R+L=J v.29

[rmholt]

What? No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the idea that Viserys could somehow be better protected by not having Kingsguard with him is preposterous.

Then why no KG protecting him? Was Rhaegar putting most of his "money" on Jon, or being super emotional over Lyanna, or thought W Darry would be good enough?

[Dragonfish]

Then why no KG protecting him? Was Rhaegar putting most of his "money" on Jon, or being super emotional over Lyanna, or thought W Darry would be good enough?

It wasn't Rhaegar who sent Viserys off to Dragonstone, it was Aerys. And that was after Rhaegar was already dead.

And besides, at the time Viserys was only third in line for the throne. The Kingsguard were put to better use elsewhere.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

SOme of us think our arguments are valid or at least worth considering. Thanks to Dragonfish for his time.

Well, I obviously wasn't referring to you. I stated that I have no problem with people that present alternate theories, but I do have a problem with people that insist on using circular questioning to rip a theory apart without offering an alternative.

I suggest it is a waste of time to spend a lot of emotion defending our pet theories. I mistook this for ap lace to discuss ideas.

This is a place to discuss ideas, and that is the reason I come here. I enjoy discussing ideas with fellow fans that are passionate about this series, but I despise people that attack others ideas without contributing to the discussion. That can lead to some pretty emotionally charged discussions on the subject.

There is only one who knows what is going on. I went on the idea that HE was being honest about the KG obligations which allowed my theory. Sorry you didnt like it. I am not convinced that there is universal agreement about any theory and my idea cuts through a lot of the debate of whether or not Jon was legitimate etcetera.

DId I ever say I was 100% sure about anything? GRRM was being honest, and his honesty does not contradict my theory. I didn't say I didn't like your theory...I haven't even read your theory. My post was in response to the comment I replied to and no one else. If I wanted to respond directly to you I would have quoted you. since I'm no the type of person to make sideways remarks.

You were on the offensive, and misread my post.

Exactly, Lady Tippy.

I remember that post (together with many other excellent posts you have contributed to this thread). It was a thorough piece of work, and it argued the point regarding the KG very well indeed. I think you are correct -- the posters who are determined to refute the R+L theory (in the manner you describe) often ignore the solid arguments, supported by compelling textual evidence, that posters such as yourself have contributed to this thread. It is careful, painstaking work to compile the evidence for R+L=J, and it deserves credit for being so. (not to mention the fact that I of course agree with your case!)

Yes, it can be very upsetting at times. Thank you so much for understanding where I was coming from. :D

Jon can't be a Targaryen because he burned his hand.

Plus, he doesn't have silver hair or purple eyes! Damn you Jon Snow! :P

[rmholt]

Well, I obviously wasn't referring to you. I stated that I have no problem with people that present alternate theories, but I do have a problem with people that insist on using circular questioning to rip a theory apart without offering an alternative.

This is a place to discuss ideas, and that is the reason I come here. I enjoy discussing ideas with fellow fans that are passionate about this series, but I despise people that attack others ideas without contributing to the discussion. That can lead to some pretty emotionally charged discussions on the subject.

DId I ever say I was 100% sure about anything? GRRM was being honest, and his honesty does not contradict my theory. I didn't say I didn't like your theory...I haven't even read your theory. My post was in response to the comment I replied to and no one else. If I wanted to respond directly to you I would have quoted you. since I'm no the type of person to make sideways remarks.

Yes, it can be very upsetting at times. Thank you so much for understanding where I was coming from. :D

Sometimes I get emotional or personally involved in internet discussion and forums. This IS NOT one of them. I dont recall being upset over anything except having to dig through the books yet again and try to decipher my notes and finding all those smack-head things. For one thing I know I am WAY behind on this topic. And most others. I read the books a while ago but havent dug deep into things the way this forum does and I had no links to SSM. This forum has added a great deal to my understanding of the books and I appreciate all the well-thought-out stuff and have patience for the posts of people who were where I was not long ago.

Perhaps i wasnt referring to you either, altho it was your post I happened to respond to.

[SFDanny]

I've heard the "switched Aegon in Dorne" theory before and I can't take it seriously. Namely because I think Aegon was actually killed and Young Griff is a fraud. I also think that it makes far more sense to smuggle a baby out of the country entirely, not take him deeper into the continent. It also doesn't explain where the hell Jon came from or what Lyanna was doing at the Tower.

Glad you've heard of it, and as you can tell if you read my post you quoted, or many of them on the topic I've written in the past, I've reached the same conclusion you have that Aegon is likely a fraud. That, however, was not the point of my post. My point was in trying to explain the possible reasons for all three members of the remaining loyal Targaryen Kingsguard remaining at the Tower of Joy in light of the seeming contradiction between staying there and their "first duty" to protect their new king, it is possible to understand their actions based on Aegon being hidden in the tower when Ned arrives. I think this unlikely, but as someone who has argued for years the importance of the Kingsguard trio's actions, I think it is important to acknowledge the impact Aegon's story in A Dance with Dragons has on understanding the possible reasons for their actions. To do otherwise, is, I think, to put blinders on when reading the story.

[Ygrain]

Then why no KG protecting him? Was Rhaegar putting most of his "money" on Jon, or being super emotional over Lyanna, or thought W Darry would be good enough?

At KL, there could be quite a couple of knights almsot as good as KG, who would make for an excellent protection of a royal but non-king person; at ToJ, there was probably no-one else to be had. Besides, as Dragonfish has said, it was Aerys, not Rhaegar, who sent Viserys to Dragonstone, the remaining KG were put to use where the need was more pressing, i.e. with the king himself (Jaime) and the Crown prince (Martell, Selmy, J Darry), who was at that time commanding the royal army and whose survival was crucial for the course of the battle and victory.

Who sent or ordered whom to stay where, however, ceased to matter altogether when Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon died and Viserys supposedly became king (the fact that there were no forces to push his claim did not matter, he was simply the heir to the last legitimate king). The title, as well as the KG vows, transfer to him and solely him immediately. The KG may still follow another oath, or an order of Rhaegar's, as long as at least ONE of them attempts to reach Viserys ASAP. When Ned confronts them, they apparently know what has been going on, they know that Viserys is at Dragonstone alone, yet they do not perceive as their duty to go to him.

Aegon at ToJ would mean that the baby switch took place quite some time before the Sack, which would require quite a lot of people on it, not to mention the cooperation of that anonymous child, since by that time, Aegon was about a year old and a child of this age knows "his" people pretty well (not to mention that it is also rather distinguishable from other children). The switch makes sense as a last resort when the situation looks But then, why smuggle Aegon across the continent, into a tower in the middle of nowhere, when there is all of Dorne, where he can be easily transported by ship and, as a son of Elia, hidden with uncountable supporters?

[FrozenFire3]

Then why no KG protecting him? Was Rhaegar putting most of his "money" on Jon, or being super emotional over Lyanna, or thought W Darry would be good enough?

At KL, there could be quite a couple of knights almsot as good as KG, who would make for an excellent protection of a royal but non-king person; at ToJ, there was probably no-one else to be had. Besides, as Dragonfish has said, it was Aerys, not Rhaegar, who sent Viserys to Dragonstone, the remaining KG were put to use where the need was more pressing, i.e. with the king himself (Jaime) and the Crown prince (Martell, Selmy, J Darry), who was at that time commanding the royal army and whose survival was crucial for the course of the battle and victory.

Who sent or ordered whom to stay where, however, ceased to matter altogether when Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon died and Viserys supposedly became king (the fact that there were no forces to push his claim did not matter, he was simply the heir to the last legitimate king). The title, as well as the KG vows, transfer to him and solely him immediately. The KG may still follow another oath, or an order of Rhaegar's, as long as at least ONE of them attempts to reach Viserys ASAP. When Ned confronts them, they apparently know what has been going on, they know that Viserys is at Dragonstone alone, yet they do not perceive as their duty to go to him.

Aegon at ToJ would mean that the baby switch took place quite some time before the Sack, which would require quite a lot of people on it, not to mention the cooperation of that anonymous child, since by that time, Aegon was about a year old and a child of this age knows "his" people pretty well (not to mention that it is also rather distinguishable from other children). The switch makes sense as a last resort when the situation looks But then, why smuggle Aegon across the continent, into a tower in the middle of nowhere, when there is all of Dorne, where he can be easily transported by ship and, as a son of Elia, hidden with uncountable supporters?

While I agree with most of this, it is important to note that the possibility exists, after the publication of ADwD, that the reason they all three stay at the Tower and none of them go to Viserys is that the child and heir they are guarding is Aegon, not a legitimate Jon. The reasons to doubt that it is Aegon rely on other clues in the series (the mummer's dragon, etc.) not the actions of the Kingsguard trio. If one buys Aegon's story, then it is possible that after a baby switch, young Aegon is held in secret in the tower. It would fully explain why all of the trio are there.

Rhaegar probably married Lyanna thus making Jon legitimate... otherwise I don't think the KG would have remained there if he had been a mere bastard. Viserys would have been a priority. It was not only one of them who could have broken the oath, it was three! Aegon and Rhaenys were officially dead when Ned arrived at ToJ, making Jon the king's only living son even if he wasn't Elia's. They clearly stated: "The King's guard does not flee..." and they didn't. They protected the heir and died for it. Of course it would have made no sense if they had gone to Viserys because he was not the heir, he was second in line anyhow.

As for Aegon, I believe he is a farce but if young Griff was truly the real Aegon I don't think the KG at ToJ would have known anything about it right then. Varys had to hide him and the best way of hiding something or someone is to tell no one (or few people whom you truly trust). Infact he shipped him across the Narrow Sea immediately. ToJ could have been too dangerous and not very prudent.

Personally, I think they get it, but refuse to accept it for whatever reason. I once wrote an extremely long post to explain where every member of the Kingsguard was during the rebellion and why. The posters arguing against the purpose of the Kingsguard simply ignored my post and continued with their circular questioning. They often never offer alternative theories, but question everything you try to explain to them. Then it goes back to, "You only think that because you believe R+L=J." No, the actions of the Kingsguard during the rebellion IS one the reasons I believe R+L=J!!!

If someones has an alternate theory surrounding R+L=J and the Kingsguard...fine, but don't attack the theory that most of us support without a valid argument.

Sorry, I had to vent a little. :D

Yes, I agree with you ^_^ I don't have a problem with other theories because none of us truly know what GRRM is actually writing or what he has in mind. R+L=J seems like the most probable theory but then again that's just my perspective and I may be wrong. But some people seem to refuse to accept the theory without really explaining why, without a valid argument and without writing something that may support their different theory/idea. They refuse the theory as if it were a principle.

Jon can't be a Targaryen because he burned his hand.

LOL :P

[SteelAndSnow]

No, I know.

I was being light-heartedly sarcastic. :bs:

The KG topic has been discussed three ways to Sunday, and the only other topic discussed like that was the whole: "Jon-can't-be-a-Targ-because-he-burned-his-hand."

The KG topic almost deserves it's own thread to open it up to people beyond the R+L=J crowd, just to see if there are different views.

Yeah I got that. I posted just when you posted that you were joking. My bad. It's just a reflex I guess- instant reaction to people saying that Targs can't burn. They can OKAY?!! Don't annoy me people :P

Plus, he doesn't have silver hair or purple eyes! Damn you Jon Snow! :P

Real funny you guys.

And I remember your post too, Lady Wolfsbane. That was one of first really reasoned arguments I read for R+L=J and the theory made the shift in my mind from crazy-fantastical to quite probable so thanks for that!

Also, I along with many others I'm sure don't have a problem with people coming up with new or slightly different theories. As a matter of fact we encourage it because lets face it, there's only so much to say and we need to challenge this theory BUT it becomes annoying when people challenge the theory without giving well thought out arguments. People on this board work really hard to present logical arguments so please, return the favor. Even if somebody doesn't agree with your take no one is going to fight you if it has some possibility of happening. But opposing the theory just because you don't like it without contributing anything is NOT COOL people.

Okay. I'm Done. Sorry about that but it needs to be said.

[SteelAndSnow]

At KL, there could be quite a couple of knights almsot as good as KG, who would make for an excellent protection of a royal but non-king person; at ToJ, there was probably no-one else to be had. Besides, as Dragonfish has said, it was Aerys, not Rhaegar, who sent Viserys to Dragonstone, the remaining KG were put to use where the need was more pressing, i.e. with the king himself (Jaime) and the Crown prince (Martell, Selmy, J Darry), who was at that time commanding the royal army and whose survival was crucial for the course of the battle and victory.

Who sent or ordered whom to stay where, however, ceased to matter altogether when Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon died and Viserys supposedly became king (the fact that there were no forces to push his claim did not matter, he was simply the heir to the last legitimate king). The title, as well as the KG vows, transfer to him and solely him immediately. The KG may still follow another oath, or an order of Rhaegar's, as long as at least ONE of them attempts to reach Viserys ASAP. When Ned confronts them, they apparently know what has been going on, they know that Viserys is at Dragonstone alone, yet they do not perceive as their duty to go to him.

I think it's important to note that Ned expected them to be at Dragonstone. If Ned thought their duty was with their new King would mean that they were not bound to the now-dead King's orders.

[FrozenFire3]

I think it's important to note that Ned expected them to be at Dragonstone. If Ned thought their duty was with their new King would mean that they were not bound to the now-dead King's orders.

:agree: So either they were all betraying their oaths - hypothesis confuted by Ser Gerold himself: “We swore a vow” - or their duty was with their new King. An infant dark haired, half-wolf Targaryen.

[Maxpey]

Well, I obviously wasn't referring to you. I stated that I have no problem with people that present alternate theories, but I do have a problem with people that insist on using circular questioning to rip a theory apart without offering an alternative.

This is a place to discuss ideas, and that is the reason I come here. I enjoy discussing ideas with fellow fans that are passionate about this series, but I despise people that attack others ideas without contributing to the discussion. That can lead to some pretty emotionally charged discussions on the subject.

DId I ever say I was 100% sure about anything? GRRM was being honest, and his honesty does not contradict my theory. I didn't say I didn't like your theory...I haven't even read your theory. My post was in response to the comment I replied to and no one else. If I wanted to respond directly to you I would have quoted you. since I'm no the type of person to make sideways remarks.

You were on the offensive, and misread my post.

Yes, it can be very upsetting at times. Thank you so much for understanding where I was coming from. :D

Plus, he doesn't have silver hair or purple eyes! Damn you Jon Snow! :P

Hey, don't speak bad about Jon Snow. I don't care if Rhaegar is his father. To me he has been, and always will be, Ned's son. As such, he is perfect! ;)

[JonTargaryenW/Viserion4WIN]

About to blow your collective brain-balls apart:

GRRM based the biggest mystery of the series, R+L=J, on the Fleetwood Mac song "Rhiannon"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhiannon_(song)#section_1

Rhiannon was a Welsh Goddess but all that mythological stuff aside, Rhiannon = RHaegar + LyANNa + jON. Look up the lyrics and the history of Rhiannon and you also come across another woman named Branwen (two characters from novel Triad) . I'm not an expert on ancient religion or literature based on it, just thought these were interesting coincidences.

ETA : sorry about the incomplete link, posting from my phone

[Alia of the knife]

Yeah I got that. I posted just when you posted that you were joking. My bad. It's just a reflex I guess- instant reaction to people saying that Targs can't burn. They can OKAY?!! Don't annoy me people :P

Real funny you guys.

And I remember your post too, Lady Wolfsbane. That was one of first really reasoned arguments I read for R+L=J and the theory made the shift in my mind from crazy-fantastical to quite probable so thanks for that!

Also, I along with many others I'm sure don't have a problem with people coming up with new or slightly different theories. As a matter of fact we encourage it because lets face it, there's only so much to say and we need to challenge this theory BUT it becomes annoying when people challenge the theory without giving well thought out arguments. People on this board work really hard to present logical arguments so please, return the favor. Even if somebody doesn't agree with your take no one is going to fight you if it has some possibility of happening. But opposing the theory just because you don't like it without contributing anything is NOT COOL people.

Okay. I'm Done. Sorry about that but it needs to be said.

I agree that the time people put into their arguements should be respected, as well as having a passion for a favorite character, or topic.

I have seen, and not so much here, but in other threads, people really taking it to a different level, and it becomes a personal attack, rather than a healthy disagreement on the topic.

I also agree that it's not about whether you like a theory or not, but whether you can put together a logical arguement as to why it can work.

One theory, I don't personally like, but could live with, and could see it working is the twin/triplet theory.

It's cumbersome, and could be a bit over the top, but it could easily explain some things as well.

There is also an element of mysticism attached to twins/triplets that also fits the template of the theme of magic, and twins too seems to be a genetic factor for the Targs. Throw in three heads of the dragon, and then there is another alternative, but legitimate theory.

I don't care for it, (I think less is best and like simplicity as a rule), but, it's also not outside the realm of possibility.

I prefer this to three different babies with three different sets of potential parents, being switched, because then it just sounds like a Jerry Springer episode.

I started a seperate thread on the KG, because that topic is not my forte,' and while people on this thread have made really excellent arguements, it seemed to be the same people making the excellent arguements.

I was curious to see what others beyond the R+L=J thought, because not everyone on the Westeros Board is into the back story of R+L=J, (my Husband is more interested in why there must always be a Stark in Winterfell for example), but they might contribute different, but compelling theories on the KG presence at the TOJ.

But, as always I think everything should be said in the spirit of civility, or it's not fun anymore.

You also never know who is sitting behind the keyboard, what they are going through, if they are trying to make connections when otherwise it's awkward for them.

It would stink if this becomes one more bad experience for them, so I always try to tread as carefully as I can, not knowing the other person.

Take Care :)

[Teal'c]

About to blow your collective brain-balls apart:

GRRM based the biggest mystery of the series, R+L=J, on the Fleetwood Mac song "Rhiannon"

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Rhiannon_(song)#section_1

Rhiannon was a Welsh Goddess but all that mythological stuff aside, Rhiannon = RHaegar + LyANNa + jON. Look up the lyrics and the history of Rhiannon and you also come across another woman named Branwen (two characters from novel Triad) . I'm not an expert on ancient religion or literature based on it, just thought these were interesting coincidences.

ETA : sorry about the incomplete link, posting from my phone

The link to the myth is more helpful. Some elements are there of the Rhaegar/Lyanna story (beautiful horsewoman, did not marry intended affianced), and maybe some elements of "Aegon" VI (golden haired prince, hidden away) as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhiannon

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Sometimes I get emotional or personally involved in internet discussion and forums. This IS NOT one of them. I dont recall being upset over anything except having to dig through the books yet again and try to decipher my notes and finding all those smack-head things. For one thing I know I am WAY behind on this topic. And most others. I read the books a while ago but havent dug deep into things the way this forum does and I had no links to SSM. This forum has added a great deal to my understanding of the books and I appreciate all the well-thought-out stuff and have patience for the posts of people who were where I was not long ago.

Perhaps i wasnt referring to you either, altho it was your post I happened to respond to.

This is the only forum I have ever been a member of because ASOIAF is the only thing I have been this passionate about, so we are different in that regard. I feel my passion concerning ASOIAF should be respected, even if you disagree. I have A LOT of patience for people that are new here and have questions. I enjoy hearing their fresh theories, and debating certain topics with them. I do not have patience for people that disrespect the opinions of others with sarcastic remarks and disrespectful comments.

I understand if you felt attacked, and there are no hard feelings. :cheers:

Okay. I'm Done. Sorry about that but it needs to be said.

I completely understand. :D

But, as always I think everything should be said in the spirit of civility, or it's not fun anymore.

You also never know who is sitting behind the keyboard, what they are going through, if they are trying to make connections when otherwise it's awkward for them.

It would stink if this becomes one more bad experience for them, so I always try to tread as carefully as I can, not knowing the other person.

:agree: This is why I always try to be nice and respectful, so it upsets me when others don't do the same.

In relation to Jon and his legitimacy...I don't see the KG remaining at the ToJ if he was a bastard.

[rmholt]

This is the only forum I have ever been a member of because ASOIAF is the only thing I have been this passionate about, so we are different in that regard. I feel my passion concerning ASOIAF should be respected, even if you disagree. I have A LOT of patience for people that are new here and have questions. I enjoy hearing their fresh theories, and debating certain topics with them. I do not have patience for people that disrespect the opinions of others with sarcastic remarks and disrespectful comments.

I understand if you felt attacked, and there are no hard feelings. :cheers:

I completely understand. :D

:agree: This is why I always try to be nice and respectful, so it upsets me when others don't do the same.

I responded to what I perceived as your not nice and disrespectful tone when "correcting" me about something I know something about. Also you made it a point to "correct" me which was not necessary. So I responded in kind. If that hurt your feelings, maybe you take this stuff more seriously than I do. Degrees, years in the breed (in dog debates), dont impress me. Someone refused to let me finish a story about a bonobo researcher by insisting they were really called pygmy chimpanzees. Not true anymore, her degree in anthropology notwithstanding. For example. But I digress.

In relation to Jon and his legitimacy...I don't see the KG remaining at the ToJ if he was a bastard.

My point was, I didnt feel attacked, personally, and I wasnt offended. I just didnt appreciate being called ignorant *in a tangent* when I wasnt.

If Rhaegar told the KG to guard Lyanna, it wouldnt matter if he was born alive, a bastard, a girl, whatever. If Rhaegar told the KG to guard Lyanna and her baby it also wouldnt matter. But that's my interpretation. All the debate about his legitimacy I thought was answered with GRRMs statement. But apparently not for everyone! <G>

[rmholt]

About to blow your collective brain-balls apart:

GRRM based the biggest mystery of the series, R+L=J, on the Fleetwood Mac song "Rhiannon"

http://en.m.wikipedi.../Rhiannon_(song)#section_1

Rhiannon was a Welsh Goddess but all that mythological stuff aside, Rhiannon = RHaegar + LyANNa + jON. Look up the lyrics and the history of Rhiannon and you also come across another woman named Branwen (two characters from novel Triad) . I'm not an expert on ancient religion or literature based on it, just thought these were interesting coincidences.

ETA : sorry about the incomplete link, posting from my phone

Dang I KNOW there is a GRRM story out there with a character named Rhiannon. Will post when I find it.

[valyrian_steel]

I like to look at the Jon's parentage thing from the other direction. In the Ned version, Jon's mother is Wylla, a serving woman in House Dayne. When did he do the deed? If it was at Harrenhal then it assumes Wylla was there with Ashara Dayne (possible) but it also means Jon was fathered a year or so before the rebellion. Ned married Catelyn right before he left for the rebellion and fathered Robb before he marched off to war. That makes Jon at least a year older than Robb yet at the start of the books both boys r 14. The next time we know Ned meets Wylla is when he returns Dawn to Starfall. If he fathered Jon then, Jon would be younger than Robb and Ned would have had to remain in Dorne for a year before returning to Winterfell (unlikely). I suppose it's possible that Ned popped up to Starfell during the rebellion but with all the foreshadowing in the books it isnt likely that this would have escaped mention. There is also the question of why Ned would take his young son back to Winterfell. It wasnt like he was being raised in Flea Bottom. He was with his mother (Wylla) who had a prominent place in House Dayne. Now I can see the honorable Ned wanting to raise the boy himself but I can also see the honorable Ned not wanting to dishonor Catelyn with his infidelity (so I see this either way) The same arguments hold for Ashara Dayne being the mother with it even less likely that Ned would take the boy from such a well placed family and his mother.

As to ToJ, the KG were there on Rhaegar's order to protect Lyanna (and her son?). When Rhaegar died at the the Trident the key question is why did they remain. They no longer had any reason to guard Lyanna and a big reason to get back to KL and protect the king. The only thing I can see keeping them there is there certain knowledge (ie told by Rhaegar or witnessed) that Jon was a legitimate heir to the Iron Throne. It was their duty to protect the royal family and considering Lyanna health they couldnt have taken them to KL. In this scenario Visarys never enters into it. After Aerys and Aegon die Jon is next in line.

As to who knows. Howland Reed knows at least something and prolly all. Benjin Stark might know some of it from Ned altho Im unclear on when he went to the wall. If he went between Harrenhal and the start of the rebellion then Im kinda curious why as it could reflect on what happened at the tourney. If he went after the rebellion then I have to wonder why he wasnt at the ToJ with Ned. If anyone knows please post it..TIA Ashara Dayne knows (if u assume she is Septa Lemore). Wylla certainly knows part of it tho if she wasnt the mother I doubt she knows who is unless it was AD.

[JonTargaryenW/Viserion4WIN]

@valyrian_steel

GRRM has stated( and I believe it can be found in SSM since someone has posted this to previous RLJ threads) that Benjen was in Winterfell during the rebellion. Remember, there must always be a stark in winterfell. He left "a few months" after Ned returned with baby Jon which was before Cat moved there from Riverrun with baby Robb.

I also think he knows Jon's true parentage story but I imagine he pieced it together because he was close with Lyanna, not because Ned told him. My theory is that he took the black because he disagreed with how Ned was planning on raising Jon, i.e. passing him off as a bastar rather than as their sister's son.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I responded to what I perceived as your not nice and disrespectful tone when "correcting" me about something I know something about. Also you made it a point to "correct" me which was not necessary. So I responded in kind. If that hurt your feelings, maybe you take this stuff more seriously than I do. Degrees, years in the breed (in dog debates), dont impress me. Someone refused to let me finish a story about a bonobo researcher by insisting they were really called pygmy chimpanzees. Not true anymore, her degree in anthropology notwithstanding. For example. But I digress.

I seriously thought we were past this! The conversation regarding the volcanoes has not been on my mind, and has not had any bearing on my recent posts. Since you bring it up, this seems to have been the initial problem. My tone was never mean nor disrespectful. I bought the volcano theory to this thread, so I was simply defending my theory by correcting what I saw as a slight mistake. It was all in good fun and relevant to the discussion, hence my ( ;)).

Obviously your feelings were affected, since you became extremely rude in your responses because you wrongly perceived my post as talking down to you. My 'correction' was not meant to impress you, or make you look bad. You obviously took it a lot more seriously than I did, and seem to have hang-ups about it from the past. Whatever discussions you had with others in the past has no bearing on our discussions, and you shouldn't have let it affect your response to my post. There was a way to handle the discussion kindly if you felt I was trying to belittle you, because I could have explained that I wasn't.

My point was, I didnt feel attacked, personally, and I wasnt offended. I just didnt appreciate being called ignorant *in a tangent* when I wasnt.

My point was, if you felt you were being called ignorant *in a tangent* then you felt attacked and offended...which is why you chose to respond to my post.

If Rhaegar told the KG to guard Lyanna, it wouldnt matter if he was born alive, a bastard, a girl, whatever. If Rhaegar told the KG to guard Lyanna and her baby it also wouldnt matter. But that's my interpretation. All the debate about his legitimacy I thought was answered with GRRMs statement. But apparently not for everyone! <G>

Again, this wasn't in response to you or your beliefs. I skimmed the thread, and realized that this was the basis of the current discussion, so I added my '2 cents'.

IMO, GRRM's statement confirms my beliefs. So we must agree to disagree.