R+L=J v 58

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This is how I've always interpreted the lack of Aegon being mentioned at the Tower. You can take it or leave it.

It's obvious that if the three guys know what happened to Aerys and that Jaime killed him, they also know that Aegon is dead. Aegon, Rhaegar's infant son. Ned is at the Tower hoping to get access to his sister and Jon ... Rhaegar's other infant son. I think we can probably all agree that Ned isn't exactly looking for a fight here and is hoping to get what he came for without violence, however unrealistic that may be. So if you're trying to gain access to a royal baby, are you going to bring up the other royal baby (really, royal babies) who was just brutally killed? To, you know, remind these three dudes what can happen to unprotected royal babies? No, you don't.

Rhaenys doesn't come up in that conversation either, yet she's confirmed to be dead. So I'm going to say that Ned choosing not to bring up the kids had more to do with convincing the three guys to let him get to Lyanna and Jon and wasn't exactly meant to be a "dodge" or "loophole" on Martin's part.

[Mayura]

What if Tywin sent Brandon Stark news at Riverrun that Rhaegar abducted Lyanna? The Starks are not politically savvy and Tywin would know better than anyone how Aerys would react. Through gossip or Varys, Tywin would have heard the QLAB story. Tywin would be also be extremely pissed at Aerys for rejecting Cersi and adding Jaime to the KG. This could be enough information for Tywin to be able to use the Starks into confronting the Targaryens. He has his maester send a raven to House Tully. He'd use some false pretense to mention "rhaegar and lyanna" hoping Hoster will tell Brandon. Brandon hears about R+L and runs down to Kl cause that's what "young knights" do. Tywin remains out of the way then "swoops in at the end" to finish replacing the Targaryen dynasty.

Well it would be equally possible, I think.

Although I think that if anyone is behind a quarrell, it would likely be Varys IMO, and maybe even Varys + the Martells/Martell friends (as they seem to have had an agreement since a long time ago and the Martells and their friends would see Lyanna as an inconvenience). It seems to me that Varys's plan initiated way before he reached KL, and it is recalled my several characters that the arrival of Varys caused Aerys's paranoia to grow bigger and bigger (Stannis remembers that Varys was the "downfall" of Aerys and he mentions that "the spider shouldn't have been pardonned").

Which leads me to another question: we know Varys has been "pardonned" by King Robert. Maester Pycelle was as well, but that was because he was a Lannister man and he helped with the sack. So do we know exactly what Varys did to deserve forgiveness and to deserve to remain master of whispers at court? The fact he has been authorised to keep his position under Robert tells me that he had to do something useful, like disclosing the position of Lyanna or even being the one to inform the Starks in the first place, who knows. We know Varys lies to everyone, he only tells a little bit of truth to ensure everyone is his "friend", but Varys's truth is most of the time only a partial truth, he tells what can be told to one and to the other.

[finger]

First of all, excuse me if your post was sarcastic, MtnLion, I think you state a lot of things as "fact" while there are actually no evidence of what you're saying in the books, but you're merely speculating, as do we all. So i'll try to reply to your questions and I hope I did understand your post well

Well, actually, we don't know as facts either of the things you state 1) nothing indicates Elia and Ashara were BFFs, just that Ashara was lady in waiting, period. 2) it is never said in the books that Ashara was sent away "because she got pregnant" but merely that she was "dishonored". One does not equal the other.

Well, GRRM stresses quite strongly that seasons are magical in ASOIAF, there is absolutely no clue winter "descended" on Starfall or the TOJ... Actually, quite the contrary. Also, saying Ashara stayed with Elia is pure speculation, even more so as GRRM states in a SSM that Ashara was sent to Starfall but wasn't pinned to the floor there.

Actually, no, Barristan never says he was in KL for the "births". He clearly states that she had a stillborn daughter (doesn't say were) and jumped from the tower shortly after (if you remember, Ashara committed "suicide" in 283 AL, at Starfall). I am not even sure Ashara has really committed suicide, but the reason of her "suicide" isn't even important. It's the proximity between stillbirth (btw, I know what it is, as a woman, but thank you for the definition) and the alleged suicide in Selmy's memories that I was underlying. EDIT: ha, maybe you meant the births of Rhaeneys, Aegon. Barristan would be in KL one can guess. But what do you mean by "Where do the child stealing theories come from that we see some think or speak about?", who speaks about child stealing? Someone in the books or theories on the forum?

The time frame is actually never stated anywhere but we can safely assume she died a short time after giving birth.

Is this really my post you wanted to comment? I've never said the promise wasn't to take care of the child so I am confused...

Sorry but there are so many things you state as facts that actually... Aren't... It is never, absolutely never stated that Ashara is a Targ loyalist. You drew your own conclusions but it doesn't make them fact.

As to your second point, I believe that Ashara indeed had a child as many persons recall her being pregnant and Barristan mentions she had a stillborn girl, which I would tend to believe but in fact: we don't know what happened to that child.

As to the last point: I have never said Ashara had to meet with Ned during the rebellion... If you read my posts correctly, I am just saying that basically there is a time frame of 2 years (281 Harrenhal - 283 end of rebellion) during which we have no idea about Ashara's whereabouts. GRRM gave the evidence himself by saying the readers were making a mistake by saying Ashara "was in Starfall, period". He said himself that she had ways of getting away and quoted boat and horses. She was sent to Starfall after Harrenhal for unknown reasons (she was "dishonored" doesn't equal "she got pregnant", it is never stated anywhere that Ashara got pregnant at Harrenhal, merely that she gave herself to one of the men. Might be she was pregnant, might be she wasn't) and nobody know where she really was. Not even me, or you for that matter ;) And yes, I believe that during the year between Harrenhal (281) and the start of the rebellion (282), she could have met with Ned, Brandon or anyone else she wanted.

Anyhow, I hope I haven't misunderstood your post :-)

We speculate because we lack information.

GRRM loves paralells, cycles, telling one character's story through someone other's,...

So, we may think that Ashara escaped with Rhaegar's son the same that Gilly escaped with Mance's son.

Or we may think that Lyanna went to Starfall when Ashara's pregnancy and, the way round, Ashara went to ToJ when Lyanna's pregnacy.

When there's no real evidence, you have to make up a story that best fits the details you know. Martin has chosen to keep this part of the story in the mist.

[Mayura]

We speculate because we lack information.

GRRM loves paralells, cycles, telling one character's story through someone other's,...

So, we may think that Ashara escaped with Rhaegar's son the same that Gilly escaped with Mance's son.

Or we may think that Lyanna went to Starfall when Ashara's pregnancy and, the way round, Ashara went to ToJ when Lyanna's pregnacy.

When there's no real evidence, you have to make up a story that best fits the details you know. Martin has chosen to keep this part of the story in the mist.

I completely agree, we all speculate. But I don't understand why the poster who replied to me seemed to tell me his speculations were facts? Maybe I misunderstood but that is how I read his/her posts, because it seemed to contain "truth" that are actually pure speculations as well (like saying Ashara was Elia's best friend etc).

But if some of these things are facts that I've missed, by all means tell me, that's useful :)

[finger]

The basis for the Aegon-at-the-TOJ theory, as I understand it, is this:

1. Tywin claims Aegon is dead but the proof he offers is an unrecognizable child, just like Theon does when he pretends the Miller's boys are Bran and Rickon. This means Aegon may be alive, just as Bran and Rickon are alive.

2. No one should keep all his treasures in one purse. This is the reason Robb gives for separating Cat and Jeyne. It's also why OSHA separates Bran and Rickon. So Rhaegar may have separated Rhaenys and Aegon. Alternatively, after Rhaegar's death, someone may have sent Aegon and Viserys to different places.

3. The 3KG at the TOJ don't give any indication that they think Aegon is dead. They account for Aerys, Rhaegar, Viserys and Rhaella. They never mention Aegon. This suggests they think he is alive (or at least, they have not been told he is dead). That is a curious omission that may suggest they know exactly where Aegon is because they are hiding him in the TOJ.

This does not borrow from the R+L=J theory. It isn't really inconsistent with the R+L=J theory, since there could have been two children in the Tower.

I'll add some more. IIRC, Varys says Aegon wasn't killed in the sack, and Kevan refers to it in a very doubtful way.

If the child had been removed from his mother's side, where is the first place to look for him? His father's home, obviously.

The story makes sense if Aegon has fled (well, taken away) and the 3 KG stay at the ToJ as a decoy.

[finger]

It seems hard for me to believe that the Kingsguard know the happenings of the sack, including Jaime's role - "our false brother" - in killing Aerys without them also knowing the fate of Elia and her children. Although you are right, of course, that they are not specifically mentioned.

As one of the people who, I believe, started the "Aegon at the Tower of Joy" theory, and the first person to put forward the idea, way back in the early iterations of these threads, that the conduct of the Kingsguard pointed to the heir being there with them and therefore pointed to Jon as the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, let me say what I think are the main arguments for Aegon being there. First, every bit of the discussion about first duty to protect their king that fills these pages from those early threads of R+L=J fits with Aegon's presence, or a legitimate Jon being there, or both being there at the Tower when Ned arrives. This is certainly an affirmative clue to support Aegon's presence. It doesn't support the presence of anyone else who isn't a person that the loyalists members of the Kingsguard would consider their king. Again, that points to Aegon or a legitimate Jon or both.

What Aegon being there has as affirmative clues pointing to his presence that Jon's presence doesn't is that Aegon has an actual character who claims to be the heir, whereas no one, no where, in the entire story actually claims that Jon is that heir. We are left many clues pointing to it being Jon - the way Lyanna dies, Rhaegar and Lyanna's possible romantic relationship, the couple's likely contact during the time Jon would have been conceived, the conduct of Ned with Jon when he brings his "bastard" home with him, and on and on - that point towards Jon, but there is NO ONE who yet claims Jon is the heir. There is a character in Young Griff, if we believe the core part of his story, who explains quite well the Kingsguard's actions. I don't believe his story, but that is another topic. Anyone who ignores the impact of having such a character claiming to be Aegon towards the debate over the Kingsguard's actions isn't serious. They are just spouting a line that reflects wanting one and only one possibility to be taken into consideration. At the very least it is critical to say why one doesn't think this is true. It is certainly possible. It is part of Martin's genius that throughout the series he keeps all of these theories about what happened at the tower and who are Jon's parents alive going onto the sixth tome in the story. A Dance with Dragons continued this and introduced the Young Griff storyline as one of the most significant of these possible explanations.

Now, that in no way means that I think Aegon's presence is more likely than just the presence of a legitimate Jon. I think the reverse is true. Young Griff's story has a whole host of problems with it, but it does have the virtue of having someone making the case that Aegon was alive at the time and was being smuggled out of the country. I think for this to be true, we have to buy into part of Young Griff's story and reject others. In particular, the idea this was a last minute plot by Varys in concert with Elia, as outlined by Young Griff, make it highly unlikely that Aegon would have been smuggled out to the Tower of Joy. Why the long overland route when access to the sea was at hand against an enemy who was powerless to stop a ship carrying the prince away?

I think if Aegon is there, it is much more likely that Rhaegar is the source of his presence. The three men are guarding the tower on Rhaegar's orders. The destination and time it would take to get the child there indicates a plot of longer duration than a last minute attempt would indicate. Into all of this we have to weigh the relationship between Rhaegar and Varys who seem to have been at odds going back at least to the time of Harrenhal and before. If Varys wants to save Aegon, it is likely he would do it for his own benefit, and placing the child into the hands of men who are very unlikely to take orders from Varys shouts to me that this can't be the way it could happen. No, if it is a desperate attempt by Elia to get her child out, and Varys is enlisted to help, then a ship to the free cities makes much more sense.

If Rhaegar plans this out and he is responsible for smuggling his son out from his insane father's grip, then he has not only the motive but the means to make it happen through his orders to the Kingsguard. Varys is much more likely to have entered into this as a result of finding out, via his little birds, that Aegon is gone, and the Spider trying to make use of this after the fact for his own reasons. So, we are confronted with the possibility of part of Young Griff's tale being true, and the rest being false. Certainly not out of the question, but, as in all these things, more clues are needed.

Another thing on this theory. It seems to me that for it to be true, it is clear that two things must be true - Ned doesn't know the child is Aegon, and that Jon must be there as well. Ned obviously thinks Aegon is dead, and any theory that relies on him consciously helping to smuggle Aegon out of country falls flat on our reading of his private thoughts concerning Aegon being dead and laid before Robert by Tywin. That Ned would take a disguised child he believed to be the child of a wet nurse along with him to Starfall does fit well with what we know of Ned. He would need the help of a wet nurse to feed Jon on the journey, and he would expect a wet nurse to have had a child of her own. The idea he goes to Starfall and brings the wet nurse and her child along with them without Jon makes no sense at all.

Lastly, let me remind people, that even if Aegon was there, it does not necessarily follow that Young Griff is that child. Varys has every reason to want complete control over Aegon, and what better way to do that but by having his own pretender unknowingly play the role. Here we must consider who would have smuggled Aegon out of the country, and it obviously wasn't Varys himself putting Aegon aboard a ship. It has to be an loyalist from Starfall who takes the child out of the country after Ned leaves. The obvious candidate would be Septa Lemore, especially if she is in reality Ashara Dayne. Why Ashara would throw in with the Spider over other more trustworthy loyalists - the Martells, her own family, etc. begs many questions, but it is an interesting question. My guess is that if Aegon is still alive, she wouldn't. A dead Aegon, especially if the child died in her care, would explain a lot towards her actions. But here we are down the lanes of conjecture with little but small hints and prophecy to support any possibility.

In closing, I think it is important in these discussions to remember what clues really tell us are possibilities and what they don't tell us about those possibilities. The actions of the Kingsguard Trio have, as I've argued for years, strongly pointed to the heir to the Targaryen throne being there with them. It has never meant that could only be a legitimate Jon. Before A Dance with Dragons most of us dismissed Aegon as a possible answer because many things pointed to his having died in the sack of King's Landing. It is still a very possible answer to Aegon's fate, but post Dance we must deal with Young Griff's claim - just as we must deal with the continued possibility of Ashara or Wylla being Jon's mother. New facts come to light and should be dealt with, not dismissed based on an adoption of a particular argument.

I agree on the core, but not on every detail.

Ned asked them about fleeing with Viserys, and they say a couple of things:

"Darry is a good man and true"

"The Kinguard don't flee"

I read this as a clue. They don't disaprove to flee with Viserys, but they don't flee. By the same token, Aegon had been there, but someone good and true had fled with him before Ned arrives.

But the KG don't flee. They stay at ToJ to cover Aegon while fleeing. They had failed until now, but they succeeded in this. While the tower was broken down, and so on, Aegon had the time to escape.

[The guy from the Vale]

I agree on the core, but not on every detail.

Ned asked them about fleeing with Viserys, and they say a couple of things:

"Darry is a good man and true"

"The Kinguard don't flee"

I read this as a clue. They don't disaprove to flee with Viserys, but they don't flee. By the same token, Aegon had been there, but someone good and true had fled with him before Ned arrives.

But the KG don't flee. They stay at ToJ to cover Aegon while fleeing. They had failed until now, but they succeeded in this. While the tower was broken down, and so on, Aegon had the time to escape.

And still, if Jon is legitimate and Aegon dead (or even only believed dead by the KG), then these words can be equally applied to their case and Jon (save for covering his retreat and instead shielding him from the rebels)

I also don't have the impression that the KG see themselves as having failed. That is your modern interpretation. From their perspective, if they have stayed true to their vow, they have not failed. Yes, the King is dead, due to the actions of one of their brothers. But how could they have prevented this? They were fulfilling their duty here, and there was no contradiction to their vows at that time. And now there is a new king that needs protecting - Jon (or, if we assume your version, Aegon...)

[BrojenReed]

Hey all—sorry to interject so abruptly. Let me preface the following by saying that this particular point has probably been dissected a thousand ways but I can’t seem to find it.. so if someone can give me a brief answer or link me to a post that would be awesome

One of the main reasons that I personally subscribe to the R+L=J theory is because of how ferociously Ned guarded the secret of Jon’s parentage. Some believe that Ashara Dayne is Jon’s mother (with Ned), but if that were the case, why all the secrecy? Why not at LEAST tell Jon in confidence at some point? I believe at one point Ned actually thinks that Jon would be safest with Benjen at the wall—why would he need to be kept safe if he were simply Ashara’s boy?

[the_one_who_was_promised]

Which leads me to another question: we know Varys has been "pardonned" by King Robert. Maester Pycelle was as well, but that was because he was a Lannister man and he helped with the sack. So do we know exactly what Varys did to deserve forgiveness and to deserve to remain master of whispers at court? The fact he has been authorised to keep his position under Robert tells me that he had to do something useful, like disclosing the position of Lyanna or even being the one to inform the Starks in the first place, who knows. We know Varys lies to everyone, he only tells a little bit of truth to ensure everyone is his "friend", but Varys's truth is most of the time only a partial truth, he tells what can be told to one and to the other.

There is another discussion on this on pages 15 - 16 of this thread:

http://asoiaf.wester...nsensual-right/

The consensus seems to be that Varys might well have known - not necessarily the precise location of Lyanna, or even the fact that she may have been pregnant - that she had eloped with Rhaegar and that he was keeping her somewhere.

There is even some speculation on the thread that Tywin and Varys masterminded the whole thing - that someone would have known how Brandon might react before telling him, thus inciting the war and potentially taking advantage of the aftermath. Perhaps Rhaegar was attempting to overthrow his father, but that a rival faction had developed who were trying to take power for themselves.

Either way though, I think that's where Varys' knowledge of the Rhaegar - Lyanna incident stops. I don't think he knows about Jon because I suspect Ned would have had the "Spanish inquisition" treatment from him on the specific incident when he headed to Kings Landing in Game of Thrones. But what you say has merit. And of course, we have plenty of examples of Varys' "usefulness", when he supplies information via Jorah and Illyrio on Dany and Viserys' whereabouts and Dany's later pregnancy to Robert's small council.

[Twinslayer]

It seems hard for me to believe that the Kingsguard know the happenings of the sack, including Jaime's role - "our false brother" - in killing Aerys without them also knowing the fate of Elia and her children. Although you are right, of course, that they are not specifically mentioned.

As one of the people who, I believe, started the "Aegon at the Tower of Joy" theory, and the first person to put forward the idea, way back in the early iterations of these threads, that the conduct of the Kingsguard pointed to the heir being there with them and therefore pointed to Jon as the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, let me say what I think are the main arguments for Aegon being there. First, every bit of the discussion about first duty to protect their king that fills these pages from those early threads of R+L=J fits with Aegon's presence, or a legitimate Jon being there, or both being there at the Tower when Ned arrives. This is certainly an affirmative clue to support Aegon's presence. It doesn't support the presence of anyone else who isn't a person that the loyalists members of the Kingsguard would consider their king. Again, that points to Aegon or a legitimate Jon or both.

What Aegon being there has as affirmative clues pointing to his presence that Jon's presence doesn't is that Aegon has an actual character who claims to be the heir, whereas no one, no where, in the entire story actually claims that Jon is that heir. We are left many clues pointing to it being Jon - the way Lyanna dies, Rhaegar and Lyanna's possible romantic relationship, the couple's likely contact during the time Jon would have been conceived, the conduct of Ned with Jon when he brings his "bastard" home with him, and on and on - that point towards Jon, but there is NO ONE who yet claims Jon is the heir. There is a character in Young Griff, if we believe the core part of his story, who explains quite well the Kingsguard's actions. I don't believe his story, but that is another topic. Anyone who ignores the impact of having such a character claiming to be Aegon towards the debate over the Kingsguard's actions isn't serious. They are just spouting a line that reflects wanting one and only one possibility to be taken into consideration. At the very least it is critical to say why one doesn't think this is true. It is certainly possible. It is part of Martin's genius that throughout the series he keeps all of these theories about what happened at the tower and who are Jon's parents alive going onto the sixth tome in the story. A Dance with Dragons continued this and introduced the Young Griff storyline as one of the most significant of these possible explanations.

Now, that in no way means that I think Aegon's presence is more likely than just the presence of a legitimate Jon. I think the reverse is true. Young Griff's story has a whole host of problems with it, but it does have the virtue of having someone making the case that Aegon was alive at the time and was being smuggled out of the country. I think for this to be true, we have to buy into part of Young Griff's story and reject others. In particular, the idea this was a last minute plot by Varys in concert with Elia, as outlined by Young Griff, make it highly unlikely that Aegon would have been smuggled out to the Tower of Joy. Why the long overland route when access to the sea was at hand against an enemy who was powerless to stop a ship carrying the prince away?

I think if Aegon is there, it is much more likely that Rhaegar is the source of his presence. The three men are guarding the tower on Rhaegar's orders. The destination and time it would take to get the child there indicates a plot of longer duration than a last minute attempt would indicate. Into all of this we have to weigh the relationship between Rhaegar and Varys who seem to have been at odds going back at least to the time of Harrenhal and before. If Varys wants to save Aegon, it is likely he would do it for his own benefit, and placing the child into the hands of men who are very unlikely to take orders from Varys shouts to me that this can't be the way it could happen. No, if it is a desperate attempt by Elia to get her child out, and Varys is enlisted to help, then a ship to the free cities makes much more sense.

If Rhaegar plans this out and he is responsible for smuggling his son out from his insane father's grip, then he has not only the motive but the means to make it happen through his orders to the Kingsguard. Varys is much more likely to have entered into this as a result of finding out, via his little birds, that Aegon is gone, and the Spider trying to make use of this after the fact for his own reasons. So, we are confronted with the possibility of part of Young Griff's tale being true, and the rest being false. Certainly not out of the question, but, as in all these things, more clues are needed.

Another thing on this theory. It seems to me that for it to be true, it is clear that two things must be true - Ned doesn't know the child is Aegon, and that Jon must be there as well. Ned obviously thinks Aegon is dead, and any theory that relies on him consciously helping to smuggle Aegon out of country falls flat on our reading of his private thoughts concerning Aegon being dead and laid before Robert by Tywin. That Ned would take a disguised child he believed to be the child of a wet nurse along with him to Starfall does fit well with what we know of Ned. He would need the help of a wet nurse to feed Jon on the journey, and he would expect a wet nurse to have had a child of her own. The idea he goes to Starfall and brings the wet nurse and her child along with them without Jon makes no sense at all.

Lastly, let me remind people, that even if Aegon was there, it does not necessarily follow that Young Griff is that child. Varys has every reason to want complete control over Aegon, and what better way to do that but by having his own pretender unknowingly play the role. Here we must consider who would have smuggled Aegon out of the country, and it obviously wasn't Varys himself putting Aegon aboard a ship. It has to be an loyalist from Starfall who takes the child out of the country after Ned leaves. The obvious candidate would be Septa Lemore, especially if she is in reality Ashara Dayne. Why Ashara would throw in with the Spider over other more trustworthy loyalists - the Martells, her own family, etc. begs many questions, but it is an interesting question. My guess is that if Aegon is still alive, she wouldn't. A dead Aegon, especially if the child died in her care, would explain a lot towards her actions. But here we are down the lanes of conjecture with little but small hints and prophecy to support any possibility.

In closing, I think it is important in these discussions to remember what clues really tell us are possibilities and what they don't tell us about those possibilities. The actions of the Kingsguard Trio have, as I've argued for years, strongly pointed to the heir to the Targaryen throne being there with them. It has never meant that could only be a legitimate Jon. Before A Dance with Dragons most of us dismissed Aegon as a possible answer because many things pointed to his having died in the sack of King's Landing. It is still a very possible answer to Aegon's fate, but post Dance we must deal with Young Griff's claim - just as we must deal with the continued possibility of Ashara or Wylla being Jon's mother. New facts come to light and should be dealt with, not dismissed based on an adoption of a particular argument.

This is very logical and I agree with the major premises. I have a slightly different take on on a few points.

My "natural" reading of AGOT the first time through was that Aegon was at the TOJ. This did not have anything to do with the presenence of the kingsguard as "King's" guard. It had to do with the fact that Aegon was not confirmed to be dead and the most logical place for him to be was his father's secret hideout. I also thought it likely that one or more of the KG smuggled him out of KL around the time of the Sack and it was possible that Ned sent Aegon into hiding with Ashara Dayne. The part about her body never being found screams out that she is alive, and Ned thinking about the "red ruin" of Aegon's skull made me think that when Ned realized the baby was still alive he arranged for him to be smuggled out of the country.

I agree that we have to take the later developments into account, but the appearance of Young Griff in ADWD makes me think it is less likely that Aegon was at the TOJ. I still think Aegon survived the Sack, and I don't think GRRM would give us two "Aegons." I also think that Varys was telling Kevan the truth about smuggling Aegon out of KL. This and other things lead me to believe that Young Griff probably is the real Aegon. Finally, the TOJ was a logical place for Hightower to take Aegon, but it's not such a logical place for Varys to send him, although I suppose it is possible he was trying to get the boy to his uncle Doran.

ETA: On the question whether the KG knew about the "death" of Aegon, I see that as one of only two possible explanations for why Aegon and Rhaenys aren't mentioned (the other being that they have Aegon with them). Timewise it makes sense. They knew about the death of Aerys because it was a very public event. The "death" of Aegon was revealed some time later. Unless the TOJ was getting regular bulletins, it is easy to see how they would have received an update from KL when the king died but that they had not yet receieved the next wave of news from the capital. Also, it provides a logical explanation for why no one mentions the "fact" that Aegon is "dead." It's a logical question -- Jaime was with the king, why weren't any of you with Prince Aegon -- and there is no good reason not to ask it.

[the_one_who_was_promised]

Hey all—sorry to interject so abruptly. Let me preface the following by saying that this particular point has probably been dissected a thousand ways but I can’t seem to find it.. so if someone can give me a brief answer or link me to a post that would be awesome

One of the main reasons that I personally subscribe to the R+L=J theory is because of how ferociously Ned guarded the secret of Jon’s parentage. Some believe that Ashara Dayne is Jon’s mother (with Ned), but if that were the case, why all the secrecy? Why not at LEAST tell Jon in confidence at some point? I believe at one point Ned actually thinks that Jon would be safest with Benjen at the wall—why would he need to be kept safe if he were simply Ashara’s boy?

Welcome to the forums! :cheers:

For further info, Mladen has posted a reference guide on page 1 of this thread.

Yes, I agree with you. For me personally, the whole secrecy is the most compelling aspect of this theory. I recall finding it very odd when I read Game of Thrones for the first time. The fact that he does not tell Catelyn or Jon is very, very strange, and why he wouldn't just have communicated it in a letter to Jon from King's Landing when he was imprisoned in the Red Keep, because it seems to hint that at that point in the story, he had an urgent desire to speak with Jon: "If only he could see the boy".

That Varys tells him that all his correspondences would be intercepted then sealed the deal for me: the Lannisters would not care less about a fisherman's daughter being the mother of Jon or even Ashara Dayne for that matter. If Jon's mother (and indeed father) was not someone extremely significant, then why not confess it in a letter? Why take the secret to the grave and deprive the boy of the knowledge of his mother? It is in a similar vein to the promises that he has been keeping for fourteen years and Ned's earlier remark that "some secrets are too dangerous to share" even with loved ones..

[Lissa Nymeros Martell]

Varys could have been part of the plan to get Aerys worked up and paranoid. To keep Aerys distracted while Robert was starting his rebellion. Keeping Aerys misinformed as much as Varys does that. However, Varys did warn Aerys not to open the gate. But he does do two-faced things like that so it's harder to say.

[Alia of the knife]

However, if I recall correctly, it isn't confirmed that the fever that Lyanna has is childbed fever (although it is completely plausible given the circumstances) because it hasn't been confirmed that R+L=J. Hence, what if Lyanna instead contracted a contagious illness unrelated to childbirth, but which might have been accelerated by the fact that she had just given birth. Could this be remotely possible?

On a recent re-read of Game of Thrones, while Ned is discussing Robert's royal bastards, his mind frequently flits to Jon. At some point within the same segment, he also mentions the promise he has made and the price that he has paid to keep it. I find it startling that within the same page, he also mentions Lyanna and for the first time, Rhaegar.

It's all very random but for those well-versed in R+L=J, the implication is quite simple.

When talking of royal bastards, he automatically thinks of Jon. We can take this to mean that Jon is a royal bastard, but taken within the context of the "price paid" to keep his promises, I think it is highly plausible that he feels guilty for raising Jon as a bastard and effectively denying him his birthright. The statement by Benjen that Jon doesn't know what he would be giving up if he joined the Night's Watch is also similarly ominous with regard to his heritage IMO.

Not really understanding how childbirth fever works, I assume it is an infection of some sort, and thought it could be spread unless the infection from the childbirth is contained specifically to one area. :dunce: :dunno: :)

[Alia of the knife]

It's the Gatsby theory, if you read The Great Gatsby that is. If not I just ruined the ending for you, sorry. Martin is a huge Gatsby fan that's where the theory originated. And your conclusion is the correct interpretation of the theory. Alot of the social intregue and interactions have a sort of similar theme, feel and style to The Great Gatsby. There is a very sort of Great Gatsby themel to Rhaegar and Lyanna's story. Or at least it can be interpreted that way. Then again given all the holes it can be interpreted a lot of ways.

LOVE "The Great Gatsby."

I think I would be rather proud of Rhaegar if he had attempted to set Robert up. :devil:

Of course, feeding into the themes of tragedy, Brandon instead blunders into the trap.

[Maxpey]

It is very unlikely they could hear about the Trident without knowing that it ended with Rhaegar's death. So Rhaegar is accounted for.

They know that Rhaella is on Dragonstone because Ned specifically talks about Darry fleeing with "your queen and Prince Viserys."

It is possible that they got news of the Sack and the death of Aerys without getting news of Aegon. Remember, Aerys' death was known immediately. Aegon's "death" was not revealed until some time later, after a wounded Robert made his way from the Trident to KL.

You are right that this does not prove Aegon was at the TOJ, but it does raise the question.

I think the timeline of events establishes that the KG almost certainly knew that Aegon was dead by the time of Ned's arrival at the TOJ. Ned had an extremely heated argument with Robert at KL about the murders of Rhaella and Aegon by Tywin. Ned was so disgusted that Robert had condoned Tywin's actions that he left KL to continue the war in the South. Ned first traveled to Storm's End to lift the siege and from there he traveled to the TOJ in search of Lyanna. Thus, there was plenty of time for the KG to be made aware of Aegon's fate.

[WhiteOwl18]

I think the timeline of events establishes that the KG almost certainly knew that Aegon was dead by the time of Ned's arrival at the TOJ. Ned had an extremely heated argument with Robert at KL about the murders of Rhaella and Aegon by Tywin. Ned was so disgusted that Robert had condoned Tywin's actions that he left KL to continue the war in the South. Ned first traveled to Storm's End to lift the siege and from there he traveled to the TOJ in search of Lyanna. Thus, there was plenty of time for the KG to be made aware of Aegon's fate.

I agree. I think you mean Rhaenys instead of Rhaella.

[MtnLion]

Here it is, again, the Tower of Joy dialog and analysis.

"I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.

Ned expected the majority of the Kingsguard to be present at the major battle. We know that three of them were present, and only Ser Barristan (barely) survived.

“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.

Ser Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent are with Rhaegar when Lyanna enters the company of the prince. The Lord Commander of the Kingsguard answers this, so none of previous comment can be directed at Arthur or Oswell directly, and Gerold is accepting responsibility for their actions. There is no surprise about events on the Trident expressed by Gerold or Oswell in the next line.

“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.

This states that Robert is considered a usurper by these Kingsguard, or at least by Oswell. He does use the term "we" and implies that Robert could not have won the battle if these three had been allowed to enter into it.

“When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”

Ned relays that King's Landing has fallen and Aerys is dead. Again, Ned expresses his surprise to not see these three Kingsguard doing their duty of protecting and defending the king.

“Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”

The Lord Commander says that their duties were elsewhere, too far away to do anything about the events Ned is relating. He condemns Jaime as a Oathbreaker, and implies that he or one of these others would certainly kill Jaime rather than let him slay the king. This reaffirms their loyalty to the Targaryen dynasty.

“I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

Ned tells them that all remaining forces surrendered to him, and pledged fealty to Robert and Ned. He expected to find the last of the Kingsguard with these forces, but again was surprised to note that they were not. This is an invitation for the Kingsguard to surrender to him.

“Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Arthur speaks for the group, and says that they will not surrender.

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

This being placed here is important because Ned is now changing his offer. He sees that they will not surrender, but he does not want to fight them, he holds these knights in high regard, even years later. He offers them a chance to leave peacefully and do their duty by guarding the heir to the Targaryen dynasty, or so he thinks.

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

Ser Willem is a brother to Ser Jonothor Darry of the Kingsguard, and known well to these members of the Kingsguard.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

The Lord Commander correctly states that Viserys does not have a Kingsguard with him. He also says that the Kingsguard would not flee from their duty, to guard the king. On the night that news of the Trident arrived at King's Landing Aerys ordered that Rhaella and Viserys be taken to Dragonstone for their safety, as it appeared that King's Landing would be under siege shortly. Jaime was the only Kingsguard, and his duty was with the king, so Willem was drafted to protect the royal family members. If the Red Keep falls, and Aerys dies then Viserys was safe as long as he could stay alive on Dragonstone. The majority of the fighting men had gone with Rhaegar, and mustering enough men to defend the city or just the Red Keep may be difficult. The Kingsguard are stating that they would not flee King's Landing, as their duty was to protect and defend the king, and they would stay to fulfill their vow.

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

Arthur reiterates that the Kingsguard would not have chosen to leave King's Landing to protect the royal family, over doing their duty to protect and defend the king (then). This lends some credance to the curse of Jaime, earlier. But, the meaning of now has a great deal more weight to it. Not only do they point out their vow, later, but this line also says that they are guarding a king at this location, and they are unwilling to take Ned's offer to leave this king and flee to Dragonstone in relative safety to guard another heir.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Now, we should be certain that there is a king present, the Lord Commander has decided that all three would remain to protect the king.

Ned’s wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

The final, or most important battle of the Targeyen dynasty.

“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.”

Ned knows the outcome, and he regrets that he had to kill the three finest knights in the kingdom. There is no blame for participating in taking Lyanna, which argues that Lyanna was never dishonored, but more likely freely participated.

[Twinslayer]

I think the timeline of events establishes that the KG almost certainly knew that Aegon was dead by the time of Ned's arrival at the TOJ. Ned had an extremely heated argument with Robert at KL about the murders of Rhaella and Aegon by Tywin. Ned was so disgusted that Robert had condoned Tywin's actions that he left KL to continue the war in the South. Ned first traveled to Storm's End to lift the siege and from there he traveled to the TOJ in search of Lyanna. Thus, there was plenty of time for the KG to be made aware of Aegon's fate.

You are right, there is plenty of time for them to learn of Aegon's "death." However, it is widely believed that communications between the TOJ and the outside world were poor. Otherwise, why didn't Lyanna try to communicate with Ned and Robert after Rickard and Brandon were killed?

It is clear that Aerys death was public knowledge before Aegon's "death" was. Ned saw Aerys' dead body on the floor of the throne room a short time after it happened, but he did not know that Aegon was "dead" until later, when Tywin presented the body to Robert. So it is possible that a message went immediately from KL to the TOJ saying that Aerys was dead but that there was never a second message saying that Aegon was "dead" too.

Anyway, it seems strange to me that in his fever dream, Ned never says anything about Aegon and the KG never ask. It is as though Aegon's fate -- whether he is alive or dead, where he is, everything -- is completely irrelevant to whatever those KG are doing at that tower. Or Aegon is there, and that is why no one says that he is or was somewhere else.

[MtnLion]

It is very unlikely they could hear about the Trident without knowing that it ended with Rhaegar's death. So Rhaegar is accounted for.

Stop for just one minute, here. They have heard about the sack, and don't you also feel it unlikely that they would be unaware of Aerys', Rhaenys', Elia's, and Aegon's deaths? Same logic applies, as you used, above.

They know that Rhaella is on Dragonstone because Ned specifically talks about Darry fleeing with "your queen and Prince Viserys."

He is Prince Viserys because he is the supposed heir to the throne, just like Rhaegar was referred to as Prince.

It is possible that they got news of the Sack and the death of Aerys without getting news of Aegon. Remember, Aerys' death was known immediately. Aegon's "death" was not revealed until some time later, after a wounded Robert made his way from the Trident to KL.

No, using your own logic, you cannot decide to stop using it.

You are right that this does not prove Aegon was at the TOJ, but it does raise the question.

If Aegon was at the tower, why would Ned continue to think that he is dead? (Now you have to figure out how he was hidden, then you have to figure out where he went.) Sorry, this whole line is just plain wrong. There is no logical reason for Aegon to be at the tower, Aerys wants him as a hostage to keep Dorne in line. The argument that you want to separate heirs loses value when you are moving Aegon to the same location as Jon, and then we have no one that is going to make that call, especially against Aerys' wishes.

[J. Stargaryen]

The basis for the Aegon-at-the-TOJ theory, as I understand it, is this:

1. Tywin claims Aegon is dead but the proof he offers is an unrecognizable child, just like Theon does when he pretends the Miller's boys are Bran and Rickon. This means Aegon may be alive, just as Bran and Rickon are alive.

2. No one should keep all his treasures in one purse. This is the reason Robb gives for separating Cat and Jeyne. It's also why OSHA separates Bran and Rickon. So Rhaegar may have separated Rhaenys and Aegon. Alternatively, after Rhaegar's death, someone may have sent Aegon and Viserys to different places.

3. The 3KG at the TOJ don't give any indication that they think Aegon is dead. They account for Aerys, Rhaegar, Viserys and Rhaella. They never mention Aegon. This suggests they think he is alive (or at least, they have not been told he is dead). That is a curious omission that may suggest they know exactly where Aegon is because they are hiding him in the TOJ.

This does not borrow from the R+L=J theory. It isn't really inconsistent with the R+L=J theory, since there could have been two children in the Tower.

1. Aegon being alive evidence =/= Aegon being at the ToJ evidence.

2. In either scenario, you have Rhaegar putting two of his three treasures into one purse. In fact, in the Aegon-at-the-ToJ scenario, you have Rhaegar putting his two most valuable (re: boys) treasures into one purse. How does that make any sense?

3. The fact that Aegon isn't specifically mentioned absolutely does not suggest that they think he's alive. The majority of the ToJ dialogue is based on locations. KL was the second location covered. As Apple says, they also didn't mention Rhaenys. But since we know, per GRRM, that she is definitely dead, we know that a lack of mention in the ToJ dialogue is not an indicator for (Aegon) being alive.

And, yes, Aegon-at-the-ToJ does borrow from R+L=J, because it bases its entire existence on the KG being at the tower. Again, evidence for Aegon being alive does not equal evidence for Aegon being at the ToJ.