R+L=J v.25

[sagaz]

How certain are we of Rickard's goals in usurping Targ rule before the Lyanna incident? I know there are hints of southern ambitions, but I'm not as certain that they were as anti-targ as some think. First off if Lyanna marries Robert, their kids are all of Targ decent...it seems possible that his southern ambitions could have been to get a grandchild as queen or just a closer claim to the throne as the North had basically been hands off since they joined the kingdom. As the North until this latest set of problems, seemed to have kept out of the realm's nonsense for the most part I don't get where they might develop the idea that the Targs had to go (where as I could see all of the other kingdoms having more of an issue because they did suffer more due to Targ rule), but given the size of the North I can see the Lord of the North thinking that he wanted more say in the whole kingdom.

The contrarian in me thinks that it is possible that Rickard actually knew what happened to Lyanna and encouraged it (ala the Boleyn family) because it got the connection to the royal family much more directly and immediately, the abduction story covered the family's ass with Storm's End, and that he just didn't have time/the means to get the word to Brandon before he went off half-cocked to KL. Because seriously if Brandon hadn't gone, while there would have been bruised egos all around, the issue would likey have been settled the less violent way with reparations and a new marriage etc (assuming Aerys' insanity is no peaked in some other way resulting in the same end).

If you read this thread, a few pages back is an interest discussion about Starks and Targs don't mixing. It goes back to the age of heroes and Targaryen conquest, when Thorren bent the knee and the Starks were in full warging power. The Targs basically let them be in the north maybe cautious of that power (imagine wargs + dragons!!). I don't think that Rickard was plotting to have a queen. I think Targs & Starks like to be as far as possible from each other by tradition.

I like to think that Rhaegar and Lyanna were defying tradition. Since there were no more wargs and dragons, why they couldn't be toghether?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

How certain are we of Rickard's goals in usurping Targ rule before the Lyanna incident? I know there are hints of southern ambitions, but I'm not as certain that they were as anti-targ as some think. First off if Lyanna marries Robert, their kids are all of Targ decent...it seems possible that his southern ambitions could have been to get a grandchild as queen or just a closer claim to the throne as the North had basically been hands off since they joined the kingdom. As the North until this latest set of problems, seemed to have kept out of the realm's nonsense for the most part I don't get where they might develop the idea that the Targs had to go (where as I could see all of the other kingdoms having more of an issue because they did suffer more due to Targ rule), but given the size of the North I can see the Lord of the North thinking that he wanted more say in the whole kingdom.

The contrarian in me thinks that it is possible that Rickard actually knew what happened to Lyanna and encouraged it (ala the Boleyn family) because it got the connection to the royal family much more directly and immediately, the abduction story covered the family's ass with Storm's End, and that he just didn't have time/the means to get the word to Brandon before he went off half-cocked to KL. Because seriously if Brandon hadn't gone, while there would have been bruised egos all around, the issue would likey have been settled the less violent way with reparations and a new marriage etc (assuming Aerys' insanity is no peaked in some other way resulting in the same end).

I doubt, very seriously, that Lord Rickard would want to marry Lyanna to Rhaegar. I doubt the Starks had any type of political ambition, but I guess it could be possible. Lyanna marrying Robert was not a stretch considering his ties to the Stark family, so his Targaryen descent most likely had nothing to do with the decision. I also don't see Lord Rickard going along with the abduction plot, or maybe I'm just a Stark loyalist.

If you read this thread, a few pages back is an interest discussion about Starks and Targs don't mixing. It goes back to the age of heroes and Targaryen conquest, when Thorren bent the knee and the Starks were in full warging power. The Targs basically let them be in the north maybe cautious of that power (imagine wargs + dragons!!). I don't think that Rickard was plotting to have a queen. I think Targs & Starks like to be as far as possible from each other by tradition.

I like to think that Rhaegar and Lyanna were defying tradition. Since there were no more wargs and dragons, why they couldn't be toghether?

:agree: , as shown in my post a few pages back. The magic had disappeared on both sides, and their reasons for giving one another space had probably been forgotten for a while.

[Alia of the knife]

I like your theory that Jon organizes a force to re-claim the North and as he starts to move south people are like "oh shit!" but first we have to find out of the others are the real threat or not.

I think "the dragon has to be awakened," and this is the event that does it, I believe.

He was already prepared to take off until Sam, and even Aemon got to him.

:agree: (where's the like button?). This would be all too cool, but actually I doubt Jon will even have the time to get to "Aegon", though he might have the time to think about this "new brother". I mean, by the time Jon is recovered/brought back to life and news of YG's victories and claim to the throne arrive at the Wall, it is very likely YG will already have been exposed as a fake/killed. Not to mention the possibility that as soon as he's recovered from his Julius Caesar session, Jon might ride to the lands of always winter or something, and who knows when he'll be back? So, I think he might, eventually, meet Daenerys, but I really doubt the same is true about YG.

:agree: . kinda.

Like many have said before, I doubt all Starks were as honorable as dear Ned. Aerys was paranoid, okay, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have somehow figured out part of the truth.

_____________

btw, did you see this interview with Sophie Turner? She agrees with us on R+L=J :D

The "like" button is gone- again. :frown5:

I think events are going to have to be expedited at some point, I always thought that Jon would have a similar experience as Dany- perhaps his would-be murderers would attempt to burn his body, either to hide stab wounds, or to keep him from "turning," and when they did, he would emerge, A ONE-TIME EVENT, the same way Dany did.

It's like trying to get through a "traffic jam" to get these characters to converge, :ack: so while that is my theory, we'll have to wait to see what Martin decides.

Are they openly speaking now of the theory?

This is a fairly one-sided read of the story we have so far. It is quite possible that before Rhaegar and Lyanna run away that Rickard Stark is plotting the overthrow of the Targaryens through his many alliances with other great houses. It fits with what Aerys thinks is the case and it sure fits with the facts as we know them. So did the Starks have "every right" to plot against their lawful king? Did Aerys have a "right" to kill traitors to his rule? Unless one takes the side of the "good" Starks - because they are "good," one has to at least, I think, try to view the events from the other guy's point of view.

As to any future animosity between the remaining Starks (including Jon) and Daenerys, I think she has better targets for revenge (Jaime Lannister in the first case) than the Starks - if that is her guiding motive.

I should clarify I mean the Starks had a right to react to Lyannas disappearance, and then rebel once their heads were called for.

I see nothing to suggest prior to Lyanna going missing that Rickard had in mind to rebel against "the lawful King."

(I might also point out that the Starks were Kings at a time the Targaryens were a dubious House in Valaryia).

I agree that not all the Starks may have been honorable, (Brandon may be one), but from my read on Lady D's inferences about Rickards ambitions, I don't see that he'd want the Iron Throne.

Did he perhaps want more of a presence in the South as it seems the Starks mainly kept to themselves?

Maybe.

Or, did he want Northern Independence, going back to pre-Aegon the Conquerer borders?

I think that could be likely, and he'd still need support to do that.

BTW, I don't think it's wrong for him to want Independence for his people, but it doesn't mean he would interfere with Aerys and the rest of the six kingdoms.

But of course, the North was the size of all the Seven Kingdoms together, so perhaps there would be no Kingdom if the North left.

We also don't know what the rest of the Starks know about Lyannas disappearance, and Brandons ride into KL always read to me like panic.

And we still don't know for sure that Lyanna was willing.

She could be in love with Rhaegar, but still not willing to run off with a married man who already had heirs.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Or, did he want Northern Independence, going back to pre-Aegon the Conquerer borders?

I think that could be likely, and he'd still need support to do that.

BTW, I don't think it's wrong for him to want Independence for his people, but it doesn't mean he would interfere with Aerys and the rest of the six kingdoms.

But of course, the North was the size of all the Seven Kingdoms together, so perhaps there would be no Kingdom if the North left..

I can buy the idea that he wanted independence for his people, and it would explain him needing the support of others, but I doubt he wanted anything more. There would still be a kingdom if the North left, it would just be cut in half, which would probably be a little upsetting for the Targs. :unsure:

[Alia of the knife]

I can buy the idea that he wanted independence for his people, and it would explain him needing the support of others, but I doubt he wanted anything more. There would still be a kingdom if the North left, it would just be cut in half, which would probably be a little upsetting for the Targs. :unsure:

Yes, and it is true that while Aerys was mad, he was probably still cunning enough to know what losing the North would mean.

And it just didn't feel to me that Rickard would have wanted anymore than what was originally the Norths.

[Dernhelm]

is it a far cry to think that Lyanna probably died because of complications to child birth AND/OR grief over the death of her beloved Rhaegar? Rhaegar is already slain by Robert at this point, right? could have been reported to her by his closest friend Ser Arthur Dayne who was under strict orders by him to rush to Lyanna's side to protect her and the unborn Jon should he die.

i don't know why this line, about the room in ToJ smelling of "blood and roses" made me think that.

[Lady Octarina]

is it a far cry to think that Lyanna probably died because of complications to child birth AND/OR grief over the death of her beloved Rhaegar? Rhaegar is already slain by Robert at this point, right? could have been reported to her by his closest friend Ser Arthur Dayne who was under strict orders by him to rush to Lyanna's side to protect her and the unborn Jon should he die.

i don't know why this line, about the room in ToJ smelling of "blood and roses" made me think that.

Well, yes, the most accepted explanation is that she died because of such complications.

However, I've recently read a theory saying that she was, indeed, murdered, and by one of the KG (Whent) - though not following Rhaegar's orders, as Robert seemed to believe, but out of frustration after everything that had happened and blaming Lyanna for it. And then someone elaborated the theory affirming that Whent could have killed her out of spite, because he wanted to... you know... but she refused him. All interesting thoughts, I must say. I know it is said the Targaryen KG used to be made of honorable men and skilled fighters, but it does seem a bit absurd to assume all of them were that honorable so, why not? :dunno:

[sagaz]

as shown in my post a few pages back. The magic had disappeared on both sides, and their reasons for giving one another space had probably been forgotten for a while.

It was you! I tried to go back and find the post to cite the author/s properly, but the forum keep failing and had to go by memory.

[kg1982]

I highly doubt that the honorable Kingsguard at the Tower would have killed Lyanna even out of frustration or spite. Lyanna was the mother of their king, for whom they were willing to fight to the death. It seems likely that Lyanna died because of childbirth.. likely puerperal fever.

[Dernhelm]

I highly doubt that the honorable Kingsguard at the Tower would have killed Lyanna even out of frustration or spite. Lyanna was the mother of their king, for whom they were willing to fight to the death.

well, Jaime just broke that tradition not so quite long ago :P

[Ygrain]

Honourable or not, if a KG wanted an unarmed, unarmoured girl dead, she would be so, and definitely wouldn't have the time to develop fever.

No, I'm not buying the theory at all.

[Maxpey]

Honourable or not, if a KG wanted an unarmed, unarmoured girl dead, she would be so, and definitely wouldn't have the time to develop fever.

No, I'm not buying the theory at all.

I agree. Ned specifically recalls Lyanna dying of a fever. I have to assume that had she been stabbed or slashed, Ned would have made notice of it. Although, with GRRM anything is possible.

Maybe we find out from Howland Reed that Ned's recollections about Lyanna were all wrong because he suffered a psychotic break as a result of finding her dead (I am not saying this is what happened!!).

At this point, who the hell knows.

[Baelor Blackfyre]

Well, yes, the most accepted explanation is that she died because of such complications.

However, I've recently read a theory saying that she was, indeed, murdered, and by one of the KG (Whent) - though not following Rhaegar's orders, as Robert seemed to believe, but out of frustration after everything that had happened and blaming Lyanna for it. And then someone elaborated the theory affirming that Whent could have killed her out of spite, because he wanted to... you know... but she refused him. All interesting thoughts, I must say. I know it is said the Targaryen KG used to be made of honorable men and skilled fighters, but it does seem a bit absurd to assume all of them were that honorable so, why not? :dunno:

This is interesting theory, I don't agree with it but it is interesting. But do you know why Whent? Why do people think he, specifically, would be the one to do it? Do we have reason to believe he is any less honorable than Dayne or Hightower?

[Lady Octarina]

This is interesting theory, I don't agree with it but it is interesting. But do you know why Whent? Why do people think he, specifically, would be the one to do it? Do we have reason to believe he is any less honorable than Dayne or Hightower?

The person who posted this didn't elaborate on this part, but I assume it's because we've all heard so many good things about Arthur and Hightower that Whent would be the only one left if we're to assume a KG killed her or was somehow responsible for her death. Which is not a strong basis, I must say, but indeed, we barely know anything about Whent.

Just to say that I don't completely believe this is what happened, but the theory has its merit, and it was nice to hear an alternate idea about Lyanna's death for a change.

[Baelor Blackfyre]

Thanks for the info. And yeah I agree, I have never even heard an alternate theory to Lyanna's death besides the old death in childbirth.

[SFDanny]

I should clarify I mean the Starks had a right to react to Lyannas disappearance, and then rebel once their heads were called for.

Well, it's the word "right" that gets tricky here, I think. They had a duty to submit to their king's justice. Whether they agreed with anything the Targaryens did, Aerys or Rhaegar, is beside the point if one is talking about the duty one has to fulfill the oath of a vassal to one's king. I totally agree that fighting back against a mad king's "justice" is the "right" thing to do, but it isn't within the "rights" of the Starks to do so. From Aerys's view, they are oath breakers and traitors to the crown, whether or not they actually plotted against Targaryen rule before Lyanna is kidnapped - which I think they did. The problem is, it seems to me, that while Aerys is crazy, and gets crazier, he is "right" in suspecting the Starks of treason, and he has the "right" to brutally stamp out those who rebel against their oaths to the crown. The High Lords - Starks, Arryns, Tullys, and Baratheons - have the real chance of getting rid of a dynasty imposed on them through bloody war and conquest enabled by dragons who now are only the stuff of legend. It is easy to understand rebellion and breaking of one's oath to this king and his dynasty in the circumstances as they existed prior to Lyanna's "abduction." It may even be morally right to rebel. It certainly isn't legally right for them to do so under the system they have pledged their lives to uphold.

None of this really changes once Lyanna disappears with Rhaegar, or even after Aerys brutally murders Rickard and Brandon and calls for Ned's and Robert's heads. Aerys has the "right" to do all this. Ned would have been as crazy as Aerys to submit himself to the block and accept the King's justice - his oath be damned. It was his duty, however to do so. That's part of the complexity of the story Martin writes for us.

I see nothing to suggest prior to Lyanna going missing that Rickard had in mind to rebel against "the lawful King."

There is plenty to suggest it. Rickard's "southern ambitions" as laid out by Lady D, and Ser Barristan's remarks about the days before the Harrenhal tourney certainly can be read in that way. In fact, I think the author is pointing us to that conclusion, imho. One can differ on this question, of course, but I see no reason to dismiss the argument as without any foundation.

(I might also point out that the Starks were Kings at a time the Targaryens were a dubious House in Valaryia).

Certainly something to keep in mind when trying to decipher the motives of all the High Lords in this period, not just the Starks.

I agree that not all the Starks may have been honorable, (Brandon may be one), but from my read on Lady D's inferences about Rickards ambitions, I don't see that he'd want the Iron Throne. Did he perhaps want more of a presence in the South as it seems the Starks mainly kept to themselves? Maybe. Or, did he want Northern Independence, going back to pre-Aegon the Conquerer borders? I think that could be likely, and he'd still need support to do that. BTW, I don't think it's wrong for him to want Independence for his people, but it doesn't mean he would interfere with Aerys and the rest of the six kingdoms. But of course, the North was the size of all the Seven Kingdoms together, so perhaps there would be no Kingdom if the North left.

I was agreeing with everything up to "... but it doesn't mean ...". Of course it means the Starks are interfering with Aerys. If Rickard is plotting to overthrow Targaryen rule, he is doing so by making alliances to other Great Houses in order to win them to his side when he rebels. Rickard isn't fool enough to think he can win a war against the united power of the Targaryens AND all of the other Great Houses, no matter the size of the North. That's just suicide. He also isn't fool enough to believe that he can just declare the North's independence and expect the Targaryens and their allies to leave them alone.

We know Lady D viewed Brandon's upcoming wedding to Catelyn as part of Rickard's "southern ambitions." How then can we think his betrothal of his daughter to House Baratheon, and his fostering of his second son with House Arryn are some how exempt from these plans? I would also add the attempted match of Jaime to Lysa as part of this as well. It seems clear to me that the Starks are setting up a bloc of alliances that challenge Targaryen rule. Certainly Aerys thinks so. I find it hard to believe the Starks are somehow unaware of what their marriage alliances mean in terms of the balance of power, or they are doing all of this without a clue of what their actions mean to the Targaryens. What isn't clear is exactly what they plan to do once they get rid of Aerys. Put Rhaegar on the throne? Very unlikely. Set up a new dynasty to rule Westeros? Or to go back to to political structures prior to the Targaryen conquest? I agree with you that the latter is much more likely because I don't see all of the Great Houses involved "just" agreeing to turn over their fealty to a new king. In order to risk everything I think they'd need something other than the pledge of a new Stark, or Baratheon, overlord to be a better king than the Targaryens. I'd argue that the realities of the war that follows force them in that direction, but it wasn't part of Rickard's original plot. The fact that Martin tells us that it isn't decided by the rebels until around the time of the Trident that Robert will become King tends to support this view, imo.

We also don't know what the rest of the Starks know about Lyannas disappearance, and Brandons ride into KL always read to me like panic.

And we still don't know for sure that Lyanna was willing.

She could be in love with Rhaegar, but still not willing to run off with a married man who already had heirs.

It reads more like rage to me, but, sure, all of this is possible, even if some of it seems unlikely to me.

[Alia of the knife]

Well, yes, the most accepted explanation is that she died because of such complications.

However, I've recently read a theory saying that she was, indeed, murdered, and by one of the KG (Whent) - though not following Rhaegar's orders, as Robert seemed to believe, but out of frustration after everything that had happened and blaming Lyanna for it. And then someone elaborated the theory affirming that Whent could have killed her out of spite, because he wanted to... you know... but she refused him. All interesting thoughts, I must say. I know it is said the Targaryen KG used to be made of honorable men and skilled fighters, but it does seem a bit absurd to assume all of them were that honorable so, why not? :dunno:

You mean in the sense that Whent had a secret "thing" for Lyanna?

Interesting.

I think anything is possible, though I would have thought it more likely Dayne, but in the Lancelot/Gueniviere tradition, but then, he'd be more likely to die for Lyanna than kill her spitefully.

I also think that at this time, corruption was settling in all aspects of their society, including KG, if Selmys lamentations of Daynes role at Harrenhal are anything to go by, (i.e., suggestive of Daynes being involved in a coup with Rhaegar).

Selmy seems to be at odds with his own involvement in the GOT in Danys stead, and seems to hold this is not KG place.

Whent would have had affiliation with Lyanna if the theory of her being a guest of his Brothers family was correct.

Ironic if all this time an entirely different man would be brought in beyond Robert and Rhaegar, which actually would not surprise me.

Another theory that I saw is that Rhaegar himself might have ordered her slain in the event of his death.

Rather like the Vikings when the King died, his wife followed him.

At the very least, he may not have wanted her to be turned over to Robert.

"Damn him, Rhaegar won afterall, he has Lyanna, and I have her...."

Of course that takes Rhaegars character in a different direction.

I still say chilbirth though.

[Lady Octarina]

You mean in the sense that Whent had a secret "thing" for Lyanna?

Interesting.

I think anything is possible, though I would have thought it more likely Dayne, but in the Lancelot/Gueniviere tradition, but then, he'd be more likely to die for Lyanna than kill her spitefully.

I also think that at this time, corruption was settling in all aspects of their society, including KG, if Selmys lamentations of Daynes role at Harrenhal are anything to go by, (i.e., suggestive of Daynes being involved in a coup with Rhaegar).

Selmy seems to be at odds with his own involvement in the GOT in Danys stead, and seems to hold this is not KG place.

Whent would have had affiliation with Lyanna if the theory of her being a guest of his Brothers family was correct.

Ironic if all this time an entirely different man would be brought in beyond Robert and Rhaegar, which actually would not surprise me.the story

Yes, that's the idea. I don't think the story would have to follow the Lancelot legend exactly, I mean, of course ASoIaF is full of references to the classic stories, but it rarely emulates them with such precision. But yes, I have seen various suggestions that Lyanna was romantically involved with Arthur after Rhaegar went back to KL, which I find pretty unnerving, tbh - I mean, why do we keep going back to the idea that a Dayne and a Stark had a romantic or sexual relationship? lol

It has been too long since I read ADWD - to what exactly are you referring to when you mention Barristan's thoughts on Rhaegar and Dayne at Harrenhall?

Another theory that I saw is that Rhaegar himself might have ordered her slain in the event of his death.

Rather like the Vikings when the King died, his wife followed him.

At the very least, he may not have wanted her to be turned over to Robert.

"Damn him, Rhaegar won afterall, he has Lyanna, and I have her...."

Of course that takes Rhaegars character in a different direction.

I still say chilbirth though.

Yes, the idea that Rhaegar ordered her execution seems to be the most popular one after death in childbirth, but, of course, that seems to be Robert's version of what happened. Tbh, I really think this would fit more with Robert's behavior than what we know of Rhaegar's - even if we choose not to trust that he was the perfect prince and actually kidnapped Lyanna to fulfill a prophecy, I don't see why he would have her killed anyway, since in that case he would only be interested in their child, and who better to raise the child to become the savior of mankind or whatever than the kid's mother?

But I agree with you, childbirth is much more likely - though that doesn't mean we have to stick to that theory unchanged for other five or ten years. :cool4:

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Well, it's the word "right" that gets tricky here, I think. They had a duty to submit to their king's justice. Whether they agreed with anything the Targaryens did, Aerys or Rhaegar, is beside the point if one is talking about the duty one has to fulfill the oath of a vassal to one's king. I totally agree that fighting back against a mad king's "justice" is the "right" thing to do, but it isn't within the "rights" of the Starks to do so. From Aerys's view, they are oath breakers and traitors to the crown, whether or not they actually plotted against Targaryen rule before Lyanna is kidnapped - which I think they did. The problem is, it seems to me, that while Aerys is crazy, and gets crazier, he is "right" in suspecting the Starks of treason, and he has the "right" to brutally stamp out those who rebel against their oaths to the crown. The High Lords - Starks, Arryns, Tullys, and Baratheons - have the real chance of getting rid of a dynasty imposed on them through bloody war and conquest enabled by dragons who now are only the stuff of legend. It is easy to understand rebellion and breaking of one's oath to this king and his dynasty in the circumstances as they existed prior to Lyanna's "abduction." It may even be morally right to rebel. It certainly isn't legally right for them to do so under the system they have pledged their lives to uphold.

None of this really changes once Lyanna disappears with Rhaegar, or even after Aerys brutally murders Rickard and Brandon and calls for Ned's and Robert's heads. Aerys has the "right" to do all this. Ned would have been as crazy as Aerys to submit himself to the block and accept the King's justice - his oath be damned. It was his duty, however to do so. That's part of the complexity of the story Martin writes for us.

Before I say anything, I want to be sure I read this correctly...

Are you saying...

Aerys had a 'right' to do everything he did, but the high lords had no 'right' to anything they did against Aerys; because Aerys was king???

[Serie]

it seems to me that what SFDanny is trying to say is that even though it might be morally right for high lords to turn against a mad king it is not legal, according to Westerosi laws of course. Which I think its a fair argument.

The thing is that not all legally right activity is morally right and that's where trouble begins.