![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarea
OK, we get into a more controversial topic today. Many a thread has been fought on the forums between the believers and the non-believers. :D I'll present the evidence as I know it, which is biased toward my point of view, but I try to address the dissenters' arguments as best as I can.
Today's theory: Jon could actually be a legitimate Targaryen. This was, I thought, just my own little crackpot theory. But in fact, I’m not as original (or as crazy) as I thought! This theory actually has a lot of fan support on the forums. It assumes R+L=J to be true, of course. The reason I thought it was crackpot was because the “evidence” for it was extremely slim. The only thing I came up with was that there is precedent of Targaryens practicing polygamy in the past, and it's my belief that Rhaegar actually loved Lyanna, so therefore also believe that it’s possible he married her, to not dishonor her and because any child conceived of their union would then be legitimate. (Though it's admittedly debatable whether his belief that "the dragon has three heads" meant all his kids had to be legitimate.)
But I was wrong. There’s actually even more evidence to support that claim: the fact that there were three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy. I only ever thought of that as evidence that Lyanna did give birth to Rhaegar’s baby -- they were there to protect Lyanna and the child at Rhaegar’s orders. But after reading the forums, I realized that it actually means more than that. By the time Ned shows up at the Tower of Joy, The Mad King and Rhaegar are both long dead. Even Aegon, Rhaegar’s son by his wife Elia, is also dead, as far as everyone knows. So why would the three Kingsguard still be there, when Viserys would have become the next king when the three in the succession before him died? Shouldn’t they be with the king, as is their sworn duty? The argument goes that that was exactly what they were doing.
While locked in the dungeons of the Red Keep, Ned has this dream about his confrontation with the three Kingsguard (Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, and the Lord Commander himself, Gerold Hightower):
People who don’t believe this theory often cite this counterargument: GRRM has said that the Kingsguard’s primary duty is to protect the king, but they also have to follow orders given by other members of the royal family. So if Rhaegar gave them an order, they can’t decide not to do it. Here's his exact response when asked about this very thing:
So the question begs to be asked: When does duty to a new king begin? Only after they have seen to the end any previously given orders given by any member of the royal family? So if before he died, Rhaegar told them that they had to find a purple turkey, they would be bound by that order until they’d found one, and the new king would just languish without those members of the Kingsguard in the meanwhile? It’s utterly absurd. The Kingsguard aren’t idiots. When they felt they were doing their duty, it was due to the vow they’d sworn when they were inducted into the Kingsguard -- to protect the king.
Some detractors say that the three Kingsguard were there at Rhaegar's orders, against King Aerys' wishes, meaning that they were breaking their oaths. The reasoning behind this is that Arthur was said by Barristan the Bold to be Rhaegar's closest friend, and also that by this point, they might've been openly thinking of Rhaegar as their king rather than Aerys (after all, there is evidence that Rhaegar was possibly going to do something about his father when he returned from the war -- which never happened, of course -- and Aerys himself was paranoid that his popular son was going to try and overthrow him). But I guess I just don't buy that -- it's not impossible, but I'm skeptical that they decided to go against their sworn vows. In a sense, by sticking to those vows, that in itself was dishonorable, since Aerys was cuckoo for cocoa puffs and innocent people died because of it. Some would say the honorable thing would be to quit (or even do what Jaime did). But I think these guys were old-school honorable like Ned, wherein they took their vows seriously, to the letter. And to me, that means that if Viserys had been the king (which he would have been at that point, with Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon dead), that's where they would have been.
Another thing to consider is why the hell Ned fought the Kingsguard in the first place. I mean, Lyanna's his beloved sister, it's not like he was going to do her any harm. Why would the Kingsguard feel the need to defend her and her baby at the cost of their lives, against her own brother? In this regard, it actually only makes sense if Lyanna's child is legitimate, imho. A bastard, even a royal bastard, is still a bastard. Jon would have no place in the line of succession (or maybe a really, REALLY low place) if he were Rhaegar's bastard. After all, none of Aegon IV's bastards had a place until he legitimized them all on his deathbed. However, if Jon is legitimate, that makes him the next Targaryen king. Ned has just fought a war to overthrow Targaryen rule, and was the right-hand man of Robert, who hated all Targaryens and wanted them dead. And he had just come from King's Landing, where the other royal babes had been brutally murdered. As far the Kingsguard were concerned, they could not be sure that Ned didn't intend to destroy this child as well, or take away his heritage (which Ned did, actually), and it was their duty to protect the baby and the line of Targaryen kings.
At the end of the day, I'm not so sure of this theory that I'm willing to put my 100% guaranteed stamp on it. :D The points of non-believers are not without merit. However, I do think the evidence that Jon is legitimate is surprisingly strong.
Today's theory: Jon could actually be a legitimate Targaryen. This was, I thought, just my own little crackpot theory. But in fact, I’m not as original (or as crazy) as I thought! This theory actually has a lot of fan support on the forums. It assumes R+L=J to be true, of course. The reason I thought it was crackpot was because the “evidence” for it was extremely slim. The only thing I came up with was that there is precedent of Targaryens practicing polygamy in the past, and it's my belief that Rhaegar actually loved Lyanna, so therefore also believe that it’s possible he married her, to not dishonor her and because any child conceived of their union would then be legitimate. (Though it's admittedly debatable whether his belief that "the dragon has three heads" meant all his kids had to be legitimate.)
But I was wrong. There’s actually even more evidence to support that claim: the fact that there were three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy. I only ever thought of that as evidence that Lyanna did give birth to Rhaegar’s baby -- they were there to protect Lyanna and the child at Rhaegar’s orders. But after reading the forums, I realized that it actually means more than that. By the time Ned shows up at the Tower of Joy, The Mad King and Rhaegar are both long dead. Even Aegon, Rhaegar’s son by his wife Elia, is also dead, as far as everyone knows. So why would the three Kingsguard still be there, when Viserys would have become the next king when the three in the succession before him died? Shouldn’t they be with the king, as is their sworn duty? The argument goes that that was exactly what they were doing.
While locked in the dungeons of the Red Keep, Ned has this dream about his confrontation with the three Kingsguard (Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, and the Lord Commander himself, Gerold Hightower):
“I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.Ned is dreaming, obviously, so this is not to be taken literally (as per GRRM). But I don't think it's a stretch to think that it's based on real events/memories, so it's significant that the three Kingsguard -- all righteous and honorable men, who are among the most respected Kingsguard members in history -- fully believe that they are doing their duty, according to Ned's fevered dream. Thus the interpretation is that they are guarding the King of Westeros (a title Jon would have only if he were legitimate).
“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.
“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.
“When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”
“Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”
“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.”
“Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.
“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”
“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.
“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”
“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.
“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.
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.
“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.”
People who don’t believe this theory often cite this counterargument: GRRM has said that the Kingsguard’s primary duty is to protect the king, but they also have to follow orders given by other members of the royal family. So if Rhaegar gave them an order, they can’t decide not to do it. Here's his exact response when asked about this very thing:
Interviewer: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?Thus, the detractors’ argument is that Rhaegar hadn’t necessarily married Lyanna; he could have just told the Kingsguard to protect Lyanna and his bastard child at all cost. My rebuttal to this is that it’s silly to think that with a LIVING king around and in danger (Viserys), the Kingsguard would be bound by a vow they’d sworn a dead prince (not even king) rather than doing their duty to protect their new king. I'd say the latter was far more important.
GRRM: The King's guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."
So the question begs to be asked: When does duty to a new king begin? Only after they have seen to the end any previously given orders given by any member of the royal family? So if before he died, Rhaegar told them that they had to find a purple turkey, they would be bound by that order until they’d found one, and the new king would just languish without those members of the Kingsguard in the meanwhile? It’s utterly absurd. The Kingsguard aren’t idiots. When they felt they were doing their duty, it was due to the vow they’d sworn when they were inducted into the Kingsguard -- to protect the king.
Some detractors say that the three Kingsguard were there at Rhaegar's orders, against King Aerys' wishes, meaning that they were breaking their oaths. The reasoning behind this is that Arthur was said by Barristan the Bold to be Rhaegar's closest friend, and also that by this point, they might've been openly thinking of Rhaegar as their king rather than Aerys (after all, there is evidence that Rhaegar was possibly going to do something about his father when he returned from the war -- which never happened, of course -- and Aerys himself was paranoid that his popular son was going to try and overthrow him). But I guess I just don't buy that -- it's not impossible, but I'm skeptical that they decided to go against their sworn vows. In a sense, by sticking to those vows, that in itself was dishonorable, since Aerys was cuckoo for cocoa puffs and innocent people died because of it. Some would say the honorable thing would be to quit (or even do what Jaime did). But I think these guys were old-school honorable like Ned, wherein they took their vows seriously, to the letter. And to me, that means that if Viserys had been the king (which he would have been at that point, with Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon dead), that's where they would have been.
Another thing to consider is why the hell Ned fought the Kingsguard in the first place. I mean, Lyanna's his beloved sister, it's not like he was going to do her any harm. Why would the Kingsguard feel the need to defend her and her baby at the cost of their lives, against her own brother? In this regard, it actually only makes sense if Lyanna's child is legitimate, imho. A bastard, even a royal bastard, is still a bastard. Jon would have no place in the line of succession (or maybe a really, REALLY low place) if he were Rhaegar's bastard. After all, none of Aegon IV's bastards had a place until he legitimized them all on his deathbed. However, if Jon is legitimate, that makes him the next Targaryen king. Ned has just fought a war to overthrow Targaryen rule, and was the right-hand man of Robert, who hated all Targaryens and wanted them dead. And he had just come from King's Landing, where the other royal babes had been brutally murdered. As far the Kingsguard were concerned, they could not be sure that Ned didn't intend to destroy this child as well, or take away his heritage (which Ned did, actually), and it was their duty to protect the baby and the line of Targaryen kings.
At the end of the day, I'm not so sure of this theory that I'm willing to put my 100% guaranteed stamp on it. :D The points of non-believers are not without merit. However, I do think the evidence that Jon is legitimate is surprisingly strong.
