Jump to content

R+L=J v.98


Angalin

Recommended Posts

ETA: did someone report the thread? Do we need a new one?

It has already been reported, and a new thread will be created by someone after this one has been closed. We agreed on returning to this "old way" in the last thread.

I could start a new one then, if no mod or other regular does it before me. No worries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, like Ygrain pointed out, that's a very special situation.

ETA: did someone report the thread? Do we need a new one?

Well I would argue that the fall of the Targaryen dynasty was a special situation too. It's just a bit of evidence that there's no hard rule like "One of us must always be with the king, even if doing so would force us to violate our orders."

2. Why do they not correct Ned when he refers to Viserys as "prince"?

Maybe none of them wanted to be "that guy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe none of them wanted to be "that guy."

LOL. Oh, come now. Hightower openly tells Ned that Robert is a usurper and that Aerys should still be on the throne. They also calls Jaime false. They have no problem calling a spade a spade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people eventually recognized Robert's legal authority as king. These three Kingsguard didn't. They thought his kingship was unlawful and that he was a traitor, hence, they didn't think they were under any obligation to support him or protect him or whatever. I hope that the main timeline has shown that just because someone says he's the king doesn't mean everyone believes it ...

Whether or not Robert's taking possession of the Throne was unlawful - the fact is that he HAS possession of it. Usurper he may be, but he has successfully Usurped through military might (just as the Targaryens originally Usurped the native kings through military might.) The KG are fully within their rights to withhold their fealty from him as a Usurper, but that doesn't change the fact that Robert has the throne and the power and that the Targaryen heir (whether that is Viserys OR Jon) is a powerless child with no throne or ally - and therefore not the de facto King.

No one recognized Viserys as the true King of Westeros, except his own sister who had meekly accepted his delusions. No one accepted Viserys even though as far as the Westeros and Essos world knew, Viserys had an absolutely impeccable right by dynasty and inheritance to the kingship. Even Barristan - a fine KG recognized by Ned as honorable - decided that because Viserys had lost his throne, he was no longer king and Barristan could as a KINGSguard withhold his fealty from a boy who was not the king in anyone's eyes. And no one in the books said Barristan was breaking his vows in doing so - except Dany again, who is an interested party and cannot be considered objective.

So if Barristan could honorably decide that Viserys was NOT a king because he had lost his throne, I can't see why it's impossible to believe that the ToJ KG may have come to the same conclusion about the Targaryen heir, regardless of whether they thought that heir was Jon or Viserys.

But unlike Barristan, they had not put up a glorious battle for the Targaryen king they had sworn to...so unlike Barristan, they can't say they have fulfilled all their obligations to the best of their ability to the dead king they swore to, and are free to swear fealty to the new king. They were given orders by the last prince of that royal family - if they leave the tower, they are Disobeying them.

Maybe - just maybe - they decided that given the choice between slinking ignobly into exile ("The KG does not flee") to serve as "Kingsguard" to a boy who isn't king, and be pointed at everywhere as the cravens who never ONCE lifted a sword in defense of the Last King of the Targaryens they had sworn to protect to the death, and dying gloriously in battle obeying the last orders of the Last Targaryen Prince, they decided that the blaze-of-glory death was preferable AND within the compass of their vows to Obey.

All I'm saying is that it's possible - and it seems more likely to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that the KG did or did not consider Viserys as king. I just made a point that it would still be possible that they would guard a prince of the blood just because he was a prince of the blood. That could have been enough for them. They could have just followed Rhaegar's orders, and they are also not forced to recognize or declare a king.



And technically, there would even be a chance that they would have protected Rhaegar's child if it was not legitimate. Apparently, there are precedents for the protection of royal bastards by the KG - I don't believe that Rhaegar did not marry Lyanna, I just say that his birth might have not mattered all that much for the knights, if Rhaegar's orders were pretty clear.



It also seems to be that even after the deaths of the previous king, the recognized or legal heir remains a prince until he is crowned. Aegon VI is still 'Prince Aegon', Viserys III eventually had a coronation on Dragonstone, explaining why he styled himself king in exile.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. Oh, come now. Hightower openly tells Ned that Robert is a usurper and that Aerys should still be on the throne. They also calls Jaime false. They have no problem calling a spade a spade.

Slightly different topic: This is also pretty hard evidence that the "loyal only to Rhaegar" thing is bunk. If they've written off Aerys in favor of Rhaegar, why would they give a shit if Aerys was still the king or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And technically, there would even be a chance that they would have protected Rhaegar's child if it was not legitimate.

I have never believed, and would never believe, that three Kingsguard, one of whom is the lord commander, would put the protection of a bastard baby above the protection of the king, whether that king was crowned or not. So if that's your premise, sorry, not buying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that the KG did or did not consider Viserys as king. I just made a point that it would still be possible that they would guard a prince of the blood just because he was a prince of the blood. That could have been enough for them. They could have just followed Rhaegar's orders, and they are also not forced to recognize or declare a king.

And technically, there would even be a chance that they would have protected Rhaegar's child if it was not legitimate. Apparently, there are precedents for the protection of royal bastards by the KG - I don't believe that Rhaegar did not marry Lyanna, I just say that his birth might have not mattered all that much for the knights, if Rhaegar's orders were pretty clear.

It also seems to be that even after the deaths of the previous king, the recognized or legal heir remains a prince until he is crowned. Aegon VI is still 'Prince Aegon', Viserys III eventually had a coronation on Dragonstone, explaining why he styled himself king in exile.

If they considered Viserys king yet none of them went to him, they were in dereliction of their first duty and thus oathbreakers. They are Kingsguard, not Princesguard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Barristan Selmy betrayed his true king, too. so that would not be surprising at all. Kingsguard are human, after all. Not to forget Ser Arys 'Two breast are enough to convince me to commit high treason' Oakheart.


And no one ever said that they would have stayed with Lyanna and her child at that Tower forever. Surely they had a plan of sorts, a plan that possibly involved the coronation of a new Targaryen king, or a sort of Aegon-like protection of the true king/Rhaegar's son at a secret location.



Ygrain,



it is not that easy. If Rhaegar had said 'Guard my wife and her child for the rest of their - and your - lives, should I or my father die', it could make sense for them that this order would have stand as long as a new king did actually revoke it - regardless of Rhaegar's child was the next true king, or merely a prince of the blood/heir.



And since both Viserys and Rhaegar's child would have been minors for a rather long time, the order could, most likely, only be revoked if the KG knights decided to accept whoever declared him/herself regent for the minor new king. If they believed that Rhaegar's son was the true king, then Ser Gerold most likely declared himself Lord Regent, Protector of the Realm, and Hand of the King by the time Ned arrived there.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Why do they not correct Ned when he refers to Viserys as "prince"?

Maybe because they thought, like Barristan, that the Targaryen dynasty had lost the throne and therefore were NOT royalty anymore and Viserys was neither King nor Prince - but they thought it rude and disrespectful to their former boss' memory to correct Ned by saying so.

In other words, what RumHam said (for the record, I thought it was funny).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ygrain,

it is not that easy. If Rhaegar had said 'Guard my wife and her child for the rest of their - and your - lives, should I or my father die', it could make sense for them that this order would have stand as long as a new king did actually revoke it - regardless of Rhaegar's child was the next true king, or merely a prince of the blood/heir.

And since both Viserys and Rhaegar's child would have been minors for a rather long time, the order could, most likely, only be revoked if the KG knights decided to accept whoever declared him/herself regent for the minor new king. If they believed that Rhaegar's son was the true king, then Ser Gerold most likely declared himself Lord Regent, Protector of the Realm, and Hand of the King by the time Ned arrived there.

I do agree that the order might stand until revoked. The problem is that after the Sack (plus the time necessary for the news to reach ToJ), they are the only remaining loyal KG, and thus the order clashes with the requirement of their primary duty to guard the king, unless the king happens to be with them at ToJ. If Viserys is king, it is perfectly within their capabilites as well as within the authority of Hightower as Lord Commander to split their forces and send at least one of them to Dragonstone, thus fulfilling both the order and their first duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe because they thought, like Barristan, that the Targaryen dynasty had lost the throne and therefore were NOT royalty anymore and Viserys was neither King nor Prince - but they thought it rude and disrespectful to their former boss' memory to correct Ned by saying so.

In other words, what RumHam said (for the record, I thought it was funny).

Yet they call Robert "usurper" meaning he's not the King. There is someone else who is King, but it's not Viserys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ygrain,



yeah, just as I've said. We don't really know since when they know about the Sack, but if they learned about that only shortly before Ned's arrival, and if that also happened to coincided with Lyanna giving birth, they could not possibly decide to abandon the Tower if they wanted to honor/obey Rhaegar's order. But they most certainly did not intend to stay at the Tower forever. They would have left after Lyanna's death, and/or as soon as the child was fit for travel.



Oh, and we should also keep in mind that Lyanna may have also have been able to give orders to them, considering that she may have been Rhaegar's wife, and thus a member of the royal family.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that the order might stand until revoked. The problem is that after the Sack (plus the time necessary for the news to reach ToJ), they are the only remaining loyal KG, and thus the order clashes with the requirement of their primary duty to guard the king, unless the king happens to be with them at ToJ. If Viserys is king, it is perfectly within their capabilites as well as within the authority of Hightower as Lord Commander to split their forces and send at least one of them to Dragonstone, thus fulfilling both the order and their first duty.

Well, but if Rhaegar's orders were that all three KG stay with Lyanna (and I think that the consensus in the thread WAS that Rhaegar did so order, to keep any of them from being obliged to tell Aerys about Lyanna) - then the ToJ KG would be Disobeying those orders and breaking their Vow to Obey if they sent one of their number to Dragonstone.

Which leads back to your unwritten and unproven rule that the KG are allowed to break their Vow to Obey in order to fulfil their Vow to Protect...and as I've mentioned, we've seen this rule nowhere in the books. And we've seen KG choose to Obey over Protect and be condoned for it - but we've never seen a KG choose to Disobey his orders in order to Protect the king and be condoned for it. Without either of those things, you can't say that the KG are allowed to Disobey in order to Protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, but if Rhaegar's orders were that all three KG stay with Lyanna (and I think that the consensus in the thread WAS that Rhaegar did so order, to keep any of them from being obliged to tell Aerys about Lyanna) - then the ToJ KG would be Disobeying those orders and breaking their Vow to Obey if they sent one of their number to Dragonstone.

I don't think the orders are specifically about Lyanna. Instead, I think Rhaegar ordered them to make sure no one enters the tower. It's the same effect of "guard Lyanna" but it's something Rhaegar CAN order the KG to do. J. Stargaryen once put it this way:

Rhaegar: I order you to guard Lyanna.

Hightower: Can't do that. You're not the King.

Rhaegar: Then I order you to make sure no one goes into the tower. Guard this piece of land.

Hightower: That I can do.

But when the 3KG get wind of Rhaegar, Aerys, Aegon dying, then they have two sets of orders 1) Guard the King (Viserys if Jon is a bastard). This order is their first and most important order and 2) Guard the tower.

Since the first order overtakes all other orders; one of the KG--just one!--would have gone to Dragonstone. All three of them recognize the Targaryen dynasty. But they didn't. Ergo, Viserys is not King, someone else is. Yet they don't kneel to Robert's new claim. Who does that leave? Ah, yes. The baby in the tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ygrain,

yeah, just as I've said. We don't really know since when they know about the Sack, but if they learned about that only shortly before Ned's arrival, and if that also happened to coincided with Lyanna giving birth, they could not possibly decide to abandon the Tower if they wanted to honor/obey Rhaegar's order. But they most certainly did not intend to stay at the Tower forever. They would have left after Lyanna's death, and/or as soon as the child was fit for travel.

Oh, and we should also keep in mind that Lyanna may have also have been able to give orders to them, considering that she may have been Rhaegar's wife, and thus a member of the royal family.

She definitely lacked the authority to override the primary duty, though, and the same applies for the former. In both cases, they wouldn't be exemplary KG, because they were not doing their primary duty. Twist it any way you want, but if Viserys is king, they are not doing their duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...