R+L=J v.31

[yolkboy]

Harking back to Jons real name, after rereading a few things and considering...

I think it will be

Aegon Targaryen.

[Alia of the knife]

Sorry, but this needs to be called out.

This is nothing more or less than a fan beat-up. We have no information at all that polygamy is as outlawed or despised or anything similar in the traditions of the Old Gods.

There is no evidence at all that being a polygamous wife would be an insult or a slap in the face to Lyanna.

Or any of the rest...

This vast northern old gods being so 'set apart' from the seven, and northerners so much inherently better than southerners is overblown very badly here. Rickard made Southron alliances happily. Ned followed them up, and even built a Sept for his wife. If Catelyn is 'good enough' for Brandon/Rickon, and Robert 'good enough' for Lyanna, then Rhaegar is damn straight good enough for Lyanna. Heck, Robert is part Targ anyway!

The same goes for the theory about Septons not counting and Rhaegar effectively being a bachelor. Not impossible, but there is not the slightest indication of this - it just a fan beat-up.

More cases of a beat-up made out of nothing.

We have two known polygamists:

- Aegon the Conqueror, nowhere considered a 'bad' or evil or cruel King, whose Polygamy was certainly not a deliberate insult to anyone.

- Maegor the Cruel, known as the Cruel because of harsh methods used to quell rebellions, and for executing some Grand Maesters (perhaps for good reason, we might guess, though we have no real idea) and some wives for failing to produce heirs (Henry VIII anyone?). Apart from the name there isn't any suggestion he was a bad king, or his polygamy was aimed as an insult - more likely he was looking for heirs and binding still very disparate peoples to the throne.

In addition we have GRRM's statement that 'there may have been more polygamists, he wasn;t sure' which indicates that not only might there be more than we know about but that its not a major factor in their history or personality - which it most certainly would be if it was used as a cultural weapon.

Sorry Alia, your posts are always entertaining and reasonable, but you do have a habit of extrapolating from extrapolations of extrapolations and forming theories of great depth from basically nothing. In this case I think you are backing some fairly serious allegations based on literally nothing at all.

There is no evidence or even suggestion that a polygamous marriage to Rhaegar would have been not good enough for Lyanna. Queen, even second Queen, is substantially higher than Great Lady. Nothing anywhere suggests the north is inherently anti-polygamy any more than any other place. Heck, less. At least the Septons are against polygamy apart from the Targs, but we dont even know that much about the north, just that it isn't the usual custom.

Interestingly, the only polygamist we actually see so far in Westeros is a northerner (though I agree, he's a poor example).

:shocked:

Okay Corbon,

I've really had about enough of this type of dialogue.

First of all, this Board is NOTHING but speculation, theory, and hopefully, a place where different people can come with their different perspectives about their take-aways on the book.

And I usually don't allow myself to get drawn into heated, personal arguements about PRETEND people, but who are you to accuse me of "beating up" fans, just because I have a different perspective on this one lone theory out of thousands?!

I can see that it is clearly a pet theory dear to your particular heart, and I know it's a theory thats been around so long it's become "fan canon," or faux truth, but nonetheless, it's still a theory until Martin states otherwise.

I have never come here with the intent that I'm right, but with a humble opinion, and if Martin does go in that direction, so be it, because it's the Authors intent.

However, I am sorry that you confuse a difference of opinion with a personal attack, or a "beating-up."

But, I will say this:

In terms of extrapolation, my god, the entire theory that Lyanna would happily love to be in a no better position than she would be if she was married to Robert as he wouldn't keep to her bed, BUT would put up with Rhaegar going from hers to attending to Elia (whatever that entailed), and Princess Elia, and her family would be okay with Lyanna not being just a Paramour, but a wife, is not only overly simplified, but naive, and is the Mother of all extrapalotions.

(In real cultures where polygamy is practicised, there are still issues and problems within those dynamics, even though the individuals involved grew up with it)!

So sorry Corbon, I'm going to need more information on both women before I just accept that.

As I've said before, I've really had to go back to the Authors intent and analyze where he may be going with something, and I think it's often by the process of elimination that speak to me.

Again, the only occasions where we see polygamy practised are by bad characters, whether it be the Targaryens (and specifically the bad ones), or Crastor, (who the NW only tolerated because they needed him).

No other families- as far as we know, are doing this?

And, can a Crown Prince have a second wife, when his own Royal Father only had one?

Aerys was capable of anything, and never missed a chance to slight his Nobles, but even he didn't do that.

I don't think it's outside the realm of credible possibility that Rhaegar might have planned to set aside his marriage as we see a brief scenario where Renly was going to put forth Margery to potentially replace Cersei, who gave Robert not one, but two male heirs, and the Lannisters were more powerful than the Martells.

So, the possibility that a Westerosi version of divorce seems to be viable.

And given that the Martells were already angered over Rhaegars treatment of Elia, (and at this point, taking Lyanna for only a lover), which caused them to send reenforcements less than enthusiastically, I can't see that not setting Elia aside changes things.

In terms of Martins intent and use of polygamy in Rhaegars case,(if he is this noble character), IMHO, he may have intended it be a temporary loophole that makes his child with Lyanna legitimate until he could put his marriage officially aside which he couldn't do until he dealt with Aerys.

I happen to feel as a woman, that if Rhaegar is this Noble, Warrior Poet Arychetype, it's more honorable for both women that they are not left in this limbo, particularly Lyanna, and if Rhaegar has a care for Elia, he would set her free so she could follow her heart, and which does not change the status of Aegon as the next King of Westeros.

[Erudain]

I have been lurking for a while in this forun, but this my first post. Sorry if it may already been discussed.

One idea that have been in my mind for a while concearning Elia approval is that she had a more active part of the hole affair. And I don't mean like consenting that Raeghar had a concubine, but been a part of their love triangle.

The reasons I think that are:

1-We know that dornish people are more sexually open.

2-Her brother, Oberin was bissexual.

3- Oberin's paramour was interested in Cersei joinning then.

I don't know how Lyanna would react to that, but I think that she may have open ideas regarding that.

Look at other strong femele characters like Danny. It is know that she can have pleasure with other women.

Cersei also had her moments whith Taena. I think that Lyanna and Cersei are more alike that we would like. Cersei many times think that she was supposed to be born a man. Lyanna was a figther, and a good one, as we know from the KOLT episode.

Im not implying that they are masculine, but that as strong women they dont see thenselves as submissive wives. They have very open and modern ideas.

Perhaps Raeghar was the luckiest guy in the 7 kingdoms.

lol nice one....Elia u sex addict slut!!!! :spank:

[Rahloo]

First post so hi

I was wondering about two particular conversation one between tyrion and "aegon" where he talks about how he could win Dany over and mentions a scenario where dany and aegon could meet as equals and it seemed to me that it sounds a bit like a foreshadowing for how Jon would get dany's support if she were to find the truth about his parents. Another conversation involving supposedly aegons destiny or path seemed to instantly remind me of Jon during the epilogue between varys and Kevan lannister and even more so with the ending about daggers. Could the talk with varys and Kevan represent the actual vision Mel saw of Jon snow and more so are these conversations more or less GRRM giving more hints at Aegon not being the true heir with these conversations representing a lot what was going on with Jon him being the real heir while aegon a blackfyre?

I don't like the idea of Jon as king or him ending up with dany it gave me knots in my stomach when I read that conversation between tyrion and aegon but the ending certainly gave me hope for Jon’s survival and supported in my mind the R+L=J theory.

Am I correct in thinking these conversations are paralleled with Jon’s path?

Also if this is not the appropriate place to post this could someone point me to maybe an aegon.vs Jon snow conversation?

[SFDanny]

Alia, what I want to know is what is this stuff about "PRETEND people"???? What are you trying to say?

;)

[corbon]

:shocked: Okay Corbon, I've really had about enough of this type of dialogue.

...And I usually don't allow myself to get drawn into heated, personal arguements about PRETEND people, but who are you to accuse me of "beating up" fans, just because I have a different perspective on this one lone theory out of thousands?!

... However, I am sorry that you confuse a difference of opinion with a personal attack, or a "beating-up."

Ok, we have a severe misunderstanding here, and Alia, I'm sorry for that as its my fault for using an English term on a board where American is usually the assumed first language (I didn't realise it wasn't universal).

I see that looks kinda sarcastic - it isn't, its just a side joke about being separated by a common language.

A 'beat up' means a manufactured outcry (usually in the media, but in this case on this board).

If you reread my post with this knowledge, you should understand it a lot differently (and it should make a lot more sense.

The reason I call this a manufactured outcry, is that it is pretty clear that Lyanna was complicit in going with Rhaegar. Virtually all of the evidence points this way, even if it is not proven. Yet your theory basically says Lyanna couldn't have done that because she 'wouldn't think that way'. Which means by implication, you are basically saying Rhaegar is dishonouring Lyanna by his actions and forcing her to go against her cultural and religious mores..

This is manufactured because it goes against nearly all the evidence, and relies on some very very flimsy associations extrapolated a long long way (and IMO very badly, but thats just a differing of opinion, which we can argue about happily without anything personal).

It is an outcry because you are pushing blame on Rhaegar for things which are not only not supported by the text, but things he isn't even blamed for by his worst enemies. Robert blames him for physical abuse, but not even Robert adds forcing her to subverting her cultural and religious views to that.

But, I will say this: In terms of extrapolation, my god, the entire theory that Lyanna would happily love to be in a no better position than she would be if she was married to Robert as he wouldn't keep to her bed, BUT would put up with Rhaegar going from hers to attending to Elia (whatever that entailed), and Princess Elia, and her family would be okay with Lyanna not being just a Paramour, but a wife, is not only overly simplified, but naive, and is the Mother of all extrapalotions. (In real cultures where polygamy is practicised, there are still issues and problems within those dynamics, even though the individuals involved grew up with it)! So sorry Corbon, I'm going to need more information on both women before I just accept that.

I to would be shocked if she accepted that.

OTOH the idea that with Elia no longer able to bear children and the marriage being an arranged one anyway, there's no reason why Lyanna can't be the de facto sole wife, even as Elia keeps her position and prestige and everything that goes with being the first wife and mother of the heir, is quite logical. The point being that there is a reasonable possibility that reconciles Lyanna's attitude toard Robert's presumptive unfaithfulness and being Rhaegar's second wife, that doesn't require Rhaegar basically forcing Lyanna to abandon her (supposed) personal and cultural mores (or actually kidnap and rape her).

And, can a Crown Prince have a second wife, when his own Royal Father only had one? Aerys was capable of anything, and never missed a chance to slight his Nobles, but even he didn't do that. I don't think it's outside the realm of credible possibility that Rhaegar might have planned to set aside his marriage as we see a brief scenario where Renly was going to put forth Margery to potentially replace Cersei, who gave Robert not one, but two male heirs, and the Lannisters were more powerful than the Martells. So, the possibility that a Westerosi version of divorce seems to be viable. And given that the Martells were already angered over Rhaegars treatment of Elia, (and at this point, taking Lyanna for only a lover), which caused them to send reenforcements less than enthusiastically, I can't see that not setting Elia aside changes things. In terms of Martins intent and use of polygamy in Rhaegars case,(if he is this noble character), IMHO, he may have intended it be a temporary loophole that makes his child with Lyanna legitimate until he could put his marriage officially aside which he couldn't do until he dealt with Aerys. I happen to feel as a woman, that if Rhaegar is this Noble, Warrior Poet Arychetype, it's more honorable for both women that they are not left in this limbo, particularly Lyanna, and if Rhaegar has a care for Elia, he would set her free so she could follow her heart, and which does not change the status of Aegon as the next King of Westeros.

'Except that this whole 'issue' you have here is totally manufactured. There is no reason why there should be a problem with a son having two wives, just because his father didn't. There is no reason why taking a second wife should be a 'slight' to anyone (this smells to me of modernised, conditioned, thinking - 'I would be slighted by being a second wife'. Yet in real-world cultures that generally is not the case at all, especially for wives of Kings and princes).

There is no reason why Rhaegar would need to flirt with the politcal (and dynastic) issues created by divorcing (or equivalent) Elia when he has a perfectly useful polygamy option available to him.

So basically what I 'm pointing out is that you've manufactured a whole bunch of non-existent problems, then created a theory to deal with them. I didn't do it at all well, sorry.

[dustyboy316]

I am already convinced this is true my first re-read. Every thing about Jon's lineage is hidden and even Lady Stark doesn't know anything about it. It fits perfectly with the overall theme of the story and is a great twist.

[Alia of the knife]

Ok, we have a severe misunderstanding here, and Alia, I'm sorry for that as its my fault for using an English term on a board where American is usually the assumed first language (I didn't realise it wasn't universal).

I see that looks kinda sarcastic - it isn't, its just a side joke about being separated by a common language.

A 'beat up' means a manufactured outcry (usually in the media, but in this case on this board).

If you reread my post with this knowledge, you should understand it a lot differently (and it should make a lot more sense.

The reason I call this a manufactured outcry, is that it is pretty clear that Lyanna was complicit in going with Rhaegar. Virtually all of the evidence points this way, even if it is not proven. Yet your theory basically says Lyanna couldn't have done that because she 'wouldn't think that way'. Which means by implication, you are basically saying Rhaegar is dishonouring Lyanna by his actions and forcing her to go against her cultural and religious mores..

This is manufactured because it goes against nearly all the evidence, and relies on some very very flimsy associations extrapolated a long long way (and IMO very badly, but thats just a differing of opinion, which we can argue about happily without anything personal).

It is an outcry because you are pushing blame on Rhaegar for things which are not only not supported by the text, but things he isn't even blamed for by his worst enemies. Robert blames him for physical abuse, but not even Robert adds forcing her to subverting her cultural and religious views to that.

I to would be shocked if she accepted that.

OTOH the idea that with Elia no longer able to bear children and the marriage being an arranged one anyway, there's no reason why Lyanna can't be the de facto sole wife, even as Elia keeps her position and prestige and everything that goes with being the first wife and mother of the heir, is quite logical. The point being that there is a reasonable possibility that reconciles Lyanna's attitude toard Robert's presumptive unfaithfulness and being Rhaegar's second wife, that doesn't require Rhaegar basically forcing Lyanna to abandon her (supposed) personal and cultural mores (or actually kidnap and rape her).

'Except that this whole 'issue' you have here is totally manufactured. There is no reason why there should be a problem with a son having two wives, just because his father didn't. There is no reason why taking a second wife should be a 'slight' to anyone (this smells to me of modernised, conditioned, thinking - 'I would be slighted by being a second wife'. Yet in real-world cultures that generally is not the case at all, especially for wives of Kings and princes).

There is no reason why Rhaegar would need to flirt with the politcal (and dynastic) issues created by divorcing (or equivalent) Elia when he has a perfectly useful polygamy option available to him.

So basically what I 'm pointing out is that you've manufactured a whole bunch of non-existent problems, then created a theory to deal with them. I didn't do it at all well, sorry.

Okay, fair enough- we experienced a "slanguage" barrier.

My whole point on this story and Martin's Rhaegar is that to me, he is much like what has been said of Russia; he is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, and I simply approach the aspect of Lyanna, Elia, and the speculation on polygamy, particulary long-term with so little information on the women, with caution.

I also don't take Dorne for granted as much of what has been said of Dornish culture smacks of Westerosi stereo-typeing.

And in real-world cultures, the environment of dynastic polygamy is often a snake-pit of political intrigue, murder and submission, so again this theory is overly simplistic.

Also, the idea that Lyanna in this era would have willingly run away with a married man with heirs, because she wanted to escape a marriage is what rings of "modernized thinking."

It's one thing to merely run away to escape a marriage, but to run away with a man already married, and to a House notorious for vendetta, calling not just her Fathers honor into question, but his leadership as well, (if Rickard can't control his own daughter, he can't control the North), then really, Lyanna was not just complicit in her downfall, she deserved her downfall, if what you surmise is true.

It really would have been much better for Lyanna for Rhaegar to have truly kidnapped her, taking the hit to his honor, relieving her of the burden of guilt, knowing everyone would forgive him before they would forgive her, given the double standards of the day.

And as we see, they did, throwing Elia under the bus every chance they had to excuse what he did.

Also, the Authors intent in creating the KotLT I think is more than just a salacious backdrop for R&L to meet as another Poster pointed out, but a template for what true honor should look like in this world, and honor meant something to the KotLT, and the irony is, it's a woman teaching this lesson if what we believe is true.

If Lyanna is the KotLT, then honor meant something to her, which I think Martin wrote deliberately to point out she wasn't a conventional woman but dealt directly with issues, claiming honor as an individual extention of herself, which would not be just rebellious for a woman of this time, but revolutionary, as well as dangerous, hence the "wolfs blood."

So if she did what has been suggested, that truly is a contradiction in her character.

And this doesn't mean she didn't love Rhaegar, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that she accepted what couldn't be.

But, could he?

I think that question is just as viable.

I don't have a problem with my ideas, which are only opinions being challenged, or someone having a different opinion, but, when the challengers opinions are just that, with no more basis other than their own extrapolation and speculation of what they took from the read, then stating it as an absolute, but saying they're going to call me out for what they themselves are guilty of doing, that I'm going to have a problem with.

On this issue, you and I will just have agree to disagree as we're not going to change each others minds.

However, if the Authors intent was that Rhaegar, Elia and Lyanna would have become Westerosi's version of "Big Love," then so be it, and I'll immediately set about penning a personal apology letter to Rhaegar.

[corbon]

Also, the idea that Lyanna in this era would have willingly run away with a married man with heirs, because she wanted to escape a marriage is what rings of "modernized thinking."

It's one thing to merely run away to escape a marriage, but to run away with a man already married, and to a House notorious for vendetta, calling not just her Fathers honor into question, but his leadership as well, (if Rickard can't control his own daughter, he can't control the North), then really, Lyanna was not just complicit in her downfall, she deserved her downfall, if what you surmise is true.

Frankly I think we've already been shown that Lyanna will go against her father's wishes and challenge the established patriarchal way of things purely by the KotLT story (and her swordfighting). So to question whether she would be willing to challenge her father's control seems ... weak to me. And its definitely not 'modern thinking' in that its the sort of thinking that we've already been shown from Lyanna herself! (even if it is GRRMs modern thinking that allows Lyanna to think this way). The character is already displaying this personal modern thinking, which IMO is very different from assuming modern thinking in a manner that hasn't been shown yet.

And I think its overblowing the situation again, assuming issues that aren't known to be existent, again, to be complaining about Rhaegar already being married (its a political marriage with the necessity for the physical side already ended) and the reaction of Dorne (its not a big insult as far as we know, and IMO there is no indication anywhere, including rationalisation, that it would be - Elia will still be queen and Aegon will still be King after Rhaegar).

It really would have been much better for Lyanna for Rhaegar to have truly kidnapped her, taking the hit to his honor, relieving her of the burden of guilt, knowing everyone would forgive him before they would forgive her, given the double standards of the day.

And perhaps to an extent he did, we still don't know.

And as we see, they did, throwing Elia under the bus every chance they had to excuse what he did.

What? When did they ever throw Elia under a bus?

Not even Harrenhal was throwing Elia under a bus. I don't believe for a moment that it was any great insult for Rahegar to fail to choose Elia as Queen of Love and Beauty. Just a surprise, because he was the sort of dutiful, singleminded, faithful bloke who usually automatically chose his wife tohonour above other women, even when he didn't love her.

I think it was a hit for his reputation, not hers.

Also, the Authors intent in creating the KotLT I think is more than just a salacious backdrop for R&L to meet as another Poster pointed out, but a template for what true honor should look like in this world, and honor meant something to the KotLT, and the irony is, it's a woman teaching this lesson if what we believe is true.

If Lyanna is the KotLT, then honor meant something to her, which I think Martin wrote deliberately to point out she wasn't a conventional woman but dealt directly with issues, claiming honor as an individual extention of herself, which would not be just rebellious for a woman of this time, but revolutionary, as well as dangerous, hence the "wolfs blood."

Agreed.

So if she did what has been suggested, that truly is a contradiction in her character.

And this doesn't mean she didn't love Rhaegar, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that she accepted what couldn't be.

But, could he?

I think that question is just as viable.

I don't understand the contradiction? In fact I think your argument about her marrying Robert ahead of Rhaegar would be the contradiction. For her, honour is a personal extension. Her personal take on this is that she can a) marry a man she doesn't love and worse, does not expect to treat her with honour, or B) she can be a de jure second, but de facto only, wife of a man who will, and has treated her with honour and respect.

Yes, it will cost her father some 'face' as he is forced to ac down on his word to the Baratheons, but he should have asked her anyway, and thats not the 'real', meaningful honour (as demonstrated by tKotLK), nor her honour personally.

The whole war/rebellion question is pointless. Rhaegar and Lyanna eloping was never enough to truly cause a rebellion, proper, and should have been settled comfortably with a few lands or titles exchanged - probably to her families benefit in fact, in the end.

But this is just a POV, anyone is free to disagree with it (at least if they come up with some decent arguments).

But if you invent problems that don't exist, then I'm going to call that invention when analysing a theory based on it. Not to say that it is definitely wrong, but to point out that the foundations aren't firm, so the structure must necessarily be weak.

And again, I apologise for doing that poorly before.

[Scarlet Seastar]

However, if the Authors intent was that Rhaegar, Elia and Lyanna would have become Westerosi's version of "Big Love," then so be it, and I'll immediately set about penning a personal apology letter to Rhaegar.

^^ This has me cracking up like a mad person :bowdown:

I have a question, however.

English isn't my native tongue, and there aren't translations of the books in my native language, I have to read them in English, so some things tend to slip by me(though I'm very proud of myself for thinking of R+L=J before I saw it on the internet).

My question is: how and when did Rhaegar took Lyanna and who was with her? I think I saw somewhere that Howland Reed was with her? Or is it just my imagination?

[The guy from the Vale]

^^ This has me cracking up like a mad person :bowdown:

I have a question, however.

English isn't my native tongue, and there aren't translations of the books in my native language, I have to read them in English, so some things tend to slip by me(though I'm very proud of myself for thinking of R+L=J before I saw it on the internet).

My question is: how and when did Rhaegar took Lyanna and who was with her? I think I saw somewhere that Howland Reed was with her? Or is it just my imagination?

We have no idea about how the kidnapping went down. Howland Reed is connected to Lyanna, but this connection stems from Reed being indebted to Lyanna because of the KotLT events, and from Reed being the sole remaining survivor to tell the tale of what happened at the Tower of Joy. As for people complicit in the kidnapping? We don't know, but my personal bet would be on Benjen.

[Knight ofthe Laughing Tree]

For example the one about rhaegar when he visits the brothel. Why speak well of someone who kidnapped/raped your sister? Ned never talks negatively about him. Au contraire, Robert does. Which probably means they knew two very different versios of what happened.

totally-- cheers-- I was rereading that bit yesterday. Ned says he didn't think Rhaegar ever visited brothels, just after he'd been to one with Littlefinger to look at Robert's bastard Bara (?) anyhow-- I agree.... it's been mentioned elsewhere Selmy doesn't speak badly of Ned.... and you know, it's interesting that Ned doesn't speak badly of Rhaegar.

[Budj]

Corbon - I agree with your assessments. Rhaegar taking Lyanna was NOT the cause of the rebellion...but it did catalyze the events that led up to it. Those events that followed are on Brandon and Aerys' imo. This was a situation where the short-sightedness of "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" while forgetting to factor in that your dad is a crazy King blew up in their faces.

IF they weren't married....why was the KG there? We have to fit that in somehow because with Aerys and Rhaegar both dead Viserys would have to be the king. If you don't accept that Jon is legitimate then you have to start reaching even further with things like "the KG recognized Rhaegar as King at that point" which is bullox...or "Rhaegar gave Lyanna the rose for Arthur and Jon is really A + L" but then why would Ned hide Jon's heritage from Robert and why would Lyanna have a statue in the crypts?

On a side note I still think Lady Dustin is adding more things together than we think when she wanted Theon to bring her to the crypts....she knew where her husband went when he died...she knew who came back...and only highlords or royalty get statue status in the WF crypts...

Edit* She knew at least that he went into a small party mission with Ned and never came back...but a certain someone's bones and a baby did.

[rmholt]

KG was there because 1) Rhaegar told them to watch over Lyanna and her baby and 2) Viserys was not only taken care of he was batsh*t crazy and wasnt going to be king. Also he was fleeing. Not the first time KG have interfered in the succession. OR Viserys had to run for his life and the KG knew they werent going to be physically able to save him if he stayed on Westeros. The fly in that ointment is that they should die defending the life of the king. However, Viserys wasnt dying, he was escaping. Nothing like a bunch of KG running after him to notify the world where he was. So they would have been endagering him. ToJ was not only remote apparently a few people who might have interest did know where it was so they were needed there. Plus, ordered there.

It does not matter one whit if Jon was legitimate or not. Not sure why they werent at Storm's End.

Finally, we are learning of the whole event not only from one point of view but from a fever dream. If awake POVs dont have reliable memories, why take this dream so literally? The reason this event has people debating back and forth is that we dont have all the information, and people are making some assumptions and conclusions that seem reasonable but might be wrong.

YMMV

[Budj]

You have some good points about the fever dream issue, but 1 KG must always be with the King and the KG don't get to decide who that is.

The KG knew Darry was fleeing to Dragonstone with Viserys so they were in the loop that everyone else in line was dead. When Aerys and Rhaegar were both dead at least one of them was oath bound to go to Viserys - even if they decided to honour the deceased crown-prince's orders to guard the ToJ. While the fever dream information being iffy is a valid point I don't think that Ned conveniently concocted that bit of information while hallucinating.

Disclaimer - I don't care if Jon is legitimate or not, in fact, it would be cooler if he was still a bastard, imo, this just seems to make sense with what we are given.

[HarryCrackpotter]

Perhaps Rhaegar did not kidnap Lyanna, but stole her, the way a wildling would do. Maybe this is the way of the old gods.

[rmholt]

You have some good points about the fever dream issue, but 1 KG must always be with the King and the KG don't get to decide who that is.

They arent supposed to decide who is king but they have in the past. Criston Cole. Jaime Lannister.

And if running after Viserys attracts attention to Viserys and endangers him is that helping? That would seem to violate the spirit of the vow. A KG who attracts unwanted attention to Viserys by pursuing and accompanying him isnt protecting him. And if the king is hightailing it out of Westeros, is he really the king? at least for the moment?

[Zupoleon]

They arent supposed to decide who is king but they have in the past. Criston Cole. Jaime Lannister.

And if running after Viserys attracts attention to Viserys and endangers him is that helping? That would seem to violate the spirit of the vow. A KG who attracts unwanted attention to Viserys by pursuing and accompanying him isnt protecting him. And if the king is hightailing it out of Westeros, is he really the king? at least for the moment?

It is much more feasible that they are protecting Rhaegar's son and heir. The exchange Ned has with Arthur and the KG before they throw down strongly hints at this. This is the best evidence we have, rather than guessing about the KG not wanting to attract attention to Viserys...

[rmholt]

It is much more feasible that they are protecting Rhaegar's son and heir. The exchange Ned has with Arthur and the KG before they throw down strongly hints at this. This is the best evidence we have, rather than guessing about the KG not wanting to attract attention to Viserys...

Of course. People are trying to get around the fact that a) they didnt know it was a boy or would even be born alive and Rhaegar surely would have hedged his bets by sending a KG with Viserys, but apparently everyone including KG was fine with Darry taking care of that. They knew he wasnt right according to Barristan and he was heading off the continent in any case, de facto abdicating. KG could very easily have decided Viserys wasnt going to become king on their watch. They had likely had enough of mad kings by then. B) Lyanna's child could easily not have been "legitimate" which seems to matter to a lot of people, but I dont accept that it matters. People also think it would be unheard of for the KG to pick the king - ie to bail on Viserys no matter what happened at T o J or to Rhaegar after he left his orders. Yet, at nearly the very same time, KG in the form of Jaime was deciding Robert was the King, rather than Tywin or Eddard. I think people are making this more complicated than necessary by applying rules with too much rigidity, creating dilemmas, sweating like Balon Swann. But thats just my opinion.

[Ygrain]

They arent supposed to decide who is king but they have in the past. Criston Cole. Jaime Lannister.

Can't speak for Criston Cole, but Jaime Lannister definitely didn't walk around claiming proudly that he was KG and never breaking his vows.

And if running after Viserys attracts attention to Viserys and endangers him is that helping? That would seem to violate the spirit of the vow. A KG who attracts unwanted attention to Viserys by pursuing and accompanying him isnt protecting him. And if the king is hightailing it out of Westeros, is he really the king? at least for the moment?

Er... could you possibly elaborate how you draw attention to someone whose location and status is perfectly known to anyone of relevance? Everyone and their mother knows where Viserys is, that he is Aerys' heir, and that he is danger to Robert's rule.

In this respect, I'd rather believe that the KG are barring access to Lyanna, so that no-one found out that she was pregnant, while Jon had already been smuggled to Starfall.