Maybe R+L=J is not true?

[House Martell]

There are many, many things in the books that are never spelled out completely but that you can figure out on your own. That's why I love these books so much — so many things in them require you to actually think and piece solutions out for yourself. GRRM isn't big on spoonfeeding stuff, and honestly, if he does spoonfeed you something, it's probably not true.

The beautiful thing about these books is it's a story web not a story line. And GRRM doesn't treat his readership like idiots spelling everything out.

Again I think R+J=L is most likely. But I can't understand the rancor at simply exploring other possibilities. And no I'm not looking to be spoon fed anything, I'm giving GRRM the credit of having surprised me in the past and being an unconventional author. I really don't expect him to have Aragorn/Luke Skywalker(Jon) ride in and save the day in the end.

[House Martell]

Aerys had Lyanna in his hands, why wouldn't he bring out his ace against Robert and Ned? Hightower had no problem watch the Starks burnt and strangled; would he truly disobey the order of his king to bring Lyanna to KL? The same Hightower who instructs Jaime that it is not up to the KG to judge the King's actions? And: would Aerys send those KG who were Rhaegar's best buddies?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the KG at the ToJ were not working on Aerys behalf?

[Ygrain]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the KG at the ToJ were not working on Aerys behalf?

Yes. I believe that Rhaegar was very well aware how Aerys' authority could easily thwart any plans he had, and so he kept out of reach. After Aerys started demanding heads and Ned and Robert raised their banners, not revealing Lyanna's location became an absolute necessity, not just because Aerys could use her as a hostage but because, being the mad sadist he was, he might also want to execute some revenge on her for her brother's "treason"; or both.

[Faint]

Again I think R+J=L is most likely. But I can't understand the rancor at simply exploring other possibilities.

I think much of it stems from how difficult it would be to go about doing that. You wouldn't simply have to find a tidbit in the books that might suggest another possibility, you would have to find a way to refute the mountain of evidence against you, not only within the books but all the outside the book information as well. The recent interviews with the creators and cast members from the show, in particular, are very difficult to counter or explain away.

In any case, I'm just wondering why you couldn't discuss all this in the R + L = J thread.

[RoamingRonin]

I think much of it stems from how difficult it would be to go about doing that. You wouldn't simply have to find a tidbit in the books that might suggest another possibility, you would have to find a way to refute the mountain of evidence against you, not only within the books but all the outside the book information as well. The recent interviews with the creators and cast members from the show, in particular, are very difficult to counter or explain away.

The theory hasn't been confirmed so people are more than welcome to present other ideas. You say it's hard to argue against the theory but it's just as simple to ignore those that do.

[Faint]

The theory hasn't been confirmed so people are more than welcome to present other ideas. You say it's hard to argue against the theory but it's just as simple to ignore those that do.

I think my general point is, if you want to advance a theory, you can't simply ignore all the evidence against it; you'd have to actually go and explain all of that away as well.

[Maxpey]

I think my general point is, if you want to advance a theory, you can't simply ignore all the evidence against it; you'd have to actually go and explain all of that away as well.

I must confess that I loathe R + L = J. That having been said, I believe that it is true (as much as I hate to say it). In addition to the numerous clues GRRM has provided, we have statements from cast and crew of the show all but confirming this is the case (as a matter of fact, I believe GRRM gave away the reveal to these people specifically so that they would let the cat of the bag, so-to-speak).

What I see happening on this forum with many supporters of R + L = J is that they automatically dismiss any alternate theory as "ignoring the evidence" and they become personally offended that anybody would dare challenge this "fact." This is what I have a hard time understanding.

Back when I did not want to accept R + L =J, I presented what I believed were plausible, alternate explanations of much of the "evidence" in other threads. Many posters challenged my reasoning, and we engaged in a good, healthy debate. However, just as many told me that I was essentially stupid for even attempting to argue that R + L = J wasn't true.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I wish some of the supporters of R + L = J would be less outwardly hostile to those who are not no sure. We are all just trying to have fun here.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Again I think R+J=L is most likely. But I can't understand the rancor at simply exploring other possibilities. And no I'm not looking to be spoon fed anything, I'm giving GRRM the credit of having surprised me in the past and being an unconventional author. I really don't expect him to have Aragorn/Luke Skywalker(Jon) ride in and save the day in the end.

The issue is not that you wanted to explore other possibilities. That would have been fine, and has been done in other threads.The issue was that you simply ignored responses countering your possibilities, and responded with another line of thinking that did not compute. You were talking in circles, and seemed to enjoy 'fanning the fire.'

I must confess that I loathe R + L = J. That having been said, I believe that it is true (as much as I hate to say it). In addition to the numerous clues GRRM has provided, we have statements from cast and crew of the show all but confirming this is the case (as a matter of fact, I believe GRRM gave away the reveal to these people specifically so that they would let the cat of the bag, so-to-speak).

What I see happening on this forum with many supporters of R + L = J is that they automatically dismiss any alternate theory as "ignoring the evidence" and they become personally offended that anybody would dare challenge this "fact." This is what I have a hard time understanding.

Back when I did not want to accept R + L =J, I presented what I believed were plausible, alternate explanations of much of the "evidence" in other threads. Many posters challenged my reasoning, and we engaged in a good, healthy debate. However, just as many told me that I was essentially stupid for even attempting to argue that R + L = J wasn't true.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I wish some of the supporters of R + L = J would be less outwardly hostile to those who are not no sure. We are all just trying to have fun here.

I am always open to intelligent conversation on the topic, but you can't debate R+L=J by "ignoring the evidence" which is what a lot of people do when arguing against the the theory. R+L=J is not "fact", but you can't ignore the facts in the book, or give alternate meaning to those facts to argue against the theory. That's when I have an issue.

[Dragonfish]

And no I'm not looking to be spoon fed anything, I'm giving GRRM the credit of having surprised me in the past and being an unconventional author.

George isn't that unconventional. The basic structure of the series, in which characters start out in fairly close proximity, spread out and have their own adventures, then come back together at the end, is straight out of practically every other epic fantasy ever written. The basic plotline of rival dynastic houses vying for supremacy is reminiscent of many other stories as well, in particular, Dune. Even many of the details of the plot, including the surprising twists and turns, have been done before. George is not some post-modern or avant-garde author. He is writing in the epic fantasy genre, and part of writing in any genre involves meeting the readers' expectations of what they'll see. Sometimes those expectations can be played with, subverted, inverted, or shredded to death with a lawnmower, but certain conventions of the genre will be played thoroughly straight. This doesn't necessarily make George a bad author, though. A story with familiar elements can still be written in such a way as to appear fresh and compelling, and as long as George does this, I'll be satisfied.

I really don't expect him to have Aragorn/Luke Skywalker(Jon) ride in and save the day in the end.

None of this will necessarily occur if R+L=J is true. And even if it does occur, it will not necessarily occur in a cliche fashion.

[Faint]

I've always argued that the author is far more conventional than people give him credit for. Jon, in particular, is quite the cliche within the fantasy genre, more so than any other character in the story.

[Maxpey]

The issue is not that you wanted to explore other possibilities. That would have been fine, and has been done in other threads.The issue was that you simply ignored responses countering your possibilities, and responded with another line of thinking that did not compute. You were talking in circles, and seemed to enjoy 'fanning the fire.'

I am always open to intelligent conversation on the topic, but you can't debate R+L=J by "ignoring the evidence" which is what a lot of people do when arguing against the the theory. R+L=J is not "fact", but you can't ignore the facts in the book, or give alternate meaning to those facts to argue against the theory. That's when I have an issue.

I hear you.

But what you may believe to be a fact others may believe to be an interpretation.

For example, we can all agree that the presence of the Kingguard at the TOJ is an accepted fact. While I believe that the presence of the Kingsguard supports an inference that Jon is legitimate, I don't think it's been proven to the point that there are no possible reasonable alternatives. As such, I think people should feel free to provide alternate interpretations of the meaning of this "fact" without being told that they are wrong because their interpretation is not supported by the "facts."

[House Martell]

I hear you.

But what you may believe to be a fact others may believe to be an interpretation.

For example, we can all agree that the presence of the Kingguard at the TOJ is an accepted fact. While I believe that the presence of the Kingsguard supports an inference that Jon is legitimate, I don't think it's been proven to the point that there are no possible reasonable alternatives. As such, I think people should feel free to provide alternate interpretations of the meaning of this "fact" without being told that they are wrong because their interpretation is not supported by the "facts."

This is all I have been trying to do. If we just sit back and say beyond any shadow of a doubt the only reason the KG was there was to defend the King then case closed. But if there can be another possible reason then it opens the door to other possibilities.

The issue is not that you wanted to explore other possibilities. That would have been fine, and has been done in other threads.The issue was that you simply ignored responses countering your possibilities, and responded with another line of thinking that did not compute. You were talking in circles, and seemed to enjoy 'fanning the fire.'

All I was trying to do was get people to acknowledge that their beliefs about certain details are just that: beliefs. Yes certain things are very likely but that doesn't make them absolutely certain.

I think my general point is, if you want to advance a theory, you can't simply ignore all the evidence against it; you'd have to actually go and explain all of that away as well.

Nothing has been proven. There is a piece of evidence and one person sees one possible explanation and someone else sees another. Until an answer is come to both can be valid even if one is more likely, the most likely outcome does not always come up.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I hear you.

But what you may believe to be a fact others may believe to be an interpretation.

For example, we can all agree that the presence of the Kingguard at the TOJ is an accepted fact. While I believe that the presence of the Kingsguard supports an inference that Jon is legitimate, I don't think it's been proven to the point that there are no possible reasonable alternatives. As such, I think people should feel free to provide alternate interpretations of the meaning of this "fact" without being told that they are wrong because their interpretation is not supported by the "facts."

You misunderstand me...

When I say fact, I mean fact. I am not referring to the Kingsguard being at the ToJ. I made a general statement.

The Kingsguard being present at the ToJ is definitely open to interpretation, but you must provide a valid basis for the argument. You cannot attack someone for making supported assumptions, if your counter argument does not provide supported assumptions.

[House Martell]

Yes. I believe that Rhaegar was very well aware how Aerys' authority could easily thwart any plans he had, and so he kept out of reach. After Aerys started demanding heads and Ned and Robert raised their banners, not revealing Lyanna's location became an absolute necessity, not just because Aerys could use her as a hostage but because, being the mad sadist he was, he might also want to execute some revenge on her for her brother's "treason"; or both.

This is one of the things I take issue with. People cite the KG absolute following of their Vow but here you are saying they were not working on behalf of the King at the time. I don't think it can go both ways, if you are going to say they were strictly loyal to Rhaegar then you open the possibility that they may have been at the ToJ simply because Rhaegar told them to and not because they were staying with the "new king". If they follow the king without fail then why would Aerys have sent them to the ToJ defending this Northern girl, who you say would make a very good hostage?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

This is all I have been trying to do. If we just sit back and say beyond any shadow of a doubt the only reason the KG was there was to defend the King then case closed. But if there can be another possible reason then it opens the door to other possibilities.

All I was trying to do was get people to acknowledge that their beliefs about certain details are just that: beliefs. Yes certain things are very likely but that doesn't make them absolutely certain.

Nothing has been proven. There is a piece of evidence and one person sees one possible explanation and someone else sees another. Until an answer is come to both can be valid even if one is more likely, the most likely outcome does not always come up.

Well, maybe you should try to better explain yourself, because you failed at your task. Your counter arguments often ignored aspects of the previous post. As I said above, y

ou cannot attack someone for making supported assumptions, if your counter argument does not provide supported assumptions.

ETA: Formatting.

[Dragonfish]

This is one of the things I take issue with. People cite the KG absolute following of their Vow but here you are saying they were not working on behalf of the King at the time. I don't think it can go both ways, if you are going to say they were strictly loyal to Rhaegar then you open the possibility that they may have been at the ToJ simply because Rhaegar told them to and not because they were staying with the "new king". If they follow the king without fail then why would Aerys have sent them to the ToJ defending this Northern girl, who you say would make a very good hostage?

I think Ygrain is working off the theory that Aerys sent the Kingsguard to find Rhaegar, and when they did he ordered them to stay and guard the tower, partly so it would be protected, but also because he didn't want them to go back to King's Landing and tell Aerys where Lyanna was. In the absence of a direct order from Aerys to return to King's Landing, the Kingsguard would have been forced to stay until given further instructions (or, until new circumstances changed their priorities).

[Sasha Steelsong]

This is one of the things I take issue with. People cite the KG absolute following of their Vow but here you are saying they were not working on behalf of the King at the time. I don't think it can go both ways, if you are going to say they were strictly loyal to Rhaegar then you open the possibility that they may have been at the ToJ simply because Rhaegar told them to and not because they were staying with the "new king". If they follow the king without fail then why would Aerys have sent them to the ToJ defending this Northern girl, who you say would make a very good hostage?

Yes, but "because Rhaegar told them" only works for as long as Aerys/Rhaegar are alive. As soon as the KG knows that both are dead, previous promises go out the window and their primary responsibility becomes protecting the new king (which would have required them to leave the TOJ if the king wasn't there). You can "have it both ways" if there is a major change in circumstance from position 1 to position 2, and there was at least one major change over the course of the two postions. In the beginning, the King was in KL guarded by other members of the KG, by the time Ned shows up the king is dead and presumably the new king is on the run.

And you're assuming that Aerys sent them to the TOJ to guard Lyanna when it is equally possible (and more likely given the loyalties of the particular KG in question) that they were assigned by Aerys to protect Rhaegar and follow his orders before the TOJ became an issue, and they just followed Rhaegar to the TOJ. It would have been impossible for Aerys to do as you suggested because we know from Jamie's memories that no one in KL knew where Rhaegar was or how to reach him.

[House Martell]

I think Ygrain is working off the theory that Aerys sent the Kingsguard to find Rhaegar, and when they did he ordered them to stay and guard the tower, partly so it would be protected, but also because he didn't want them to go back to King's Landing and tell Aerys where Lyanna was. In the absence of a direct order from Aerys to return to King's Landing, the Kingsguard would have been forced to stay until given further instructions (or, until new circumstances changed their priorities).

So the 3 KG left KL in search of Rhaegar without knowing where he was? I find that highly unlikely. And my understanding is the KG answer to the king. Yes they can be used to defend his family but ultimately if Aerys sent them to go get Rhaegar and Lyanna and they follow the king without fail then they should have brought them back to KL. If they instead took their orders from Rhaegar (not the King at the time) then again as I said it opens the possibility of simply following Rhaegars commands and not their solemn vow to defend the king.

[House Martell]

Yes, but "because Rhaegar told them" only works for as long as Aerys/Rhaegar are alive. As soon as the KG knows that both are dead, previous promises go out the window and their primary responsibility becomes protecting the new king (which would have required them to leave the TOJ if the king wasn't there). .

But what if they didn't know Aerys was dead until Ned tells them, and also there is no mention in the scene at the ToJ of Aegon (who would come after Rhaegar). You say: "no one in KL knew where Rhaegar was or how to reach him." so how can we assume news has reached the KG of all the details of the war?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

This is one of the things I take issue with. People cite the KG absolute following of their Vow but here you are saying they were not working on behalf of the King at the time. I don't think it can go both ways, if you are going to say they were strictly loyal to Rhaegar then you open the possibility that they may have been at the ToJ simply because Rhaegar told them to and not because they were staying with the "new king". If they follow the king without fail then why would Aerys have sent them to the ToJ defending this Northern girl, who you say would make a very good hostage?

This is a great example.

I disagree with Ygrain, but they could easily combat your argument by stating:

Rhaegar was the crown prince, so he is also covered by KG protection, although his protection comes secondary to the king. As evidenced by Jaime's conversation with a fellow KG member on a previous post. The king also had KG protection at this time, at this point the KG is not in violation of their vows.

If no one of royal blood was inside the tower, and they still remained at the ToJ once Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead they would be in violation of their vows.

ETA: Yes, Ygrain is speculating based on assumptions, but you did not counter with your own assumptions. You only asked questions that could be answered with more assumptions. So in no way did you invalidate her argument.