R+L=J v.31

[corbon]

Are you saying Selmy did not bend the knee to Robert? That's what i said, that he bent the knee to Robert. If he didnt, wth was he doing on the KG?

Show me where that is faulty? I never said the word surrender, which is coincidentally the word you seem to have an issue with.

Thats changing the goalposts of the discussion and making out you aren't incorrect on a technical point.

Post#582 ( I couldn't be bothered checking back further pages) you were discussing surrender.

Post 586 Buried Treasure replied and asked "where was the assumption that the KG would not surrender"? That is the subject under discussion.

You replied with 'exhibit A: Barristan Selmy bending the knee.'

You claimed he surrendered even if you changed the actual words. I just pointed out, that as you often seem to do (since this, once more, on the succession, for example), you have the facts wrong again.

If you take that as a derogatory statement, then perhaps you should improve your research before arguing with people for several pages based on incorrect facts and assumptions you have made. This isn't a one-off, and it always seems to be over very thoroughly covered grounds.

Besides if you take 3 wounds and are nursed back to health before you have a chance to not-yield and when you get well you swear your sword to the guy whose army you were fighting it is a little precious to distinguish that from surrendering.

There absolutely is in context.

In one case its giving up what you vowed to fight for/protect. In the other case its not giving up, but fighting to every possible effort. Then when you have recovered, finding out that what you fought for is literally gone, replaced by something new.

Its about giving your all. Barristan Selmy did. If the KG at ToJ had've surrendered they would not have been giving their all.

[dragontamer]

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

Aegon V can't be the PWWP. He arranged the marriage of Aerys and Rhaella after he heard the prophecy that the PWWP would be born from their line (Aerys' and Rhaella's) the prophecy stated that the PWWP will be born not that has been born. If the two had to be marry in order for a child to be born that he/she could be the PWWP how Aegon V could be himself?

Aegon his son from Elia was believed to be the PWWP abd his to be the song of ice and fire. Also the line there has to be one more because the dragon has three heads makes no sense. If one more was needed then two heads existed already. And as proved before Aegon V couldn't be one. So who were the already existing two heads if not Aegon VI and Rhaenys?

Also do you think that the crown prince who had only one other sibling and a minor one would jeopardize his throne like that? I mean Rhaenys was 3-4 years old by the time Aegon was born. So in your opinion he allowed two illegitimate children to be born, accepted them before the realm as his own and then what? Hoped that when Lyanna would grow up she would fall for him and they could elope and she would birth a living son that would be the PWWP? Lyanna could have died by then from sickness or accident, could be barren or other thousands of things could have happened.

[FanTasy]

The presence of the Kingsguard is the most commonly cited evidence. They should not have stayed at that tower once they'd heard what happened to Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon, not unless the true heir was with them. Though there is an outside chance that Aegon was the one who was with them in that tower, I highly doubt it, as I think Aegon is fake.

There is also another piece of evidence that some people don't accept, but which I find to be highly plausible. Remember Mormont's raven? Remember how he seemed to say things in an unusually knowing manner, at just the right times, like when he said Jon Snow's name on the night of the choosing of the Lord Commander? Well, a lot of people are of the opinion that the raven is being warged by Brynden Rivers, aka the Three-Eyed Crow. And it just so happens that in Clash, this raven says the word "king" several times while looking at Jon. I think that was a message being sent by Bloodraven, who, through his great weirwood network, would probably know about Jon's true origins.

Yes, there are people who are of that opinion. Of course the raven could also foreshadow that Jon could be named successor to the late King of the North, Robb Stark. Or it could hint at that Jon could be the next king beyond the wall.

About the discussion of why the kingsguard were in Dorne, I'm pretty sure the conversation bit between Ned and the kingsguard is to show they were there because of a vow, and that it is their vow to protect the king seems pretty obvious.

The lord commander of the kingsguard is present, he would not be needed just to guard royal family, his place would be with the king.

The kingsguard pretty sure knows Aerys is dead and Rhaegar is dead, so at least one of them should be where the king is.

Whether this is baby Jon (if R+L=J is true and J=legitimate) or baby Aegon (if there was a baby switch at Kings Landing), I don't know for sure. We will see and until GRRM tells us what he has in store i'm open to other options.

I do tend to take the dream sequence of Ned in AGOT after he recovers from six days and nights of feverish dreams not too literal, mainly because GRRM said in an interview that we shouldn't do this.

By the way, what could be an interesting and telling tidbit in the scene of Ned and the three Kingsguard is that Ned talks about Prince Viserys - which is weird because Ned knows Rhaegar and Aerys are both dead and that Viserys should be next in line for kingship. So why doesn't Ned believe Viserys is king?

[Dr. Pepper]

To all:

Sort of off-topic, but I wanted to put together a bit of a group effort request for the next volume of the R+L=J thread. Early in this thread, I made a post of FAQ to provide new forumers an opportunity to examine the evidence of the theory without having to sift through hundreds of posts. I have edited it a bit to include other commonly addressed questions and also added some commentary from butterbumps! about why Jon's legitimacy matters to the story.

My request is that those familiar with the theory and text look over what I laid out in the linked post and suggest any additions (or subtractions) or any nitpicks on facts that I got wrong. The goal is to provide a concise and informative block of text that mods can include in the initial post of all future R+L=J threads. This goal isn't to limit discussion on this topic, but just to give new and curious forumers a good foundation to jump in with debates.

Feel free to either PM me with suggestions but it might be beneficial to post and discuss suggestions for the FAQ post publicly.

[rmholt]

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.

See, I find your argument a little shakier than 1 + 1. My position that it doesnt matter if Jon is a legit Targ is as solid to me as your hypothesis is to you. I am willing to entertain other possibilities, leaving the door open to discussion of any new or recycled bright ideas. The parallel you mention is intriguing but it isnt necessarily the whole point of anything. There are a lot of parallels in the books - of various importance, and some of which I may not have been intended and may even be seen only by me. Right now I am mulling the Black Evil Silence (Euron) vs the Big White Good Silence (Ghost)

[FanTasy]

To all:

Sort of off-topic, but I wanted to put together a bit of a group effort request for the next volume of the R+L=J thread. Early in this thread, I made a post of FAQ to provide new forumers an opportunity to examine the evidence of the theory without having to sift through hundreds of posts. I have edited it a bit to include other commonly addressed questions and also added some commentary from butterbumps! about why Jon's legitimacy matters to the story.

My request is that those familiar with the theory and text look over what I laid out in the linked post and suggest any additions (or subtractions) or any nitpicks on facts that I got wrong. The goal is to provide a concise and informative block of text that mods can include in the initial post of all future R+L=J threads. This goal isn't to limit discussion on this topic, but just to give new and curious forumers a good foundation to jump in with debates.

Feel free to either PM me with suggestions but it might be beneficial to post and discuss suggestions for the FAQ post publicly.

Great idea, but a lot of posters just read the last post and comment on that, they don't read earlier posts or the first post in a thread.

The wiki has a FAQ-section, that could be a spot where information can be gathered.

[rmholt]

Thats changing the goalposts of the discussion and making out you aren't incorrect on a technical point.

Post#582 ( I couldn't be bothered checking back further pages) you were discussing surrender.

Post 586 Buried Treasure replied and asked "where was the assumption that the KG would not surrender"? That is the subject under discussion.

You replied with 'exhibit A: Barristan Selmy bending the knee.'

You claimed he surrendered even if you changed the actual words. I just pointed out, that as you often seem to do (since this, once more, on the succession, for example), you have the facts wrong again.

If you take that as a derogatory statement, then perhaps you should improve your research before arguing with people for several pages based on incorrect facts and assumptions you have made. This isn't a one-off, and it always seems to be over very thoroughly covered grounds.

There absolutely is in context.

In one case its giving up what you vowed to fight for/protect. In the other case its not giving up, but fighting to every possible effort. Then when you have recovered, finding out that what you fought for is literally gone, replaced by something new.

Its about giving your all. Barristan Selmy did. If the KG at ToJ had've surrendered they would not have been giving their all.

I am easily swayed by demonstrated facts (see rules of succession). Some of the "facts" here are not so verifiable. Your last 2 sentences are your opinion, for example. It's OK to disagree with an opinion. Ranting that I have my facts wrong AGAIN and supporting this with opinions is a little defensive and not productive. Replace my wrong (sic) facts with correct (sic) facts and I will listen. If Selmy had given his all he would never have served Robert, and then JOffrey, as he says himself. Future KG are startlingly unable to give their lives in defense of their kings (Robert and Joffrey) Jaime himself thinks his finest act was to kill Aerys. If so, it was because he renounced his vows. So you can renounce your vows in order to do the honorable thing. So it isnt as black and white as all that.

Taking my inventory isnt helpful to anyone.

[Frey family reunion]

Aegon V can't be the PWWP. He arranged the marriage of Aerys and Rhaella after he heard the prophecy that the PWWP would be born from their line (Aerys' and Rhaella's) the prophecy stated that the PWWP will be born not that has been born. If the two had to be marry in order for a child to be born that he/she could be the PWWP how Aegon V could be himself?

Aegon his son from Elia was believed to be the PWWP abd his to be the song of ice and fire. Also the line there has to be one more because the dragon has three heads makes no sense. If one more was needed then two heads existed already. And as proved before Aegon V couldn't be one. So who were the already existing two heads if not Aegon VI and Rhaenys?

Also do you think that the crown prince who had only one other sibling and a minor one would jeopardize his throne like that? I mean Rhaenys was 3-4 years old by the time Aegon was born. So in your opinion he allowed two illegitimate children to be born, accepted them before the realm as his own and then what? Hoped that when Lyanna would grow up she would fall for him and they could elope and she would birth a living son that would be the PWWP? Lyanna could have died by then from sickness or accident, could be barren or other thousands of things could have happened.

My point is that the PWWP is not one person it is three persons: Aegon, Rhaegar and Dhaenaerys. So the prophecy is correct in that the the PWWP will be born of that line, but remember a line goes up and down. Rhaegar is of that line because he is the child of Aerys and Rhaella. Dany is of that line because sheis the daughter of Aerys and Rhaella. But Aegon V is also of that line because he is the father of both Aerys and Rhaella.

Earlier dragonfish brought up the comet that was seen when Aegon was conceived. He argued that proved that Ellia's son Aegon was what Rhaegar was referring to as the PWWP. I believe however that Rhaegar was referring to a comet that was seen at the time of the conception of Aegon V his grandfather. When you look at the text, Aemon says that Rhaegar told him a comet was seen over King's landing at the time of Aegon's conception. Rhaegar does not say that he personally saw a comet. Find any other character in the books that claim they saw a comet around the time of 285 AL.

When the comet came after Dany's dragons were hatched it was the talk of the land, everyone in every land was giving a significance to the comet. No one said, what's the big deal we saw one about fifteen years ago. In addition to the comet appearing after the hatching of the dragons what other event was happening? The realm was turning 300 AL.

Go do the math and look up on the wikki as to when Aegon V was born (wikki eta 199 AL). And remember, the years correspond to the years after Aegon I landed on Westeros. My guess is, Aegon used the comet as an omen to decide to go ahead and invade westeros. The comet came again in 199 AL when Aegon V was conceived (the prince that was promised). Comet comes again in 299 AL the return of the dragons.

My guess is we will find out some other great event occurred in 99 AL. (If I had to guess it was the Maesters coming up with something that will sterilize the dragons).

Also, I believe that the doom of Valeryia occurs about hundred years before the invasion of Westeros.

As for Rhaegar allowing Ellia to have children out of wedlock. I believe that Rhaegar's driving force was the fulfillment of the prophecy and his part in that fulfillment. I do not think he put much significance in the Targarean dynasty, I think he was preparing for the war against the Others. His marriage to Ellia was an just obstacle to this fulfillment he had to find a way around. He knew that his lineage would be forging lightbringer (his child through Lyanna) I think he was less worried about his child not being able to claim the throne and more worried about his child defeating the Others to avoid the long darkness.

[Alia of the knife]

The only thing I would caution, and Martin has shown us the tendency for prophesies to be misinterpreted.

(When Aerys dreamt of the KotLT, he dreamed that the face behind that helm posed some sort of threat to him and his House, therefore he sent Rhaegar to find him. If what we believe is true, and Lyanna is the KotLT, then on one level his dream was correct and he sent Rhaegar straight into the arms of the woman who would play a part in bringing down House Targaryen).

So, it was his own actions that set events into motion.

What if Aerys had simply chalked his dream/vision up to gas, and just ignored the KotLT as a seperate feud between himself and the other Knights that would settle itself?

I think we have to consider that a big obstacle to reading prophesy is the inability to read them objectively, leaving personal feelings, i.e., fear, love, desire, etc., out of the equasion.

To some degree, due to Rhaegars great love for Lyanna, he most likely read some of his own desires into the prophesy which influenced his actions.

We see the same with Cersei and the influence of Maggie the Frog, (and of course the ambitions of Tywin).

She has spent her life thinking she has been deprived of the one great love of her life- Rhaegar.

I have a gut feeling that in the instance of her possible betrothal to Rhaegar that Rhaegar himself had some say in turning down the betrothal.

The pivotal event when she was presented to him, and they looked into each others eyes, I think they saw very different things; she saw sadness, and he saw corruption.

Though I think Rhaegar is a nebulous character, I still think that by and large, he was a positive character, and I don't think beauty alone moved him.

The irony is that Cersei has spent the better part of her marriage focusing on the prophesies of Maggie the Frog, (who actually did interpret events correctly), which propelled her to dwell on the "what-if's of Rhaegar when in reality, she never had any more of chance with him than Robert did with Lyanna, so both of them spent their marriage in bitterness rather than moving on, and trying to make the best of their situation, slowly destroying themselves.

[Ygrain]

I am easily swayed by demonstrated facts (see rules of succession). Some of the "facts" here are not so verifiable. Your last 2 sentences are your opinion, for example. It's OK to disagree with an opinion. Ranting that I have my facts wrong AGAIN and supporting this with opinions is a little defensive and not productive. Replace my wrong (sic) facts with correct (sic) facts and I will listen. If Selmy had given his all he would never have served Robert, and then JOffrey, as he says himself. Future KG are startlingly unable to give their lives in defense of their kings (Robert and Joffrey) Jaime himself thinks his finest act was to kill Aerys. If so, it was because he renounced his vows. So you can renounce your vows in order to do the honorable thing. So it isnt as black and white as all that.

Taking my inventory isnt helpful to anyone.

You might want to check my post 637 on the previous page concerning this.

[Dragonfish]

When Aerys dreamt of the KotLT, he dreamed that the face behind that helm posed some sort of threat to him and his House, therefore he sent Rhaegar to find him.

Wait, what? When did this happen?

[Alia of the knife]

Wait, what? When did this happen?

I read that in an interview, but I can't remember where, because it was awhile ago.

[Dragonfish]

I read that in an interview, but I can't remember where, because it was awhile ago.

Are you certain it was an interview, or a fan theory? Because I've honestly never heard this from George before. The Citadel page on the KotLT makes no mention of it, and it honestly sounds like the sort of thing George would leave in the books rather than explain in public.

[rmholt]

You might want to check my post 637 on the previous page concerning this.

Still not that black and white and not to my point. Jaime actually told himself it was his finest act and done for honor when it was just his luck that Aerys was a bad guy since he was actually killing him for Tywin.

That's why he is seen more accurately as a man with shit for honor.

For the others:

A superior knight with the spotless reputation is still human and still grey.

[Alia of the knife]

Are you certain it was an interview, or a fan theory? Because I've honestly never heard this from George before. The Citadel page on the KotLT makes no mention of it, and it honestly sounds like the sort of thing George would leave in the books rather than explain in public.

It wasn't Martin, I think it was an article discussing ASoIaF and it's themes, with prophesies highlighted being one of them, and it talked about Aerys paranoia being sparked by a dream, or vision about the KotLT, and how "he" wasn't a friend to House Targaryen.

As I said, it's been awhile, and I can't remember exactly where I saw it.

[Dragonfish]

It wasn't Martin, I think it was an article discussing ASoIaF and it's themes, with prophesies highlighted being one of them, and it talked about Aerys paranoia being sparked by a dream, or vision about the KotLT, and how "he" wasn't a friend to House Targaryen.

As I said, it's been awhile, and I can't remember exactly where I saw it.

Oh, I see. Well, I think whoever wrote the article was either mistaken, or was offering speculation, because there's nothing in the books that I recall that says Aerys dreamed about the KotLT. The Citadel's page on prophecies doesn't list anything either, as far as I can tell.

[Buried Treasure]

By the way, what could be an interesting and telling tidbit in the scene of Ned and the three Kingsguard is that Ned talks about Prince Viserys - which is weird because Ned knows Rhaegar and Aerys are both dead and that Viserys should be next in line for kingship. So why doesn't Ned believe Viserys is king?

It's not odd at all, Robert was Ned's king. Viserys was still highborn and Ned is very proper so he still used a title when referring to Viserys rather than just calling him 'the boy Viserys' or somesuch but he was not going to be calling any Targaryen 'king' at that point.

In fact even if the kingsguard themselves had called Viserys a prince at that time it wouldn't mean much. Heirs to deposed dynastys can often get called by lesser titles than the one they are theoretically entitled to - even by their own supporters. Viserys and Dany mostly got called 'prince' and 'princess' even by people supporting them as rightful king or queen, right up til Dany put a stop to the practice and insisted on being called a queen.

[Silent Sparrow]

Viserys was born a prince and it is just respect towards his birth and, imo, a little nod to the fact that he is of the royal family that the KG served.

[SFDanny]

When Aerys dreamt of the KotLT, he dreamed that the face behind that helm posed some sort of threat to him and his House, therefore he sent Rhaegar to find him.

Wait, what? When did this happen?

As far as I know, we don't know it was in a dream that Aerys sees the KotLT as a foe, but he clearly states it in Meera's story of the event.

It was a good story, Bran decided after thinking about it a moment or two. “Then what happened? Did the Knight of the Laughing Tree win the tourney and marry a princess?”

“No,” said Meera. “That night at the great castle, the storm lord and the knight of skulls and kisses each swore they would unmask him, and the king himself urged men to challenge him, declaring that the face behind that helm was no friend of his. (ASoS 283)

emphasis added

[Alia of the knife]

As far as I know, we don't know it was in a dream that Aerys sees the KotLT as a foe, but he clearly states it in Meera's story of the event.

emphasis added

Thank you, I knew I had read it somewhere, (was sure it was the book) and then later it was topic of discussion in an interview about the characters misreading situations, and the Targaryens their prophecies.

Thats all I got. :stillsick: