Jump to content

Angalin

Recommended Posts

Of course Elia was there to secure Dorna was obedient!!!! Is that an action of a caring king? would that kind of king protect his family? Who would say go and protect that mistress that may have given birth?

They were breaking the vows,and Ned's reaction is what is giving direction to that story.

My objection is that you twist the facts to fit your own vision. You should read,not read into.

Uh, except they explicitly state that they are upholding their vows. Seems you're the one who should be doing some reading, "dear."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an indication that KG wasn't acting under King'a order.

Correct me if I am wrong, since I've never been in the military: in the absence of the highest commanding officer, you obey the second-in-command, unless the orders contradict, in which case the higher authority wins, or not? If Aerys did not command them explicitely to fetch Rhaegar and return to KL ASAP, they were under Rhaegar's authority and could be ordered to stay at ToJ, since with four more KG at KL, they were not exactly needed.

BTW, the three KG at Trident must have been sent by Aerys' order, or at least with his blessing, and this was not mad at all, since in battle, the life of the crown prince, who is at the same time the commander, is in greater danger, and requires higher protection, than the life of the king safely away from the battle. As long as the one-man-with-the-king rule is fulfilled, assigning the rest is a matter of priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned, I think, knew what he'd find at the Tower. That's why only seven of Ned's closest friends and retainers went with him.

I don't think Ned knew for certain but I think he probably had a good idea that for Lyanna's sake it should be a small party. I don't know whether Ned had any clue to the exact nature of the relationship between Rhaegar and Lyanna (most of the clues point to it being a mutual attraction but the common story was kidnap and rape) but even if he believed that she was taken against her will, there is a sort of coldly practical outcome to a woman being secluded for a year with a man who is likely having sex with her (consentual or not) more than once. So I definitely think he thought a baby's existence was a strong possibility. His questions to the KG sort of feel like a round about way of confirming his suspicions without asking flat out...."Did Rheagar get my sister pregnant with a true born heir?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that R+L=J too. But this confused me: If Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen then he would have "dragon blood" like Danny, right?

It seems that Danny is immune to fire. When she burnt Drogo she stood in the pyre and was unhurt (she only lost her clothes and her hair). But when Jon burnt the Wights (after the attack on Mormont) Jon received serious burns. Isn't that strange?

Ok, Viserys died to fire. But he was weak... ("A fire cannot kill a dragon") Shouldn't Jon be immune to fire like Danny? What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that R+L=J too. But this confused me: If Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen then he would have "dragon blood" like Danny, right?

It seems that Danny is immune to fire. When she burnt Drogo she stood in the pyre and was unhurt (she only lost her clothes and her hair). But when Jon burnt the Wights (after the attack on Mormont) Jon received serious burns. Isn't that strange?

Ok, Viserys died to fire. But he was weak... ("A fire cannot kill a dragon") Shouldn't Jon be immune to fire like Danny? What do you think?

Targaryens are not actually immune to fire (or disease or anything else). GRRM has called this a "misconception" and he's clarified it a couple of times. Several Targaryens have died in fire-related ways: Rhaenyra Targaryen was eaten by a dragon, several Targs died in the Dance of the Dragons, Aerion Brightflame drank wildfire, Aegon V and Duncan the Small died in a fire at Summerhall, and of course Viserys had molten gold poured over his head.

Dany is not immune to fire. What happened in the funeral pyre was a one-time thing and won't be happening again. If you've finished ADWD, recall that she had burn blisters on her hands from touching the hot spear. The dragon-hatching thing was a "miracle," and should not in any way whatsoever be taken as evidence that Dany is immune to fire.

As for "fire cannot kill a dragon," to be blunt, Dany is pretty ignorant when it comes to her own family's history. Fire can kill "dragons" and it has, both human and literal. Most of the Targ family dragons died in the Dance of the Dragons, and you can surmise that many of those deaths were caused by other dragons — they were killed by fire. Dany also thinks that Targs don't get sick, which is complete nonsense because Daeron II and several of his grandchildren died of the Great Spring Sickness, while other Targs have had various forms of the pox and other illnesses. Shireen Baratheon had greyscale, and she's a Targaryen through her great-grandmother. Point being, Dany is an extremely unreliable narrator and her words should not be taken seriously in that context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that R+L=J too. But this confused me: If Jon is the son of Rhaegar Targaryen then he would have "dragon blood" like Danny, right?

It seems that Danny is immune to fire. When she burnt Drogo she stood in the pyre and was unhurt (she only lost her clothes and her hair). But when Jon burnt the Wights (after the attack on Mormont) Jon received serious burns. Isn't that strange?

Ok, Viserys died to fire. But he was weak... ("A fire cannot kill a dragon") Shouldn't Jon be immune to fire like Danny? What do you think?

Ok to stop Apple Martini from having a stroke I'm going to say that Targaryens are NOT immune to fire. I know the show made it seem so but it was definitely not the case in the books. Several Targaryens burned to death at Summerhall and one died from drinking wildfire. Dany herself is burned (though not badly) in ADWD when Drogo shows up at the fighting pits, in the chapter afterwards when she is with Drogon she talks about her burns healing. GRRM has said himself that Dany's immunity at the birth of her dragons was a one time thing due to the magic of the event, not becuase she is actually immune to fire.

So with that in mind...yes Jon would also have the blood of the dragon if he was Rhaegar's son cause he'd be part Targ as well as part Stark, but no it is not weird that he is burned because the family does not have an immunity to fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,just Rhaegar isn't the king. You have to see how that is fundamentally wrong.

Your arguments are based on premises that Jon is Rhaegar's son,and yet this notion should be final destination for the deducing process,not basis for it. In other words,you read into the books,making the material fit your preconceived ideas.

Are you not capable of decent,constructive conversation? Trolls. :thumbsdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,just Rhaegar isn't the king. You have to see how that is fundamentally wrong.

Your arguments are based on premises that Jon is Rhaegar's son,and yet this notion should be final destination for the deducing process,not basis for it. In other words,you read into the books,making the material fit your preconceived ideas.

Are you not capable of decent,constructive conversation? Trolls. :thumbsdown:

I still don't understand why you think that just because they are called kingsguard they only obey or protect the king. Their duty is to all members of the royal family, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is on page 7 of its 24th version. Most people who write here have done the deducing process before and arrived at the notion that Jon is indeed Rhaegar's and Lyanna's son. We're telling you how the KG at the ToJ fit into that theory, not that it proves the theory (it doesn't. A lot of information does serve as evidence, though, enough to consider it as proven beyond reasonable doubt). The King's Guard at the Tower are actually a sideshow to that theory, and wouldn't even be required. The only part of the theory for which the Kings Guard are important is Jon's legitimacy, for which they are one of only two sources (the other one being Mormonts Raven calling Jon 'King').

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,just Rhaegar isn't the king. You have to see how that is fundamentally wrong.

Your arguments are based on premises that Jon is Rhaegar's son,and yet this notion should be final destination for the deducing process,not basis for it. In other words,you read into the books,making the material fit your preconceived ideas.

We're telling you that the Kingsguard would also follow Rhaegar's orders, if Rhaegar was the highest authority around them.

Are you not capable of decent,constructive conversation? Trolls. :thumbsdown:

I don't think "trolls" means what you think it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In ADWD, Barristan tells us that the kingsguard's primary purpose is to guard the king. Protection may be offered to other members of the royal family, but this is strictly at the king's discretion.

We don't know why the three members of the kingsguard went to the ToJ and we don't know why they stayed after Rhaegar left for the Trident. But we do know that they did stay.

The way I see it is one of two scenarios: either Rhaegar is allowed to command the KG or Aerys had commanded the KG to find Rhaegar and to bring him back at any cost. Rhaegar may have then said that he would not leave Lyanna unprotected and he would not join the war unless the KG stayed with her. If that is the case then the KG are still following Aerys's orders as he was the one to say the KG could do anything to get Rhaegar back. In this case do anything involves staying with Lyanna.

Anyhoo, the main point isn't so much that the KG went to the ToJ and stayed there after Rhaegar left. The crucial part of the story is that the KG stayed at the ToJ after Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon had all died. '

But Viserys was still alive, surely he should be king, right? So why aren't you guys protecting him? Or Robert could be your new king, why aren't you off in KL swearing fealty to him? Well that is what Ned thought anyway.

But no, the KG are still at the ToJ. Why? Because Viserys is not the king. Robert is not their king. So who on earth are the KG, honourable men who are sworn to the duty of protecting the king, men who do not run, who on earth are they protecting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND that's the thing - you can't search for clues that fit a pre-made theory.

It is the clues that make the story.

And entering the conversation thinking that I must be the one who is wrong,for god forbid someone doesn't go with the flow,is rather childish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND that's the thing - you can't search for clues that fit a pre-made theory.

Do you have any idea what you're saying? If you don't look for clues to support a theory, how do you support the theory? Where do theories come from, if not from clues that support it?

We've told you, repeatedly, how the Kingsguard works, using textual evidence. You can disregard it if you want, but it has been offered and it is based on Martin's writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND that's the thing - you can't search for clues that fit a pre-made theory.

It is the clues that make the story.

And entering the conversation thinking that I must be the one who is wrong,for god forbid someone doesn't go with the flow,is rather childish.

please explain to me kind sir, what exactly are you arguing about?

cause the reason why KG was at the TOJ is pretty clear to me. And others have explained it thoroughly already for anyone who bothered to read their posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,why would fine laws of magic,oath -taking,sacrificing be important in Martin's world,I wonder.

Thanks for the bolded part,though!

You're welcome, dear!

AND that's the thing - you can't search for clues that fit a pre-made theory.

It is the clues that make the story.

And entering the conversation thinking that I must be the one who is wrong,for god forbid someone doesn't go with the flow,is rather childish.

Have you ever written a project? When you do that, you formulate a hypothesis before you actually make the research. Things work the same way with speculations on ASoIaF: you make a theory before things are plainly stated to you. What would be the point otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need anyone to explain anything to me,and that's evident from my posts.

Actually,I did pay attention while attending every logics/philosophy class,and I was trying to point to mistakes in deducing. (not a fertile soil for crackpoting plants,I see)

I don't want to derail the thread,you are free to proceed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...