R+L=J v.31

[Ygrain]

People's opinions are just that. If you have had a well thought out opinion for a long time based on facts in the book that does not negate equally well thought out opinions also based upon facts. There are only a few indisputable facts in this whole house of cards and they allow for a variety of interpretations. Repetition of the same theory in response to new ideas is not interesting.

Marie

Excuse me but that is not your case. You're offering theories based on incomplete facts, faulty facts, or facts in contradiction with other facts. The actions of the earlier KG members, such as Criston Cole, do offer some background for Dayne, Whent and Hightower to favour Rhaegar's bastard over the legal successor, but this goes against all the accounts we have of Hightower and Dayne, against the Westerosi concept of honour, against the KG primary vow, and even against the concepts of Rhaegar and Lyanna as honourable people - all these referred to repeatedly and consistently in the books. R+L=legit J contradicts nothing and is in consistence with every other factor I've seen people come up with. To claim that these facts and factors allow for a vide variety of interpretation is a mere figure of speech; they don't.

[sagaz]

BTW. "warg" is an evil wolf, or maybe a person who can become a wolf. Some Freys talk of Robb during the Red Wedding as if he was some werewolf of some sort. I would say "skinchanging" would be the appropriate term for creatures other than wolves.

[...]

In the world of ASoIaF, a "skinchanger" is a person who can enter the mind of an animal, and a "warg" is a person who skinchanges into a wolf or a dog.

and what is the word is for dragons? nobody to date sikinchange/warged a dragon.

I'll go with warg because to me, it has something about the animal being capable of bonding with humans that "skinchange" hasn't.

Also the Starks, save Brandon, are wargs.

[Dr. Pepper]

and what is the word is for dragons? nobody to date sikinchange/warged a dragon.

I'll go with warg because to me, it has something about the animal being capable of bonding with humans that "skinchange" hasn't.

Also the Starks, save Brandon, are wargs.

As of the knowledge we have now, someone who can skinchange a dragon would be a skinchanger. There may be a special word for it, just like there is a special word for a person who can skinchange a wolf, but we don't know it.

Technically speaking, a warg is only used to identify those who can skinchange into a wolf or dog. I personally tend to just type 'warg' for all skinchanging events I'm discussing just because it's easier, but I keep in mind what warg really means.

All of the young generation of Starks are wargs, even Bran. Martin has confirmed that they six kids -Robb, Jon, Sansa, Arya, Bran and Rickon - are wargs. Both Bran and Arya have skinchanged other animals as well.

[sagaz]

yes! I said "save Bran" previously, meaning he's also a skinchanger not only a warg..

but I forgot Arya and the cat... save her too.

[King Doug]

Along the lines of the skinchanging discussion. I have a personal theory that we will find out through Bloodraven, that skinchanging is the reason that Targaryens have kept their distance from the Starks, and the North for the most part, since Aegon's conquest. Maybe a Targaryen had a prophetic dream about someone else controlling his dragon and from then on said "F those guys." From Aegon's Conquest through Robert's Rebellion, we really only have a couple times that the Targaryens visited or mentioned the Starks/North. Jaeharys/Alyssanne visited the North on their dragons obviously, and supposedly Aemon the Dragonknight said a Stark (can't remember which one) was the finest swordsman in Westeros. But we don't know how he came to find this out.

ETA: I can really only claim the Bloodraven and prophetic dream part as my own theory, I have heard that the Targs feared the skinchanging abilities of the Starks before.

[Alia of the knife]

Along the lines of the skinchanging discussion. I have a personal theory that we will find out through Bloodraven, that skinchanging is the reason that Targaryens have kept their distance from the Starks, and the North for the most part, since Aegon's conquest. Maybe a Targaryen had a prophetic dream about someone else controlling his dragon and from then on said "F those guys." From Aegon's Conquest through Robert's Rebellion, we really only have a couple times that the Targaryens visited or mentioned the Starks/North. Jaeharys/Alyssanne visited the North on their dragons obviously, and supposedly Aemon the Dragonknight said a Stark (can't remember which one) was the finest swordsman in Westeros. But we don't know how he came to find this out.

ETA: I can really only claim the Bloodraven and prophetic dream part as my own theory, I have heard that the Targs feared the skinchanging abilities of the Starks before.

I've wondered this too.

When you go back to the Dunk & Egg series, and read about the Civil War amongst the Dragons, I did not see any indication of the Starks declaring sides, (maybe a Wiki oversight), but it seems to me that the Houses that didn't declare for the Trueborn Targaryens were treated with contempt, but if the Starks remained neautral as well, and all they got was the sound of crickets chirping, what gives?

And if I'm not mistaken, (and I certainly could be), King Torren Stark held the largest Kingdom of all the Kingdoms, it would seem to me that the Targaryens might want to ally themselves with him in some form through marriage, (though he bent the knee), and later generations as well when there were no mates for the Targaryens to marry.

The North is still the largest territory, and the Starks still the defacto kings of the North, and though they may have had no desire to hold the Iron Throne, they certainly may have desired to have their own autonomy, so the Targaryens should have probably bound themselves to them every other generation, or so.

Dorne is important, but it really brings nothing to the table, and only managed to bluff their way into power coasting on their ability and "worthiness" of deflecting Targaryen invasion through guerilla warfare.

But with the Starks, my specualtion has been that there might have been something forbidden in mating Starks to Targaryens, and perhaps Aegon the Conquerers Mages advised him not to, and to keep their distance, because of their ability to Warg, and as Skin Changers, possibly taking control of their dragons.

Going off the "Dune" analogy too, I can also see where Jon might be TPtWP to some, (and this could be also be Targareyn-centric) but, he could also be abomination to others, which adds to his conflicting Arc.

[Zupoleon]

Judging by their lack of surprise at Ned's news, I'd guess that they already knew everything. But this doesn't really matter. Even after Ned tells them what happened at King's Landing, they still insist that their place is at that tower.

Agreed. The calm, rational exchange they have with Ned tells me there was nothing Ned could've told them that would have changed their position.

Furthermore, at some point before that Whent and Hightower are sent to get Rhaegar. The fact that they end up staying at the ToJ speaks volumes for me (in regards to questions of legitimacy)...

[rmholt]

Excuse me but that is not your case. You're offering theories based on incomplete facts, faulty facts, or facts in contradiction with other facts. The actions of the earlier KG members, such as Criston Cole, do offer some background for Dayne, Whent and Hightower to favour Rhaegar's bastard over the legal successor, but this goes against all the accounts we have of Hightower and Dayne, against the Westerosi concept of honour, against the KG primary vow, and even against the concepts of Rhaegar and Lyanna as honourable people - all these referred to repeatedly and consistently in the books. R+L=legit J contradicts nothing and is in consistence with every other factor I've seen people come up with. To claim that these facts and factors allow for a vide variety of interpretation is a mere figure of speech; they don't.

There is quite a secret history of the failings of even the most honorable KG knights in the books. And if a superior KG knight judges it to be more honorable to defend Lyanna and her baby over running after Viserys because that was what Rhaegar wanted, what's wrong with that?

You keep assuming you have all the facts which makes it hard for you to explore other possibilities

One established fact that might be significant here is the fact that GRRM characters are grey, not all good nor all bad and I have no reason to think the KG of the T o J are any different. You disagree. That's fine for an opinion but dont call it a fact.

Marie

[rmholt]

Agreed. The calm, rational exchange they have with Ned tells me there was nothing Ned could've told them that would have changed their position.

Furthermore, at some point before that Whent and Hightower are sent to get Rhaegar. The fact that they end up staying at the ToJ speaks volumes for me (in regards to questions of legitimacy)...

It was a DREAM

[Zupoleon]

It was a DREAM

I see. As I said above, it speaks volumes for ME. If you want to think of it only as a hallucinogenic dream that never happened, great. Others, me included see it as a recollection of events. Last time I checked, you can dream something that actually happened...

[rmholt]

I see. As I said above, it speaks volumes for ME. If you want to think of it only as a hallucinogenic dream that never happened, great. Others, me included see it as a recollection of events. Last time I checked, you can dream something that actually happened...

Oh yes, I agree this was a dream of a remembered event and likely was pretty true to the facts. There are things left out or which appear to be left out. We are also told that dreams are prophetic and we see that's true in some cases. Not all dreams, for instance the dream Jaime has before rescuing Brienne I think is part of his growth - a dream of risking lost honor, not a prophecy or a memory. Dreams are fundamentally true - its the details that can get messed up.

Ned's calm demeanor could easily have been an artifact of the dream. Actually it isnt that easy for me to imagine a calm relaxed conversation before a fight in an emotionally charged setting. YMMV

[Ygrain]

There is quite a secret history of the failings of even the most honorable KG knights in the books. And if a superior KG knight judges it to be more honorable to defend Lyanna and her baby over running after Viserys because that was what Rhaegar wanted, what's wrong with that?

Everything, because it makes him an oathbreaker. Of course, he can choose to divert from his honour for the sake of something more valuable to him, just like Ned did over Sansa - but if he does so, he cannot stand proud as a member of Kingsguard any longer, the way he does at ToJ. Even if he knew that Jon is AA and athousand times more valuable than Viserys, as long as Jon is not Legit, by defending him, he is breaking his vows. Vows are unconditional - either you keep them, or not. You may break your vow for a worthy reason, but you're an oathbreaker still, there is no escape from that.

You keep assuming you have all the facts which makes it hard for you to explore other possibilities

One established fact that might be significant here is the fact that GRRM characters are grey, not all good nor all bad and I have no reason to think the KG of the T o J are any different. You disagree. That's fine for an opinion but dont call it a fact.

Marie

I DON'T claim to have all the facts. I DO claim that all the facts we know so far are pointing in one direction. And I never claimed that the KG at ToJ had no faults - blindly obeying a mad king is not what I'd consider flawless, but that which is often tossed at Ned - honourable to a fault. Honouring their vows even when they got to a morally grey area where dishonouring their vows would actually be the best thing to do, just like Jaime did.

Really, you should put some trust into GRRM, he's definitely not going to pull the oh-the-unknown-heir-comes-up-and-everyone-sing-halleluyah card, it would be way easier to accept Jon's legitimacy.

[Zupoleon]

Ned's calm demeanor could easily have been an artifact of the dream. Actually it isnt that easy for me to imagine a calm relaxed conversation before a fight in an emotionally charged setting. YMMV

I can easily see that conversation happening that way. These are seasoned men we're talking about - arguably the greatest knight alive, the LC of the KG, and Ned, who just played the co-lead role in overthrowing the Targs. There's nothing these guys haven't seen or been through that would make them get all riled up and jittery. IMO, they all know what's about to go down, no point in freaking out or beating their chests over it. They're accepted the situation bravely, and with a sense of mutual respect, as evidenced by Ned later returning Dawn to Starfall. But that's just my take on it...

[Dr. Pepper]

There is quite a secret history of the failings of even the most honorable KG knights in the books. And if a superior KG knight judges it to be more honorable to defend Lyanna and her baby over running after Viserys because that was what Rhaegar wanted, what's wrong with that?

Yes, there is a history of the failings of KG knights. We know this. Apart from the pre-book history we get, we have POVs from three KG (Jaime, Barristan, Arys) that explicitly outline their failings as members of the KG and as knights. I'm sure that everyone is smart enough to agree that not all KG will follow their KG vows to the letter all the time.

You keep assuming you have all the facts which makes it hard for you to explore other possibilities.

What we are doing is assuming what we have been presented -in both words and actions- can be accepted as evidence that the theory on Jon's parentage is highly probable. Obviously other theories are interesting to explore. But it doesn't really do much to explore baseless theories that have no evidence to support them.

One established fact that might be significant here is the fact that GRRM characters are grey, not all good nor all bad and I have no reason to think the KG of the T o J are any different. You disagree. That's fine for an opinion but dont call it a fact.

Marie

Yes, GRRM characters are grey. That's not disputed. The KG at the TOJ have been presented as very grey characters. Consider when Hightower stood idly by while Aerys brutally raped his wife or how Dayne presumably watched Aerys burn innocent people. They have been sufficiently painted as grey characters. They aren't any less grey simply because they stated firmly that they were obeying their KG vow. In fact, those who freely take on the KG vow and seek to follow it are some of the greyest characters in the series.

Consider it this way: Wouldn't it have been better (or more shades of 'white') for the KG not to have followed the most important KG vow which says they protect the king? Wouldn't it have been better in the long run to go to Viserys - a Targ heir that was known and was only 8 years away from being at the age of majority - to train and educate both him and Dany? If the intention was to keep the Targaryen dynasty alive, it just seems that this would have been a better choice than staying with an infant king who couldn't do anything more than be a symbol. Staying with Jon was a very 'grey' thing to do.

[rmholt]

Really, you should put some trust into GRRM, he's definitely not going to pull the oh-the-unknown-heir-comes-up-and-everyone-sing-halleluyah card, it would be way easier to accept Jon's legitimacy.

I trust GRRM implicitly - ever since Sandkings. Which I read the month it was published. In fact if jon is as you call it illegitimate, I trust he will make that OK in a logical way.

[rmholt]

I can easily see that conversation happening that way.

Sure it could have. But being part of a dream makes historical accuracy a little less certain than even real memory. GRRM has stated he has put erroneous memories in on purpose for characters and I am sure you are familiar with at least 2 for sure and one other possibly. So there is a lot more room for factual inaccuracy though truth doesnt really depend on factual accuracy sometimes.

[Lady Octarina]

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.

Arriving late at the discussion, but I read all the posts and I just have to say: sorry, but Daenerys is hardly an example of ethics anyone should follow, and that occasion you mention is just one of the best examples of that.

Also, a king that is taken away from his kingdom by a loyal subject doing his best to keep him alive when said king was only eight and had no say on whether to run away or not DID NOT RUN AWAY FROM HIS KINGDOM. Let's just remember how, when he was old enough, he was always doing his best to get said kingdom back, as useless as his efforts were.

Sure it could have. But being part of a dream makes historical accuracy a little less certain than even real memory. GRRM has stated he has put erroneous memories in on purpose for characters and I am sure you are familiar with at least 2 for sure and one other possibly. So there is a lot more room for factual inaccuracy though truth doesnt really depend on factual accuracy sometimes.

Give me the examples of those false memories and I'll tell you exactly what their purpose is. Now do us all a favor and tell us: what would be the purpose of such an elaborate scene if that had simply never happened? A plausible answer, please, not just the first sophism that comes to mind.

[rmholt]

Give me the examples of those false memories and I'll tell you exactly what their purpose is. Now do us all a favor and tell us: what would be the purpose of such an elaborate scene if that had simply never happened? A plausible answer, please, not just the first sophism that comes to mind.

I accept people have a certain interpretation of the T o J scene. This interpretation however has raised a lot of questions that from my point of view arent necessarily as problematic as they are made to be.

I do wonder how much of this disconnect between what I am willing to accept as uncertain and not set-in-stone and what others can accept is due to a different history in reading other fantasy. I dont consider this to be in the usual form of fantasy, mainly because I dont read any other fantasy for the most part. I read GRRM. Whatever he cares to write. Ditto other good writers. I like the idea that themes often treated as absolute really arent so absolute in "real life"

To the main point, I am Allowed to present my view of things just as you all are. In the absence of known facts, this argument will go in circles and could do so long after the series is finished.

[Alia of the knife]

On a different note, and wondering about the elements of Jons bloodline, I wonder if it actually won't take several generations of Stark/Targaryen mating to get the desired results of a truly harmonious balance between man and dragon?

The first time warging a dragon could be deadly, and have unexpected consequences.

Either the warg does not come back, or the warg could die- even with the blood of the dragon.

If the dragons are highly intelligent, magical creatures there should not be dominance, but mutual respect and a "oneness" that doesn't depend on sorcery, a horn, or a cruel pit.

[Ygrain]

I accept people have a certain interpretation of the T o J scene. This interpretation however has raised a lot of questions that from my point of view arent necessarily as problematic as they are made to be.

I do wonder how much of this disconnect between what I am willing to accept as uncertain and not set-in-stone and what others can accept is due to a different history in reading other fantasy. I dont consider this to be in the usual form of fantasy, mainly because I dont read any other fantasy for the most part. I read GRRM. Whatever he cares to write. Ditto other good writers. I like the idea that themes often treated as absolute really arent so absolute in "real life"

To the main point, I am Allowed to present my view of things just as you all are. In the absence of known facts, this argument will go in circles and could do so long after the series is finished.

This is not about reading fantasy, and I hope that you're not implying what it might seem you are. This is about an analysis of story elements and characterisation, which runs the same regardless of the genre.