R+L=J v.31

[rmholt]

It's more appealing for me to think of Jon as a bastard, because that fits my conception of him since the beginning of the series. It appeals more to his under-dog nature, and even his name labels him as such. Jon Targaryen doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Perhaps future generations will call him "Jon I, the bastard king".

In terms of succession, would a bastard prince succeed before the younger brother of the former king? Because in that case, wouldn't Jon still have been the true king, legitimate or not? But that can't be the case if people are making such a big deal about it. I assume legitimate = Rhaegar -> Jon and illegitimate = Rhaegar ->Viserys -> Jon.

Why does Jon have to be legitimate to claim his destiny? He cant be king by laws of the kingdom now anyway - Robert took over and they knew that. Even if he is legitimate unless I am mistaken, Rhaegar was never king, so his kids are never before Aerys kids in the succession. He has kids ahead of Jon anyway, including one male. Kingly succession is not the reason the KG is there, it seems to me. He is the PWWP, 3rd head of the dragon - something transcendent to royalty.

In any case maybe he could be one of the Great Bastards, not quite sure what those are, another Targ tradition.

I like how Jon (and Tyrion) are more perceptive of people due to their circumstances, bastard and a dwarf who is a bastard in the eyes of his fathers, and of course the slightly open door that Tyrion is also a real life bastard who somehow still managed to be Tywins true son according to Genna

Marie

[Guerillacropolis]

Now just change Prince Charles for Prince Rhaegar, Queen Elizabeth for King Aerys, Prince William for Prince Aegon and Prince Andrew for Prince Viserys.

Wow, England just got about a million times cooler.

[rmholt]

I feel as though we have been through this a million times. I don't understand why people still don't get it (or, indeed, why they didn't know it in the first place).

It does't matter that Rhaegar was never king. It doesn't matter that Aerys died after Rhaegar. Rhaegar was Aerys's heir, and Rhaegar's son(s) are his heirs. Therefore any son of Rhaegar comes before any other sons of Aerys.

Imagine if Prince Charles died tomorrow. And then Queen Elizabeth died the next day. Who would follow? Prince William, Prince Charles's heir - not Prince Andrew, the Queen's second son. It doesn't matter that Charles was never king - the issue of his body precede his younger brothers.

Now just change Prince Charles for Prince Rhaegar, Queen Elizabeth for King Aerys, Prince William for Prince Aegon and Prince Andrew for Prince Viserys.

Well that just makes no sense to me. How does the son of the king lose his position in the succession just because the king (or queen) dies just after the previous heir. Putting other people;s names into the equation doesnt help if I dont know how it works there. Can you give me an analogous example from the books? I can see it of course if the prince dies second, but if the king dies second, he is alive and his next son takes over the heir role. Prince Andrew is the issue of the Queens body and doesnt she outrank Prince Charles? I could research this and learn it for England but something from the books would be more convincing. Have to research., Maybe the Frey line of succession rules - fairly well spelled out - would clarify this. Must Think.

ETA: I see that this *is* how it works in Britain and other European countries. Hmph well I asked for an answer and I guess i have it! So Jon could be king. Possibly I will give up the idea that it doesnt matter for his destiny whether or not he is legitimate - he might not get to be king but if you are PWWP or stay on the Wall it doesnt really matter. And who is going to stop him from claiming the throne, bastard or not? if he wants it. Tommen? There is a tradition of Targ bastards trying to gain the throne. So now I am awaiting a reason to be concerned that Jon is legitimate or not.

[Dragonfish]

@Frey family reunion--

Why don't we take a look at the scene from the House of the Undying in question? I'd like to get your thoughts on how you interpret specific lines.

The scene begins when Dany sees a man she thinks is Viserys, but soon realizes is someone else. He then says the following line of dialogue:

"Aegon," he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a wooden bed. "What better name for a king?"

This is big hangup for me with your theory. You say that Rhaegar is referring to Aegon V here. But that doesn't seem to work as an interpretation, based on how the whole thing is phrased. Why is Rhaegar all of a sudden just blurting out his opinion that Aegon V's name was a really good name for a king? What on earth does that have to do with anything? Martin is a pretty good writer of dialogue, and he knows how to write an ambiguous scene (just look back to Jaime and Lord Bolton's dialogue at Harrenhal for a great example). But if his intention here is to have Rhaegar refer to Aegon V while leading the reader to think he's referring to Aegon VI, then this is just a poorly conceived, poorly composed line of dialogue. It works just fine when read as it seems to be intended to be read, but completely fails when interpreted the way you want it to be. It just doesn't seem to be in Martin's style. He doesn't usually have his characters fart out half-formed ideas that are apropos of nothing, unless they're mad or something. Are you arguing that Rhaegar was mad?

"Will you make a song for him?" the woman asked.

Ok, so Elia is clearly referring to the person Rhaegar was talking about, who she thinks is her son, but Rhaegar was actually talking about Aegon V. That's you're argument, right? Well, here's a problem: why doesn't Elia remark at the fact that Rhaegar just called her son king, when he knows he isn't his? Under your theory, was she always under the impression that Rhaegar was fine with letting her and Arthur Dayne's child inherit the throne? Was she not aware that Rhaegar planned on setting her aside once he found his Nissa Nissa? And if so, why didn't Rhaegar tell her about this up front? Surely this sort of thing would've come up, right?

"He has a song," the man replied. "He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire."

Now Rhaegar is referring to Aegon V again, but Elia thinks he's talking about her son, right?. Once again, I'm hung up on the use of the present tense here. You say it's because Aegon V is still "present" through Rhaegar and others. But didn't you argue that Rhaegar was essentially the inheritor of Aegon's title of PWWP? So wouldn't that make Aegon no longer the PWWP, especially since, as you argued, as king he would no longer be a prince? (Though as I mentioned before, the title "prince" can actually refer to a reigning monarch.) Using the present tense just doesn't seem like a normal way to talk about a dead person, even under your interpretation (at least according to my understanding of it).

He looked up when he said it and his eyes met Dany's, and it seemed as if he saw her standing there beyond the door. "There must be one more," he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. "The dragon has three heads."

So to clarify, you think that at the time Tyrion and Rhaegar were two of the dragon heads, right? Because I'm trying to understand why Rhaegar would say "there must be one more" in this scene, unless there were already two heads in existence.

One more thing: you mentioned your theory that Rhaegar annulled his marriage to Elia at the ToJ so he could marry Lyanna. The thing is, he couldn't have done this alone. He'd need to have the High Septon set it aside, and there's never been any indication that this sort of thing ever happened. And that's not even considering that Aerys probably would have objected and put a stop to the whole thing.

[Frey family reunion]

trying to think, probably not a great idea, but if a king dies after his heir, isnt his next child the heir? Rhaegar, IIRC, was never king because he preceded Aerys in death. How could his children fall behind Rhaegar's offspring? The KG were sworn to the Targs so it would have been incumbent upon them to protect the fam or die trying. That's sort of why I like the idea of why they threw themselves at Ned et al, but still why at T o J? and they killed a lot of people if they were just trying to get themselves killed. So I think they meant to live, and for some greater purpose (Jon) promised to Rhaegar. KG unfortunate enough to be injured instead of killed and rescued by their conquerors have a bit of a dilemma (Selmy). Still left with the puzzle of what they planned to do if Lyanna had lived and they had gotten her and Jon away from Roberts guys. 3 men and a baby?

Ha, like that last line. If the HBO thing fizzles out, Martin can sell Fox on that idea as a sitcom, John Stamos can play Arthur Dayne

[Jem]

Well that just makes no sense to me. How does the son of the king lose his position in the succession just because the king (or queen) dies just after the previous heir. Putting other people;s names into the equation doesnt help if I dont know how it works there. Can you give me an analogous example from the books? I can see it of course if the prince dies second, but if the king dies second, he is alive and his next son takes over the heir role. Prince Andrew is the issue of the Queens body and doesnt she outrank Prince Charles? I could research this and learn it for England but something from the books would be more convincing. Have to research., Maybe the Frey line of succession rules - fairly well spelled out - would clarify this. Must Think.

The king's second son (in this case Viserys) doesn't lose his place in the succession. He still comes after his elder brother's sons, just has he would if Rhaegar had lived to take the throne. What wouldn't be fair would be for Rhaegar's son to lose his place in the succession to his uncle, just because his father never made it to the throne. As it is, no one loses out - Viserys always knew he was behind Aegon. Your way would see Aegon getting kicked out for no real reason.

[Dr. Pepper]

It's more appealing for me to think of Jon as a bastard, because that fits my conception of him since the beginning of the series. It appeals more to his under-dog nature, and even his name labels him as such. Jon Targaryen doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Fair enough, I can understand this as my initial attraction to his arc is that he's a bastard underdog. Keep in mind that even though all evidence points to Jon actually being legitimate, his identity is still entirely shaped by being a bastard. I think it's extremely unlikely that a surname change (which I can't imagine he'd ever do) will alter his character as we know it. It would be different if he were Rickon's age and found out his parentage. But he's now an adult and his core character and personality are pretty much set in stone.

Perhaps future generations will call him "Jon I, the bastard king".

Depends on what he is king of. He's already de facto king of the wildlings and they seem to be quite descriptive and concise in their titles. :) My opinion is that it's unlikely that the Iron Throne will ever figure into Jon's ambitions.

In terms of succession, would a bastard prince succeed before the younger brother of the former king? Because in that case, wouldn't Jon still have been the true king, legitimate or not? But that can't be the case if people are making such a big deal about it. I assume legitimate = Rhaegar -> Jon and illegitimate = Rhaegar ->Viserys -> Jon.

A bastard has no place in the lines of succession. If a bastard is born of an unwed couple and is later legitimized, they are place behind all trueborn children. (I'm not confident if it's behind trueborn boys or all trueborn children. Fact-check this one). Cleared up by Dragonfish below.

With respect, it is easier to consider and accept Jon's parentage without bringing the Iron Throne or succession into the debate. I think one of the reasons many have trouble accepting that this theory is most likely true is that it disrupts the image they have of Jon as one operating outside the rules of succession and royalty/nobility.

One way to look at it is to consider that Jon's legitimacy will not turn out to be all that important in-universe to anyone other than Jon and maybe a few others (at least when it comes to the throne). The readers knowledge of Jon's legitimacy adds depth to reader interpretation of Jon's arc.

[Dragonfish]

Well that just makes no sense to me.

It makes perfect sense. Rhaegar's sons are his heirs. That means they are also heir to whatever he is heir to. Since Rhaegar is heir to the throne, when he dies, his firstborn son becomes heir to the throne as well.

How does the son of the king lose his position in the succession just because the king (or queen) dies just after the previous heir.

He doesn't lose his position in the succession. Viserys was always behind Aegon, and theoretically any other male child of Rhaegar, in the line of succession. What you are arguing is that Viserys would have jumped ahead of Aegon in the line of succession, all because Rhaegar died before Aerys did. That is simply not how it works.

If it helps, try to look at it visually. The line of succession goes:

Aerys

Rhaegar

Aegon

Jon (if legitimate)

Viserys

When Rhaegar dies, he is simply cut out of the line, and the other players move up a slot. The new line of succession looks like this:

Aerys

Aegon

Jon

Viserys

Now Aerys dies, he is cut out of the line as well, and everyone moves up a slot. Now the line looks like this:

Aegon

Jon

Viserys

Once Aegon dies, we are left with just Jon and Viserys, but they remain in the same order as they were before, and both move up one slot. The line now looks like this:

Jon

Viserys

Jon is therefore king ahead of Viserys.

Have to research., Maybe the Frey line of succession rules - fairly well spelled out - would clarify this. Must Think.

The Frey line does indeed prove this. When Ser Stevron, the heir to the Late Lord Frey, died, his son became the new heir to the Twins.

[Dragonfish]

A bastard has no place in the lines of succession. If a bastard is born of an unwed couple and is later legitimized, they are place behind all trueborn children. (I'm not confident if it's behind trueborn boys or all trueborn children. Fact-check this one).

There's actually never been any indication in the books where legitimized bastards are placed in the line of succession, at least nothing that I recall. The one time George was actually asked about bastard succession, he specifically said that it's unclear where legitimized bastards ought to go, both in real life and in Westeros, and that it largely depends on politics.

[rmholt]

What tickles me is the explanation I have found for the Earth European rules of succession. It is how it is because that's the way it is!

Marie

[Frey family reunion]

@Frey family reunion--

Why don't we take a look at the scene from the House of the Undying in question? I'd like to get your thoughts on how you interpret specific lines.

The scene begins when Dany sees a man she thinks is Viserys, but soon realizes is someone else. He then says the following line of dialogue:

This is big hangup for me with your theory. You say that Rhaegar is referring to Aegon V here. But that doesn't seem to work as an interpretation, based on how the whole thing is phrased. Why is Rhaegar all of a sudden just blurting out his opinion that Aegon V's name was a really good name for a king? What on earth does that have to do with anything? Martin is a pretty good writer of dialogue, and he knows how to write an ambiguous scene (just look back to Jaime and Lord Bolton's dialogue at Harrenhal for a great example). But if his intention here is to have Rhaegar refer to Aegon V while leading the reader to think he's referring to Aegon VI, then this is just a poorly conceived, poorly composed line of dialogue. It works just fine when read as it seems to be intended to be read, but completely fails when interpreted the way you want it to be. It just doesn't seem to be in Martin's style. He doesn't usually have his characters fart out half-formed ideas that are apropos of nothing, unless they're mad or something. Are you arguing that Rhaegar was mad?

Ok, so Elia is clearly referring to the person Rhaegar was talking about, who she thinks is her son, but Rhaegar was actually talking about Aegon V. That's you're argument, right? Well, here's a problem: why doesn't Elia remark at the fact that Rhaegar just called her son king, when he knows he isn't his? Under your theory, was she always under the impression that Rhaegar was fine with letting her and Arthur Dayne's child inherit the throne? Was she not aware that Rhaegar planned on setting her aside once he found his Nissa Nissa? And if so, why didn't Rhaegar tell her about this up front? Surely this sort of thing would've come up, right?

Now Rhaegar is referring to Aegon V again, but Elia thinks he's talking about her son, right?. Once again, I'm hung up on the use of the present tense here. You say it's because Aegon V is still "present" through Rhaegar and others. But didn't you argue that Rhaegar was essentially the inheritor of Aegon's title of PWWP? So wouldn't that make Aegon no longer the PWWP, especially since, as you argued, as king he would no longer be a prince? (Though as I mentioned before, the title "prince" can actually refer to a reigning monarch.) Using the present tense just doesn't seem like a normal way to talk about a dead person, even under your interpretation (at least according to my understanding of it).

So to clarify, you think that at the time Tyrion and Rhaegar were two of the dragon heads, right? Because I'm trying to understand why Rhaegar would say "there must be one more" in this scene, unless there were already two heads in existence.

One more thing: you mentioned your theory that Rhaegar annulled his marriage to Elia at the ToJ so he could marry Lyanna. The thing is, he couldn't have done this alone. He'd need to have the High Septon set it aside, and there's never been any indication that this sort of thing ever happened. And that's not even considering that Aerys probably would have objected and put a stop to the whole thing.

I really wish I knew how to do seperate quote thing that you can do.

Here is what I'm guessing happened. Rhaegar is with Ellia in the room. She has recently given birth to a child (that if you go with my theory) both she and Rhaegar knows is her child with Arthur Dayne. However, both are also at the time for their mutual benefit perpetuating the fiction that the child is theirs and thus heir to the kingdom. Regardless, the child needs a name. This is what they are discussing. Rhaegar, at this point probably has not yet come to the conclusion that he is going to do away with Aerys and probably believes that this fiction may have to go on for their lifetime. So as far as they are concerened, this child may in fact one day become king despite the fact that he is not legitimate (I know that is farfetched and would never happen, oh yea Joffrey, oh yea Tommen).

Rhaegar says Aegon is a good name for the king. Why Aegon? I believe that both Rhaegar and Aegon are connected through the prophecy and being two heads of the dragon. Rhaegar spends nights playing his harp in the ruins of Summerhall. Basically Rhaegar has Aegon on the brain.

Ellia then being a mother wants to know if Rhaegar will write a song about him (she probably means her son. (i.e. some cryptic song about a child of forbidden love, yada yada)).

Rhaegar is looking out the window playing his harp, thinking about Aegon, thinking about the prophecy. When he is asked the question about whether he will write a song for him, the first thing that comes to his mind is not about the child (while he cares for Ellia, let's face it the kid is not his and the kid is not part of what he considers his driving force in life fulfilling the prophecy), but it's about Aegon V. His response is he already has a song, the song of ice and fire and he is the prince that is promised (he uses the present tense because as i explained above the prophecy is still ongoing, and in Rhaegar's mind Aegon is living on through him). Basically Rhaegar and Ellia almost exist on an entirely different wavelength (as Rhagar probably does with most people)

I don't believe that it is as simple as inheriting a mantle, I think under the constant theories of ressurection that are carried throughout the books, that Aegon is living on through Rhaegar, and Rhager and Aegon both live on through Dany. I said at some point Aegon can not fulfill his duties as the prince that was promised, that does not mean he is not the prince. Just as Rhaegar can not fulfill his duties as the prince once Robert's hammer kills him, he is still the prince that was promised as well. Just as all three are the three heads of the dragon. I think it is hinted at that Rhaegar may be able to detect Dany in the room. I think that is because Rhaegar as the second head is living both in the past (through Aegon) as well as possibly living in the future through Daenearys. In another vision Dany sees a knight that she believes is Rhaegar in his full armor, but when the visor is open she sees her face, she is Rhagar, just as Rhaegar is Aegon. She is a child of three (not a mother of three) she is the composite of Aegon, Rhagar and herself.

We are supposed to be confused by this conversation. I believe that likewise Aemon was confused by Rhaegar's correspondence.

Finally, I do not believe that Tyrion is one of the heads of the dragons (unless this can have multiple meanings which is possible). I believe that Tyrion is the broken sword referenced in the prophecies. I believe the two heads of the dragon that Rhaegar is referring to is Aegon V, himself, and one more (I believe is Dany).

[Dragonfish]

I really wish I knew how to do seperate quote thing that you can do.

Trade secrets, my son.

Here is what I'm guessing happened. Rhaegar is with Ellia in the room. She has recently given birth to a child (that if you go with my theory) both she and Rhaegar knows is her child with Arthur Dayne. However, both are also at the time for their mutual benefit perpetuating the fiction that the child is theirs and thus heir to the kingdom. Regardless, the child needs a name. This is what they are discussing. Rhaegar, at this point probably has not yet come to the conclusion that he is going to do away with Aerys and probably believes that this fiction may have to go on for their lifetime. So as far as they are concerened, this child may in fact one day become king despite the fact that he is not legitimate (I know that is farfetched and would never happen, oh yea Joffrey, oh yea Tommen).

Ok, that makes a little more sense, though it strikes me as odd that Rhaegar would allow someone that was not his child to become king (the Joffrey and Tommen examples aren't really salient, because they gained the throne without their "sire" knowing of their true parentage). I'm also confused about something: what was Rhaegar's plan for Elia once he found his Nissa Nissa? Was he always going to set her aside?

Rhaegar is looking out the window playing his harp, thinking about Aegon, thinking about the prophecy.

Actually, no he isn't. He's not busy doing anything. He's just talking to Elia. He only moves to the window and plays the harp after the conversation. There's absolutely nothing in the passage that indicates that he is lost in thought or anything like that.

Basically Rhaegar and Ellia almost exist on an entirely different wavelength (as Rhagar probably does with most people)

There's being on another wavelenth, and then there's being really, really flaky. The scene as you describe it would require Rhaegar to be just that. They begin the conversation talking about the same person, then for some reason Rhaegar gets lost and thought, and thinks that her question is about someone he's only thinking about and hasn't mentioned out loud? If someone did this to me in real life, I'd start thinking they had a pot habit.

We are supposed to be confused by this conversation.

I honestly had to laugh at this. The conversation as written is fairly straightforward, and not at all confusing. One person says something. Another asks a question. First person replies. That's it. It is your interpretation that is making this conversation more contrived and confusing than it needs to be.

[SFDanny]

trying to think, probably not a great idea, but if a king dies after his heir, isnt his next child the heir? Rhaegar, IIRC, was never king because he preceded Aerys in death. How could his children fall behind Rhaegar's offspring?

No, look up the Targaryen succession after Baelor Breakspear dies. In The Sworn Sword we learn how Daeron dies after Baelor's death in The Hedge Knight, but up to that point it is Baelor's sons that are his heirs, not Baelor's brothers. Both sons die along with Daeron in the Great Spring Sickness and it is only after that that Baelor's younger brother Aerys I becomes the new king.

[Frey family reunion]

Trade secrets, my son.

Ok, that makes a little more sense, though it strikes me as odd that Rhaegar would allow someone that was not his child to become king (the Joffrey and Tommen examples aren't really salient, because they gained the throne without their "sire" knowing of their true parentage). I'm also confused about something: what was Rhaegar's plan for Elia once he found his Nissa Nissa? Was he always going to set her aside?

Actually, no he isn't. He's not busy doing anything. He's just talking to Elia. He only moves to the window and plays the harp after the conversation. There's absolutely nothing in the passage that indicates that he is lost in thought or anything like that.

There's being on another wavelenth, and then there's being really, really flaky. The scene as you describe it would require Rhaegar to be just that. They begin the conversation talking about the same person, then for some reason Rhaegar gets lost and thought, and thinks that her question is about someone he's only thinking about and hasn't mentioned out loud? If someone did this to me in real life, I'd start thinking they had a pot habit.

I honestly had to laugh at this. The conversation as written is fairly straightforward, and not at all confusing. One person says something. Another asks a question. First person replies. That's it. It is your interpretation that is making this conversation more contrived and confusing than it needs to be.

Well obviously the conversation was confusing, because you came to the wrong conclusion after reading it. All kidding aside, a conversation that seems this straightforward being seen inside a house where a rat man gives you an indigo vial of acid probably means something more than you think. This is what I think it means.

No evidence that Rhaegar is distracted? What if he is actually seeing Daenaerys standing in the room when she is actually in the House of the undying in the future, that would be distracting. I know, I know, he wasn't actually seeing her it was a clue that she is the third head.

And I don't think this is evidence of Rhaegar being flaky, I think Rhaegar is just extremely preoccupied and egocentric. My guess is everything for him revolves around what he thinks is important, which is the prophecy.

As for what he was going to do with Ellia? He may have not even known himself. He could have kept all of this a secret (I.e. annulled the marriage and married Lyanna secretly) or he could have decided to usurp Aerys himself and publicly reveal his marriage to Lyanna and his annulment of Elia. Release Arthur from his vows, allow Ellia and Arthur to marry and legitimize their children. This could have been the changes he told Jaime on his way out the door.

[Black Wolf Smith]

Now I remember why I quit coming to this thread. People who just don't get 1+1 and others that come on hear to argue about what they know is wrong.

Jon is a legit Targ. It doesn't matter if YG is real or not, only if Dany either believes his real, or if she falls in love with him.

The parrallels of Joff being a bastard raised as crown prince, and Jon being raise a bastard, while being the crown prince are the whole point of the this part of the story.

[Scarlet Seastar]

Earlier in this thread, there was an argument about Jon's possible 'real' name.

What if the woman in the scene is Lyanna?

I know that it would be impossible for the conversation to have happened between them-BUT- Dany was, as she claims herself-surrounded by sorcery.

Before she enters the HotU, she is told that she would be presented with truths-but most of them were metaphorical weren't they?

So what if this 'scene' was shown to her as another proof of Jon's heritage-it didn't have to really happen-but rather in the same way that Quaithe tells her future in riddles- may be there she was shown truths of the past but not with real events?

So when Dany sees Jon, she recognizes him(Lyanna and Arya look really alike-and also, in GoT, almost all of the characters notice the similarities between Jon and Arya(Arya looks so much like him, she fears she is a bastard)) and she then realizes everything?

I find it queer in that conversation that Rhaegar actually doesn't mention the comet. He is certain that the boy in the woman's arms is the Prince, but thinks there must be another one cause the dragon needs three heads?

I think the last part was indeed for Dany. Dany was the third head. For her, that was the most important part of the vision.

For us, the readers, the important thing are the people.

And also, this is just a prophetic vision(backwards) and never really happened. Or, since, she is Rhaegar-she saw herself in him- may be Rhaegar had the same vision which prompted him to go after Lyanna.

Basically what I am trying to say is that that conversation never actually happened, and that it is only a vision that both Rhaegar and Dany have at different times-and that it concerns none other than Jon Snow.

[Ygrain]

I will not accept that putting true honor and morality over vows is wrong. That is concrete thinking and leads to trouble - leads to worshipping words instead of the intent of the words. Now, the morality one must follow may not be the same one would follow if not KG but aimed toward preserving the king. But you have to have a moral guide, not just a list of rules to follow.

But this is the whole problem - you're inserting your own view (with which I agree, BTW), into the Westerosi perspective. From this point of view, Jaime did the right thing when he killed the mad sadistic king and ended the whole war - and looked what he got for it: a man with shit for honour. The Westerosi concept is pretty much that of the RL Middle Ages: the loyalty to a liege is more than loyalty to family, a vow is sacrosanct and tolerates no exceptions. Sure, people stray from this, both in RL and in Westeros, but it is still considered a sort of an ideal concept to strive for and judge people by. It's incompatible with the modern views, but that's how it was. And, this is why the presence of the KG is considered such a clear indicative of Jon's status: these KG are considered the paragons of such values, and abandoning them goes against what they are, what they have been presented as.

As I have said above, I role-played this very concept, this very dilemma - I had to carry out an order which went directly against my moral values, and though such a mindset is very much against everything I believe in, it's not unrealistic: it's the case of all those people throughout the history who committed atrocities on an order. In Westerosi, you have a society which fully expects you to do just that, on your liege's word, and the conflict between complying with the norm and doing the right thing creates the most compelling moments in GRRM's writing. However, nothing in the presentation of the KG so far points at solving this dilemma in favour of the moral side; on the contrary, they are shown as upholding the traditional view.

[Black Wolf Smith]

Earlier in this thread, there was an argument about Jon's possible 'real' name.

What if the woman in the scene is Lyanna?

GRRM has said that it is Elia.

[corbon]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on your first point. If a rebellion was not happening at the time, then I might see your point. I don't think Hightower would have taken almost half the kingsguard out of the action just because Rhaegar ordered it especially when the order was to guard his mistress and bastard child. Rhaegar did not command the kingsguard, the king did.

He didn't, on his own authority.

We know Hightower (and possibly/probably Whent) was still in KL with Aerys when Brandon turned up.

We know Aerys decided that Rahegar should 'come back' and be Hand and Commander in Chief.

We know Rhaegar came back, yet no mention was made of Hightower or Whent.

We know Hightower Whent and Dayne were found at ToJ.

It seems fairly obvious that Aerys probably instructed Hightower to find Rhaegar and explain to him what was going on and that he was now Hand and in charge.

That's a pretty critical mission. Hightower probably took Whent and maybe Martell with him, leaving Selmy, Darry and Jaime with the King at KL (I'm guessing Dayne was with Rhaegar right from the start, more or less permanently attached to the heir), of which Selmy and Darry were tasked with re-marshalling the loyalist forces.

Having found Rhaegar at ToJ and put him in charge, Rhaegar probably left Hightower Dayne and Whent there, while he and maybe Martell returned to KL, Martell then or later being detached to bring up the Dhornish forces.

This all fits because the King is at all times covered by at least one KG, Hightower does not go against any orders of Aerys, and besides Rhaegar is now Hand and in charge of the war effort and free to re-task the KG as he sees fit.

3 great warriors make a massive difference to the safety of a helpless woman and child (note wife, not mistress) in a small, isolated tower deep in the dornish marches. They'll handle any bandits, brigands etc comfortably. Anonimity is their protection from larger forces.

3 great warriors among thousands of troops behind the invincible walls of the Red Keep (still never taken by storm) or among an army of tens f thousands, makelittle difference no matter how good they are individually.

Not to confuse the issue, but it's possible that one or more of them were with Rhaegar when he went to get Lyanna, when he married and while they were locked away at the Tower of Joy. It's reasonable to assume that the Crown Prince would have had at least one KG with him and the text suggests that it was probably Dayne, his best friend. Dayne would have been witness to any sort of marriage vows. I can't specifically recall the order of events that sent Hightower and/or Whent to the TOJ. Hopefully someone can jump in with that.

Indeed. Dayne was probably with Rhaegar from the start. Hightower (and probably Whent with him) was sent to Rhaegar by Aerys, in order to give Rhaegar the Handship and overall command authority.

[Scarlet Seastar]

GRRM has said that it is Elia.

I really had no idea.