R+L=J v.31

[Ygrain]

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.

Nope, sorry. This is not about people trying to get around something but you not having your facts correctly. Rhaegar had nothing to do with sending anyone with Viserys, since at that time, Aegon was the next in the succession line and Viserys only the third (after Rhaegar and Aegon). Also, at the time when Rhaegar was leaving KL, the rest of the royal family had one KG, a couple of thousands of goldcloaks, and unspecified number of Targ loyalists like Willem Darry, the army between them and Robert, and the king Aerys had his one KG, Jaime. There is absolutely no reason why Rhaegar should be bothered with some special protection of Viserys at that time.

Yeah, the KG may well have been aware that Viserys took after his daddy - yet, we have Lord Commander Hightower at ToJ, who made it very clear to Jaime that it is not KG business to judge the king, and that, had they been at KL, they would have protected Aerys no matter what.

Yeah, we did see KG messing with the succession line - twice within 300 years. An exception, rather than the rule. And, as I said above, neither of the two could claim they were keeping their vows, the way the KG at ToJ did.

Running for your life does not equal to abdicating. Abdicating means renouncing the claim to the crown, which Viserys never did. He still has the claim, even though he lacks power to support it. Your interpretation is basically the same as saying that burglars now have a right to your house because you ran away in fear of them.

[rmholt]

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.

Well, maybe someone dreamed that he did. :) I never said he was identical to the other KG - they arent clones. He is just one example of a KG who didnt follow orders. KG break vows in many many instances, like NW and maesters.

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.

If Viserys location was known, why was he always on the run? Why to avoid people knowing where he was.

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.

I dont think there is any question that KG were at the T o J to protect LYanna and her baby. However there were 3 of them. If they wanted to protect Viserys, they could have spared one guy.

Very apt = all our "opinions" are actually "beliefs" bc we dont have all the facts.

[Sinslash]

i think there were KGs protecting Viserys and his mom while the 3KGs went off to the ToJ for Rhaegar (before the war even started, I suppose). by the time the other KGs failed to protect Viserys (or at least arranged for him and his preggy mom to run away), i don't think the 3KGs could have left their duties at the ToJ just to go pursue the young prince to protect him, if they even know that he was without a KG to protect him, or if they even know where he was off to. they might as well stay and protect what they were supposed to protect (presumably baby Jon).

[Ygrain]

Well, maybe someone dreamed that he did. :) I never said he was identical to the other KG - they arent clones. He is just one example of a KG who didnt follow orders. KG break vows in many many instances, like NW and maesters.

Quote your "many instances", please, and drop the specimen of Blount or Moore, who are hardly representatives of the KG standard and nowhere close to Dayne or Hightower.

If Viserys location was known, why was he always on the run? Why to avoid people knowing where he was.

At the time when the KG stayed at ToJ, Viserys was still at Dragonstone, and remained there for a couple of months. In relation to the KG decision, your point makes no sense.

I dont think there is any question that KG were at the T o J to protect LYanna and her baby. However there were 3 of them. If they wanted to protect Viserys, they could have spared one guy.

Very apt = all our "opinions" are actually "beliefs" bc we dont have all the facts.

No, we don't have all the facts - and the few we do, you keep confusing or twisting, sorry.

[Dr. Pepper]

If Viserys location was known, why was he always on the run? Why to avoid people knowing where he was.

He was 'on the run' because he had no money with which to settle in one place after Darry died. Sometimes people took him in for a while, other times he survived by selling whatever treasures he had. It's why he was called the Beggar King. But everyone knew where he was.

But seriously, rmholt, it seems like every single week you go back to questioning the KG presence and making up illogical ideas for why they could have been there. New ideas are good to chew over, but oftentimes your ideas buck actual evidence or make no sense at all. Why can't you accept that it's probable and highly likely that the KG did not go to Viserys because Jon was actually the next in line? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious why you regularly question the 3 KG at the TOJ when it seems as though you accept that Jon is the son of Lyanna and Rhaegar.

[rmholt]

He was 'on the run' because he had no money with which to settle in one place after Darry died. Sometimes people took him in for a while, other times he survived by selling whatever treasures he had. It's why he was called the Beggar King. But everyone knew where he was.

That is AFTER he gets out of Westeros. I am talking about his escape FROM Westeros.

But seriously, rmholt, it seems like every single week you go back to questioning the KG presence and making up illogical ideas for why they could have been there.

That's funny, I think the same about you. Again, we cant know because we dont have all the facts. I dont question the KG presence. Arent you reading my posts? Others do and I am addressing those arguments.

[Ygrain]

i think there were KGs protecting Viserys and his mom while the 3KGs went off to the ToJ for Rhaegar (before the war even started, I suppose). by the time the other KGs failed to protect Viserys (or at least arranged for him and his preggy mom to run away), i don't think the 3KGs could have left their duties at the ToJ just to go pursue the young prince to protect him, if they even know that he was without a KG to protect him, or if they even know where he was off to. they might as well stay and protect what they were supposed to protect (presumably baby Jon).

First, there weren't three KG at ToJ from the very beginning, at least Hightower was still in KL when Brandon and Rickard were murdered, which was after Rhaegar disappeared with Lyanna. Dayne, who was most probably assigned as his personal bodyguard, probably was with him all along, and Hightower, with or without Whent, joined them only later, under unknown circumstances.

KG had nothing to do with arranging Viserys' escape - Aerys himself had him and Rhaella sent to Dragonstone for safety, while refusing to do the same for Elia. And, once Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon were dead, Viserys was not a prince but king, in which case the KG were duty-bound to leave ToJ and go to him ASAP, since this was their primary vow, to protect the king. There were three of them, so they could easily fulfill this condition by sending only one or two of their number to Viserys, while the rest would guard ToJ.

[rmholt]

Quote your "many instances", please, and drop the specimen of Blount or Moore, who are hardly representatives of the KG standard and nowhere close to Dayne or Hightower.

I'll just refer you to Jaime giving Loras a rundown of the White Book and other KG lore passed along throughout the books. How can I drop something I never brought up (Blount and Moore)? I brought up Jaime and Cole. Anyway, you cant pick and choose which KG to use as examples. Yes, honorable KG dont act dishonorably. Sometimes the honorable thing to do doesnt follow the vows to the letter.

No, we don't have all the facts - and the few we do, you keep confusing or twisting, sorry.

Funny, I think the same about you. Mainly, we have opinions, or, more accurately, guesses. Nobody knows. And if you misquote me you cant say I am presenting errors. It isnt twisting a fact to look at it from a different perspective.

If Viserys was already at Dragonstone that still does not address the question : why the KG werent with him BEFORE he got to Dragonstone.

[rmholt]

KG had nothing to do with arranging Viserys' escape - Aerys himself had him and Rhaella sent to Dragonstone for safety, while refusing to do the same for Elia. And, once Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon were dead, Viserys was not a prince but king, in which case the KG were duty-bound to leave ToJ and go to him ASAP, since this was their primary vow, to protect the king. There were three of them, so they could easily fulfill this condition by sending only one or two of their number to Viserys, while the rest would guard ToJ.

You are making my point: The KG followed the INTENT of the vows rather than the letter. They decided not to go to Viserys.

[Dr. Pepper]

That is AFTER he gets out of Westeros. I am talking about his escape FROM Westeros.

Everyone knew where he was before he left Westeros. He spent nearly 9 months at Dragonstone. Before that, he was at KL.

That's funny, I think the same about you. Again, we cant know because we dont have all the facts. I dont question the KG presence. Arent you reading my posts? Others do and I am addressing those arguments.

Yeah, I can't recall one single instance -save for perhaps when I first joined or when I was asking questions about a new idea presented - where I have repeatedly questioned the presence of the KG at the TOJ or twisted facts so much that they are illogical or not factual. I do read your posts, which is why I've asked why every single week you question their presence. The facts are pretty clear. Viserys was in KL when the KG went to Rhaegar. We know this because Jaime says he was the only one left in KL after Rhaegar arrived. Then later Ned, through a dream, relays how he specifically tells the KG where Viserys was after he told them that Aegon, Aerys, and Rhaegar are dead.

But seriously, I was just asking. I mean, the presence of the KG is the premier evidence of Jon's parentage. If one agrees the theory is true, it just seems reasonable that one would accept what's been presented by POV characters.

Funny, I think the same about you. Mainly, we have opinions, or, more accurately, guesses. Nobody knows. And if you misquote me you cant say I am presenting errors. It isnt twisting a fact to look at it from a different perspective.

If Viserys was already at Dragonstone that still does not address the question : why the KG werent with him BEFORE he got to Dragonstone.

Yeah, I didn't misquote you. I quoted exactly what you wrote. Though you did misquote me because the quote in your post above is not what I wrote at all. You took someone else's words and made them mine. Though Ygrain's words are accurate, so I don't really mind at all.

[rmholt]

Yeah, the KG may well have been aware that Viserys took after his daddy - yet, we have Lord Commander Hightower at ToJ, who made it very clear to Jaime that it is not KG business to judge the king, and that, had they been at KL, they would have protected Aerys no matter what.

One man's opinion. Jaime had trouble with it. Perhaps he wasnt alone.

Running for your life does not equal to abdicating. Abdicating means renouncing the claim to the crown, which Viserys never did. He still has the claim, even though he lacks power to support it. Your interpretation is basically the same as saying that burglars now have a right to your house because you ran away in fear of them.

Ha - isnt that why Danaerys gave a wealthy woman's house to the ex-slaves who took it? She said the woman had abandoned the house so shouldnt give it back. Whether or not I agree with this argument, you cant say it isnt valid in the books

A king doesnt run away from his kingdom without giving it up.

[rmholt]

Everyone knew where he was before he left Westeros. He spent nearly 9 months at Dragonstone. Before that, he was at KL.

Dragonstone is not Westeros - it was the Western outpost of Valyria. When Robert went after him and took Dragonstone, Darry took them to Braavos.

Yeah, I can't recall one single instance -save for perhaps when I first joined or when I was asking questions about a new idea presented - where I have repeatedly questioned the presence of the KG at the TOJ or twisted facts so much that they are illogical or not factual.

Well, then give me the same freedom you took for yourself.

But seriously, I was just asking. I mean, the presence of the KG is the premier evidence of Jon's parentage. If one agrees the theory is true, it just seems reasonable that one would accept what's been presented by POV characters.

The presence of the KG is evidence that Rhaegar ordered them there. Perhaps another king ordered them there but it's hard to imagine it was anyone but Rhaegar. Still we dont KNOW. You presume facts not in evidence Hints are in evidence. Technically we dont even have R+L confirmed as fact. People question the KG location all the time. Arent I allowed to participate with my theories? I have things that I havent seen presented that I think are reasonable based on facts in the books that others have not included in their arguments. I get bored with the legitimate-not legitimate argument and many other arguments that are tossed back and forht like badminton birdies. So I see a way to step aside from this repetitiveness and pose some other ideas. If your propositions dont agree with mine, fine, but they are still opinions, not facts, and interpreting them differently is not the same as rtwisting them.

[The WolfSpider]

I tend to think that Jon may be a bastard in the eyes of most but to the wildlings, who will see Rhaegar stealing Lyanna as a form of 'marriage', he will be legit and might makes right.

[Ygrain]

You are making my point: The KG followed the INTENT of the vows rather than the letter. They decided not to go to Viserys.

/sigh/ No. If they made a decision not to go to Viserys, even though he was the first in the succession line, they became oathbreakers.

One man's opinion. Jaime had trouble with it. Perhaps he wasnt alone.

[/quote

The opinion of the Lord Commander who was present at ToJ and claimed that he was honouring his vow. Please. This is not even catching at straws but at microfibres.

Ha - isnt that why Danaerys gave a wealthy woman's house to the ex-slaves who took it? She said the woman had abandoned the house so shouldnt give it back. Whether or not I agree with this argument, you cant say it isnt valid in the books

A king doesnt run away from his kingdom without giving it up.

BS, both in RL and in Westeros. No exiled king ever lost his title because of that, he just became a king without power if he couldn’t raise an army to push his claim.

And, you really, really want to bring into this Dany, with her political disaster of running Meereen and biased decisions? Do you really think she would make the same decision if it was the other way round?

[Budj]

Yea that line really only ever made Dany look like a gigantic hypocrite.

[Erudain]

i think there were KGs protecting Viserys and his mom while the 3KGs went off to the ToJ for Rhaegar (before the war even started, I suppose). by the time the other KGs failed to protect Viserys (or at least arranged for him and his preggy mom to run away), i don't think the 3KGs could have left their duties at the ToJ just to go pursue the young prince to protect him, if they even know that he was without a KG to protect him, or if they even know where he was off to. they might as well stay and protect what they were supposed to protect (presumably baby Jon).

I like your avatar.... :fencing:

[Sasha Steelsong]

That is AFTER he gets out of Westeros. I am talking about his escape FROM Westeros.

That's funny, I think the same about you. Again, we cant know because we dont have all the facts. I dont question the KG presence. Arent you reading my posts? Others do and I am addressing those arguments.

We know exactly where Viserys was at the time of the TOJ. That is not in question. He was on Dragonstone. Dany was born 9 months after the sack. Her mother left KL for Dragonstone right before the sack newly pregnant. For the next 9 months at least Viserys was in one single known location, the old fortress of House Targaryen, Dragonstone. Since the TOJ happened shortly after the sack, it happened during the period where Viserys' location was known.

And I'm sorry Dragonstone was in Westeros. It was part of Westeros from the moment Aegon conquered and unified the 7 kingdoms.

[rmholt]

/sigh/ No. If they made a decision not to go to Viserys, even though he was the first in the succession line, they became oathbreakers.

As I have said, not the first KG to become oathbreakers. And I question that they were oathbreakers. They are made to swear and swear, remember? The question is which of conflicting oaths they chose to follow

BS, both in RL and in Westeros. No exiled king ever lost his title because of that, he just became a king without power if he couldn’t raise an army to push his claim.

If a king is run off his kingdom, he is defeated, isnt he? He wasnt exiled. An exiled king is allowed to live and sent away so as not to make trouble. Viserys was defeated and escaped with his life.

And, you really, really want to bring into this Dany, with her political disaster of running Meereen and biased decisions? Do you really think she would make the same decision if it was the other way round?

GRRM didnt invent this solution. It isnt unprecedented. I refer you to Israel.

[Ygrain]

As I have said, not the first KG to become oathbreakers. And I question that they were oathbreakers. They are made to swear and swear, remember? The question is which of conflicting oaths they chose to follow

Read one of my earlier posts, if a KG oathbreaker would proudly claim that they keep their vows. You're running in circles.

If a king is run off his kingdom, he is defeated, isnt he? He wasnt exiled. An exiled king is allowed to live and sent away so as not to make trouble. Viserys was defeated and escaped with his life.

Viserys was not defeated because he never fought. SOmebody who is exiled may go to exile by his own choice, to escape, if you're uncomfortable with this term, switch it for "in exile". Defeat, exile and abdicate have very different meanings and they are not interchangeable. Neither defeat nor exile mean that the person gave up their claim.

GRRM didnt invent this solution. It isnt unprecedented. I refer you to Israel.

Are you talking about the biblical Israel, or current one? If the latter, I strongly suggest you drop this point, it won't do any good.

[Alia of the knife]

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).

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

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.

Agreed.

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.

I too apologize for any misunderstanding.

I suppose thats a drawback to the internet, emails, etc., when you can't actually communicate face-to-face, understanding tone.

Look, I really think it comes down again to perspective, rather than hardcore absolutes, and I simply think that you and I are taking vastly different things from our reads that are not necessarily wrong, or right, particularly when we are dealing with nebulous characters and ambiguous futures, given it's an incomplete work.

As a Writer I think Martin loves the "grey area," and thats why I approach much of what seems obvious at face value, with caution.

If you think my arguements are shaky, or unstructured, thats certainly your perogative, and in terms of "creating problems" that don't exist, well again, we agree to disagree, because I can see many problems with the potential scenarios put forward, especially when dealing with Targaryen-centric practises vs. native Westerosi traditional practises.

And again, sorry for the misunderstanding and I look forward to you taking me down in the future. :laugh:

^^ 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?

She could have been with her entourage on her way to Brandons wedding as well.

As for the other, lol, if I'm proven wrong about Rhaegar and Lyanna, and she went with him willingly, there's going to be lots of people looking for that apology letter to Rhaegar :P