R+L=J v.101

[BearQueen87]

Because this...

...doesn't contradict my point that Cersei only ordered the murder of Bob's bastards within easy reach, at KL...which was where Gendry started out, and would have died if Varys hadn't finagled his departure on the NW wagon. Cersei's men were apparently given a list of names to cross out, and they followed him out because he was on their list.

But we don't see in any of Cersei's POVs any brooding over the threat that Mya (for example) poses to her - even though we see her brooding over many other threats (including ones that are ridiculously farfetched and paranoid). If a bastard is a threat, she's a threat in the Vale as much as in KL - but we never see Cersei brood over the danger that Mya poses, nor make any plans to have some assassin make a trip to the Vale and push Mya off a handy cliff to snuff out that threat.

Ergo, unacknowledged bastards are not usually considered threats - or paranoid Cersei would have thought of getting rid of Mya.

I have a hard time agreeing with your logic because it is predicated on the idea that Cersei would have thought. If Cersei were capable of the sort of mental gymnastics you're proposing she would have realized that most of her paranoia isn't quite as solid as she believe. Cersei is totally myopic: her focus is on KL, her son, and most importantly her own personal power and prestige.

There are a ton of other dangers out there in Westeros too. But Cersei focuses on the things that are right in front of her, like Marg and the Tyrells.

[stateofdissipation]

stateofdissipation: what do you suppose would have been the result if GRRM had answered that question in a way that even hinted that they were still there in order to fulfil their primary duty, viz. to guard the king?

stateofdissipation: what do you suppose would have been the result if GRRM had answered that question in a way that even hinted that they were still there in order to fulfil their primary duty, viz. to guard the king?

You do know that in 2003 when the question was asked and answered.... only aSoS was released.

Jamie turned to Meryn Trant. "Ser you have been remiss in teaching our new brothers their duties."

"What duties," said Meryn Trant defensively.

"Keeping the king alive. How many monarchs have you lost since I left the city? Two, is it!" aSoS BG page 274

The kingsguard at the tower of Joy matched Meryn Trant's record in performing their duties. If GRRM had said they were performing their duties, it would not have made any sense.

I actually do not have to suppose anything...GRRM actually included the first duty of the kingsguard a couple of books later. You get the same response GRRM gave to Shaw in aDwD only with first duty.

The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and to keep silent when it was not, serve at his pleasure and defend his name and honor. Strictly speaking; it was purely the king's choice whether or not to extend Kingsguard protection to others even those of royal blood. Some kings thought it right and proper to dispatch Kingsguard serve and defend their wives and children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of a greater or lesser degree,and occasionally their lovers, mistresses and bastards. But others preferred to use household knights for those purposes, whilst keeping their seven as their own personal guard never far from their sides.

If the queen had commanded me to protect Hizdahr, i would have no choice but to obey.--aDwD 857-858

Let's see what happened.

GRRM had answered that question in a way that even hinted that they were still there in order to fulfil their primary duty, viz. to guard the king?

.Apparently it was not enough... some posters feel the need to alter the text... just like some posters refused to accept the interview.

and for future reference... there is no "primary" duty.... there is a "first duty"

If you would like a more assertive word than the one used in the text.... why not go with their "I am trying to prove Jon is legitimate and the righful king duty"-- You already switched from a 5 letter word to a seven letter word. what are another dozen or so for the sake of honesty and accuracy.

To get that far you have decided to ignore both the author and the text.... just be honest about it.

If want to go for a drive and i dig a giant hole in my back yard and bury my car keys in it... am i a genius when I dig them out again and go on the drive?

If you know that you want to end up at R plus L..... why dig the hole?

[Ygrain]

They're taking a gamble either way. Ned picked men he presumably believed he could trust -- but he also took six with him rather than, As BearQueen suggested, going on his own which would have made it easier for the 3KG to trust him. Ned's not stupid -- he took a small force to keep things as quiet, but a large enough force to (just!) win the fight. It doesn't matter how good the 3KG were, 7vs3 is not a safe gamble, it's also terribly risky. A rock and a hard place.

Three dead Kingsguard aren't any use to anyone. Trusting seven to keep a secret may have been risky too, but they'd only have had to keep it long enough for the 3KG to get the hell out of there with the heir, and they can have assumed that Ned picked those seven because he at least trusted them to keep the secret.

On the other hand, would Ned have let them take the heir and go, even if he didn't want the heir killed? I asked before in v100: given the dream is not literal, do we have any reason to be sure that Ned didn't speak to Lyanna before the showdown? Ned is an honourable man who keeps his vows. So are the 3KG. Vows seem to be very important to Ned's memory of what took place at the ToJ.

Two vows in play here?

The choice of companions definitely shows that Ned expected to find Lyanna in circumstances that had better not become public knowledge. However, keeping their mouths shut about their friends' sister's affair is one thing, committing treason by not revealing a Targ heir another.

Even if Ned did talk to Lyanna beforehands, his purposes would still clash with the KGs. Based on his following actions, he would have kept Jon safe but in ignorance of his heritage and made sure that the boy became neither pawn nor player in the game of thrones. He wouldn't have allowed the realm torn over a succession war, either. I doubt very much that the KG would ever agree to this.

I think that the chronology of the fight first and talk afterwards works fine even without an additional vow, but if we have two vows clashing, it would be even more tragic.

[BearQueen87]

Really? Where does he say that?

Ok, so I can't find any quote that states the King must have one KG with him at all times from anything Barry says. However, it does follow logically that the King must have one.

Aerys goes to Duskendale with one KG

Aerys has one KG with him in the Red Keep during the war when the others go off to the Trident. Even though he's using Jaime as a hostage, Jaime asks to switch places with someone meaning that he's aware the King needs at least one.

Robert always has one with him, or outside a door (same with small council meetings, btw)

Robert takes one on the hunt with him (though I'm sure Barry would have loved to not go)

The time we do see the King without one KG is when the KG have their quick meetings but before they do so, they must all swear that somehow the king is being protected by a loyal guard. And these meetings don't last overly long so that one person can go on duty.

ETA: and think about the way Barry acts in Meereen with Dany. He won't let her go anywhere without him, she calls him her white shadow. He's being a KG and it's really the first time she's had that experience because even Jorah lets her go off on her own (Qarth with Xaro) sometimes. But what has Jorah never been? A KG.

[Kingmonkey]

Did he stay and fight? No he did not.

Ser Barristan the Bold’s rescue of King Aerys from captivity at Duskendale led to Lord Denys’s immediate surrender (IV: 134)

Ser Barristan avenged the murder of his Sworn Brother, Ser Gwayne Gaunt, who was cut down by Ser Symon Hollard, master-at-arms at Duskendale, when Lord Darklyn seized King Aerys (III: 752http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/Concordance/Section/2.1.3.2./. IV: 134)

well yes he did... we do not have Barristan the bold running from danger but rather in to it.... the attempt to rescue the King... cant be turned into fleeing.

Aerys was a prisoner in the Dun Fort for half a year. Barristan snuck in and rescued him. Yes, he ran into danger -- and then he ran OUT of danger again, with king.

You made up a scenario because there is not a recorded instance of Aerys's kingsguard fleeing.

which illustrates how stupid the idea that Kingsguard cannot ever flee really is. Because it's a stupid idea.

I get that you do not like the idea. "kingsguard does not flee" aGoT page 410. is what is said... and it is supported by the text. If you have an issue with the intelligence of the command take it up with GRRM.

I'm not sure there's a recorded example of a Kingsguard burping either, but I'm going to assume the did that anyway.

You're missing the point. I'm not suggesting there's no order to the King's guard along the lines of "do not flee," I'm saying that if there is such an order, it's possible for that order to directly contradictory to another order, in which case the Kingsguard may flee. What does a Kingsguard do if the King orders him to flee? If the king says "Dragons! I'm getting the hell out of here, come with me," do the Kingsguard refuse because their vows tell them not to flee? If you want to believe they do, then fine, that's up to you, but it would be absurd to claim that this is necessarily so just because there's no reference to it in the text. There's no reference to them not doing it either, so common sense comes into play, and common sense says of course they flee.

What? No. Why would I want to? I said that Ned opposed the murder of Targaryen children, not that he only opposed the murder of children.

It is the same thing as the kingsguard do not flee. Kingsfuard do not flee. Ned opposes the killing of children. In both cases you add a modifier, in both cases it changes the meaning of the satatemnts.

Just like

me stating; I do not beat my spouse.

and

you stating ASOD do not beat his spouse in public.

the difference betweem "free" and "free with purchase of another item of equal value"

If I say that Socrates is mortal, I'm not saying that all other men are immortal.

If you say socrates is mortal on tuesday.... you are saying he is not on m-w-t-f-s-s

No, I'm not saying he's immortal on other days any more than I'm saying that because Ned is against the killing of Targaryen children that means he's not against the killing of non-Targaryen children. Thanks for making my point for me.

Baby steps:

Ned is opposed to the killing of children.

Therefore Ned is opposed to the killing of Targaryen children, as Targaryen children are -- yes, you guessed it -- children.

Therefore the statement "Ned is opposed to the killing of Targaryen children" is not false.

I can't make it any clearer than that. I don't understand why you're even arguing this.

You had asserted that Ned needed to keep what he found at the tower a secret so he only took 6 men. The problem is that Ned has not found anything in the tower yet. He could not know what he was going to find would need to be kept a secret.

He could, someone could have told him.

Imagine someone hands you a box and tells you there's something in the box that needs to be kept secret, and that you should only open the box in the presence of people you absolutely trust not to tell anyone else about it.

Of course Ned believed Robert was a threat to children, he had a massive row with Robert about it. Remember:

That or you are asserting that Ned is a liar---in chapter 33. "I thought you were a better man than this Robert. I thought we had made a nobler king,"--Ned aGoT page 343.

Ned can't have thought Robert was a baby killer and that Robert was a better man... than to kill a child.

sorry I missed the qouteQuote

Are you suggesting that Robert's seeing the children caused the girl to bleed to death.... or the boy's head to cave in.

I... what? I don't even... what? Accidentally the entire... postillion struck by lighting... millennium hand and shrimp. Where on Earth did you get that from?

Are you seriously arguing that after Ned had left Kings Landing in a fury with Robert because of their argument over whether killing Rhaegar's kids was justified or not, he would have no reason to think that Robert might possibly want Rhaegar's kids killed? Because... I... what? I don't even... what? Accidentally the etc.

[Kingmonkey]

Even if Ned did talk to Lyanna beforehands, his purposes would still clash with the KGs. Based on his following actions, he would have kept Jon safe but in ignorance of his heritage and made sure that the boy became neither pawn nor player in the game of thrones. He wouldn't have allowed the realm torn over a succession war, either. I doubt very much that the KG would ever agree to this.

I think that the chronology of the fight first and talk afterwards works fine even without an additional vow, but if we have two vows clashing, it would be even more tragic.

Exactly!

Clearly there was an irreconcilable difference between Ned and the 3KG. If it's because they'd both taken vows that could not be reconciled, then doesn't this make the whole thing not just much more poignantly tragic, but give a good reason why Ned would concentrate so much on the honour of his opposition, the vows they had taken and the vows he had taken, and the tragic consequences of those vows, the "price he paid"? Only Martin knows if it's true, but it's the better story.

There's another reason I suspect it might have happened like this, but that's a beast of an essay and still needs a fair bit of editing if I hope to get it down below 5000 words...

[J. Stargaryen]

I think the solution to that paradox is that while it's acceptable for the KG to flee IF they are helping their king to escape, they don't consider Jon as their king - and therefore they don't feel free to disobey the orders that Rhaegar gave them to protect the Tower from all comers...because abandoning their orders and running away with a baby who ISN'T the king would be "fleeing" - and the KG (as they said) don't do that.

To me, that's the likeliest explanation for why they didn't take Jon and flee as soon as he was born, long BEFORE Ned's army appeared on the horizon. Newborn babies are portable, and if protecting their king's life is paramount, then it's critical to get the baby away from the mainland before Robert's army arrives.

The other possibility is that Jon wasn't born till just before Ned arrived. But in that case, Viserys became the king after Aerys and Aegon's death, and the KG still wouldn't consider Jon the king...and therefore they could not abandon their orders and "flee" with him.

That's not really how it works. For example:

Louis' second wife Clementia was pregnant at the time of his death, leaving the succession in doubt. A son would have primacy over Louis' daughter, Joan.^[32] A daughter, however, would have a weaker claim to the throne, and would need to compete with Joan's own claims – although suspicions hung over Joan's parentage following the scandal in 1314.^[33] As a result Louis' brother Philip was appointed regent for the five months remaining until the birth of his brother's child. The baby, who turned out to be male, lived only five days, until 20 November 1316—an extremely short reign for Louis's posthumous son, John I. Louis' brother Philip then succeeded in pressing his claims to the crowns of France and Navarre, being known there as Philip II of Navarre.

- Link

[Khal BlackfyreO]

sorry guys, i´m not a loyal follower of the thread (and I´m not going to read through it all!)

Surely this has been discussed, but even though everyone involved in the possible marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna is dead (them and the Kingsguard) there is one person who could still be alive (but very quiet) who knows the truth. Is a Septon absolutely necessary to marry someone? If so, that is a good bet for the reveal...who could it possibly be? Someone we have already seen or known, or a newcomer to the story?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

...who could it possibly be? Someone we have already seen or known, or a newcomer to the story?

Who is a septon, around forever, in the Riverlands, and coolest possible?

... accompanied by a dog just like The First Hero?

... Meribald

I know nothing.

[Ghost's Shadow]

I'd like to add that Lyanna was of the Old Gods, and they could have married in front of a tree as well. ;)

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

I'm just going to throw out there that the LonCon reading revealed

that Maegor Targaryen took his second wife in a Valyrian rite of fire and blood (officiated by his mother, Visenya at Harrenhal) when the Faith refused to perform the polygamous marriage.

Now I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's an interesting precedent, no?

[Ygrain]

I'm just going to throw out there that the LonCon reading revealed

that Maegor Targaryen took his second wife in a Valyrian rite of fire and blood (officiated by his mother, Visenya at Harrenhal) when the Faith refused to perform the polygamous marriage.

Now I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's an interesting precedent, no?

And one Rhaegar would have known about.

[Chebyshov]

I'm just going to throw out there that the LonCon reading revealed

that Maegor Targaryen took his second wife in a Valyrian rite of fire and blood (officiated by his mother, Visenya at Harrenhal) when the Faith refused to perform the polygamous marriage.

Now I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's an interesting precedent, no?

Is that from an SSM or in the text? Not saying it's not an important precedent for Rhaegar to have in the back of his mind, but if it's in the text of ASOIAF then that's a very interesting hint on Martin's part.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Is that from an SSM or in the text? Not saying it's not an important precedent for Rhaegar to have in the back of his mind, but if it's in the text of ASOIAF then that's a very interesting hint on Martin's part.

Fixed that for you: George quite recently read from unfinished (?) work on a big fantasy convention in London, called LonCon. It was about the history of Westeros and house Targaryen right after Aegon's conquest.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

And one Rhaegar would have known about.

Exactly!

Is that from an SSM or in the text? Not saying it's not an important precedent for Rhaegar to have in the back of his mind, but if it's in the text of ASOIAF then that's a very interesting hint on Martin's part.

It's from George's reading at LonCon last month, which is material to be published in his future collection of history called alternately the GRRMarillion or "Fire and Blood"

So definitely in the realm of spoilers, but I find it quite significant that he has given us this information ;)

[Chebyshov]

Exactly!

It's from George's reading at LonCon last month, which is material to be published in his future collection of history called alternately the GRRMarillion or "Fire and Blood"

So definitely in the realm of spoilers, but I find it quite significant that he has given us this information ;)

Ah, ty. Yes, I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment :). Mayhaps it'll make it into TWOW if the reveal itself isn't until ADOS.

[BearQueen87]

I'm just going to throw out there that the LonCon reading revealed

that Maegor Targaryen took his second wife in a Valyrian rite of fire and blood (officiated by his mother, Visenya at Harrenhal) when the Faith refused to perform the polygamous marriage.

Now I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's an interesting precedent, no?

Yeah that's an interesting precedent.

[sj4iy]

Yeah that's an interesting precedent.

Very interesting. Somehow I don't think this is a coincidence XD. Now to debate who could perform that ceremony!

[Lord Varys]

The thing is, Rhaegar would have also known what happened to Prince Maegor afterwards. And I'd be very surprised if the Faith did change his outlook on the whole matter after Maegor had become king, and condoned his third, fourth, fifth etc. marriage. If the High Septon never accepted Maegor's second marriage, why the hell would he accept his later marriages?

From the POV of the Faith, Maegor Targaryen always had only one wife -

the one and only Ceryse Hightower

.

Shortly after the Conquest the Targaryens could still (dare to) marry according to Valyrian custom, but would it make sense to assume that there was still anyone left in Westeros to perform such a prophecy during Aerys' reign?

But no one ever doubted that Rhaegar could have married Lyanna. Surely, he could have. There were precedents (Aenar, Aegon I, Maegor, are the known polygamous Targaryens) The thing is, was it politically smart to do it (No!), or did he really dare to go through with it (Hopefully not, if he still could think straight...).

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

My guess still remains the same. In front of a weirwood tree.