason (remember that they did kill everyone but Ned and Howland, despite being outnumbered), it didn't work out. And what choice would they have had anyway, but to fight?

But the Daynes, like Edric Dayne, are known to be able to have that colouring. Ashara has violet eyes, also.

All the more reason for Ned to allow the Ashara Dayne rumor to fester in the south. If Jon does grow up to look like a Targ, saying that Ashara is his mother is the perfect cover.

What I will say, is that I have not a shred of doubt that R+L=J is indeed true. And in truth, I cannot escape the conclusion that people who oppose this idea do so simply out of a stubborn need to be contrary. Or because they just don't LIKE the idea.

In any case, I don't think a thorough reading of all the clues up to now leaves any doubt whatsoever that Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's legitimately born son.

Agree 100%. As you said, it's not about providing the biggest "gotcha" moment. It's about successfully tying everything together and providing clues that readers can follow. I really don't think that R+L=J is that obvious; it only seems that way because hardcore fans have been scrutinizing it for more than a decade. I know several new, casual readers who never clued into it at all.

[Angalin]

<mod>

Keep the topic to baby swaps, please. R+L=J discussions can move to the usual threads.

</mod>

[MtnLion]

We know that at the end of Robert's Rebellion, there were three babies of dubious identity.

1. The baby that Ned brings home and calls Jon Snow.

2. The baby that Gregory Clegane murders.

3. The baby that Viserys (?) delivers to Jon Connington and who grows up to be "Young Griff"/Aegon

...

Begging your pardon, Angalin, but the parentage of Jon Snow is part of the subject, here.

[Angalin]

Begging your pardon, Angalin, but the parentage of Jon Snow is part of the subject, here.

Up to a point. If the thread becomes focused exclusively on Jon with the assumption that Rhaegar and Lyanna are of course his parents, that particular scenario has its own home for hashing and rehashing. Keep your minds open and your babies in play, people.

[Free Northman]

Well this thread died a quick and sudden death.

[MtnLion]

I did find it interesting to think that Ashara had had a male child at the same time that Elia had a stillborn girl, and tha the two may have conspired to switch them. I still think that Serra is Aegon's mother, though. The Soiled Septa Lemore does not seem to be overly motherly of Aegon.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I did find it interesting to think that Ashara had had a male child at the same time that Elia had a stillborn girl, and tha the two may have conspired to switch them. I still think that Serra is Aegon's mother, though. The Soiled Septa Lemore does not seem to be overly motherly of Aegon.

Isn't it the other way around? Selmy says that Ashara had the stillborn girl and Elia would've had Aegon.

[MtnLion]

Isn't it the other way around? Selmy says that Ashara had the stillborn girl and Elia would've had Aegon.

That is what Barristan thinks, yes. Suppose that secretly it is the other way around. That Aegon is really Ashara's son and illegitimate.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

That is what Barristan thinks, yes. Suppose that secretly it is the other way around. That Aegon is really Ashara's son and illegitimate.

You should probably clarify that that's a theory of yours. The way you wrote it originally, I thought you'd just gotten it backward. :P It's not a fact yet.

[MtnLion]

You should probably clarify that that's a theory of yours. The way you wrote it originally, I thought you'd just gotten it backward. :P It's not a fact yet.

Not really my theory, it is how I interpretted the initial supposition. I don't lend it a lot of credance, either. It is interesting, though. The main thing that I found lacking in this theory is that Septa Lemore does not mother Aegon up, and she would be the one that would instantly recognize him as her own, if Varys had saved a (supposedly) switched Aegon. Again, this supposes that Lemore is Ashara, which is not proven, yet, either.

[Aaron the Always-Late]

Is the vow assumed to be the vow of the Kingsguard, or factually the vow of the kingsguard?

Isn't it possible that Rhaegar left, telling his guardsmen to guard "Lyanna" or "the tower" or "the child" whatever wording he could have chose, and said "swear to me" and they would've replied somewhere alone the lines of "you have my word"

When Ned shows up and says "it's cool, you guys can go protect the rightful heir" and they respond with the "vow" I don't necessarily see it needing to be THAT vow...

I dunno, just my 2 cents. If I'm wrong and overlooked something, shoot me down quick and painlessly, much obliged. And apologies in advance for the misdirection.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Is the vow assumed to be the vow of the Kingsguard, or factually the vow of the kingsguard?

Isn't it possible that Rhaegar left, telling his guardsmen to guard "Lyanna" or "the tower" or "the child" whatever wording he could have chose, and said "swear to me" and they would've replied somewhere alone the lines of "you have my word"

When Ned shows up and says "it's cool, you guys can go protect the rightful heir" and they respond with the "vow" I don't necessarily see it needing to be THAT vow...

I dunno, just my 2 cents. If I'm wrong and overlooked something, shoot me down quick and painlessly, much obliged. And apologies in advance for the misdirection.

Rhaegar's orders would have expired when he died. I take the "vow" to be the general one where the Kingsguard swears to protect the monarch in general and not That Guy in particular. If Rhaegar had made them swear a vow to protect Lyanna and/or Jon that was separate from the generic Kingsguard vow, with Rhaegar's death (and Aerys' and Aegon's), it would have been superseded by their overarching vow to protect the monarch in general (who at that time should have been Viserys). That's why I don't believe any theory that suggests that the three Kingsguard were at the Tower just because of an order Rhaegar gave. That might have been their original purpose for being there, but at the time Ned found them, they should have been there protecting the monarch, not because Rhaegar had told them to stay.

[Black Crow]

I don't think the two are incompatable.

Three members of the Kingsguard seems a touch excessive when there's a war on - if they weren't protecting the heir to the throne. On the other hand the death of the guy giving the orders does not automatically release them from those orders. It can certainly be used as an excuse for not carrying out orders, especially if they were "wrong"; for example an order to kill somebody, but no honourable man would consider himself released from an order to protect someone.