R+L=J v.137

[Ygrain]

The dream certainly is important as a clue for Jon's heritage. But that's it, it is not a reliable source of information for Kingsguard stuff or to assess the character of the three knights featuring in that dream.

You cannot keep your cake and eat it, too, you know.

Of course that the dream isn't a recording of what exactly happened - for all we know, Ned might have been the first to bring the news and the fight ensued only after the KG discussed it among themselves and decided which stand to take. However, this doesn't really matter. What matters is the gist of the dream - the KG's unwavering loyalty to House Targaryen, their pride in being KG and their determination to do their KG duty no matter what.

[Lord Varys]

I repeatedly admitted that I think it is not impossible that the knights considered to be Rhaegar's child by Lyanna 'the true king' at one point. But for that to work we have to assume that they learned of Aerys/Aegon's death but not about Viserys III before Ned even arrived there (if he brought them the news about Rhaegar/Aerys/Aegon then up to Ned's arrival the knights were only guarding one of Aerys' younger grandchildren). I doubt that they still had time to solemnly pledged their loyalty to their new king after Ned arrived there.

I just don't think that this is necessarily the case.

I also don't think the the dream conversation is silly or pointless if it is not exactly the literal truth. It certainly introduces the concept of duty and honor, of good people dying for bad causes or in the wake of a very unfortunate/tragic chain of events.

It shows us what the Kingsguard is supposed to be - but, quite frankly, most likely never was. Those 'shining examples of the world' historically included men like Lucamore Strong, Criston Cole, Mervyn Flowers - the one who either murdered his queen, an innocent girl of ten years, or stood aside to allow somebody else to do the deed.

I'm inclined to believe that the three knights weren't unwavering in their loyalty to 'House Targaryen'. There was no unified House Targaryen during the last years of Aerys II. There was Aerys and Rhaegar, and you had to choose one of them. You could not really serve/be loyal to both. The knights at the tower must have been loyal to Rhaegar. Perhaps there was a reconciliation between Aerys and Rhaegar before the Trident. We don't know that yet. But my guess is that there was no such thing, and Aerys blackmailed Rhaegar into fighting for him by threatening the life of the promised prince (and his daughter and wife) while Rhaegar finally realized that he had first to deal with Robert before putting down his father for good and all. Either by deposing and confining him to a tower cell/sickbed, or by killing him. Had Rhaegar won at the Trident, Rhaegar's troops may sacked the city or fought on the street against the men loyal to Aerys.

But it is not unlikely that the knights did not want to tell Ned anything about the finer points of court intrigue. It is easy to say 'the king would still reign had we been there' if he is dead (and you aren't actually all that sad about that, although you be said about the death of Rhaegar and his children). If I was talking to an enemy combatant - Ned Stark - I'd want to show off a united front even if I had actually been actively plotting to replace the madman who was nominally my supreme commander with his son and heir.

[MtnLion]

It is not unlikely that the flying spaghetti monster was at the tower of joy.

[sgtpimenta]

The SSM:

"Martin: 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.""

Covers the entire premise. They were ordered there initially. The question was vague enough that Martin wasn't forced to talk about after the sack of Kingslanding. So they were there because Rhaegar wanted them there. It is also prefaced with an "IF Rhaegar" for the last part. There is no clear cut answer in this passage that you think there is.

Agreed. They did what they did in obedience to a direct order. They were loyal to the end - even after Rhaegar's death in the Trident.

The 3 KG at the ToJ have no clue of the actual protections of their King. They do not have the excuse that their presence would endanger Viserys more. And as we find out Viserys was ultimately betrayed and forced to flee. The Kingsguard are not just body guards, they are advisres, generals and warriors. These men would have been crucial in arranging Viserys defenses, and finding out if the commanders were trustworthy.

The point being though is that they didn't even bother to go and find out if he was properly protected. They had rumors and that was it. Kingsguard aren't just going to assume the King is protected, they will ensure it.

Yet they didn't. After the Battle of the Trident, they didn't run to Kings Landing to protect the king.

We don't know why. Maybe they were protecting the royal family; maybe they were blindly following orders. There is much we don't know about the tower of joy to make any kind of assumptions about the reason why Hightower decided to stay there.

[sgtpimenta]

I repeatedly admitted that I think it is not impossible that the knights considered to be Rhaegar's child by Lyanna 'the true king' at one point. But for that to work we have to assume that they learned of Aerys/Aegon's death but not about Viserys III before Ned even arrived there (if he brought them the news about Rhaegar/Aerys/Aegon then up to Ned's arrival the knights were only guarding one of Aerys' younger grandchildren). I doubt that they still had time to solemnly pledged their loyalty to their new king after Ned arrived there.

I just don't think that this is necessarily the case.

I also don't think the the dream conversation is silly or pointless if it is not exactly the literal truth. It certainly introduces the concept of duty and honor, of good people dying for bad causes or in the wake of a very unfortunate/tragic chain of events.

It shows us what the Kingsguard is supposed to be - but, quite frankly, most likely never was. Those 'shining examples of the world' historically included men like Lucamore Strong, Criston Cole, Mervyn Flowers - the one who either murdered his queen, an innocent girl of ten years, or stood aside to allow somebody else to do the deed.

I'm inclined to believe that the three knights weren't unwavering in their loyalty to 'House Targaryen'. There was no unified House Targaryen during the last years of Aerys II. There was Aerys and Rhaegar, and you had to choose one of them. You could not really serve/be loyal to both. The knights at the tower must have been loyal to Rhaegar. Perhaps there was a reconciliation between Aerys and Rhaegar before the Trident. We don't know that yet. But my guess is that there was no such thing, and Aerys blackmailed Rhaegar into fighting for him by threatening the life of the promised prince (and his daughter and wife) while Rhaegar finally realized that he had first to deal with Robert before putting down his father for good and all. Either by deposing and confining him to a tower cell/sickbed, or by killing him. Had Rhaegar won at the Trident, Rhaegar's troops may sacked the city or fought on the street against the men loyal to Aerys.

But it is not unlikely that the knights did not want to tell Ned anything about the finer points of court intrigue. It is easy to say 'the king would still reign had we been there' if he is dead (and you aren't actually all that sad about that, although you be said about the death of Rhaegar and his children). If I was talking to an enemy combatant - Ned Stark - I'd want to show off a united front even if I had actually been actively plotting to replace the madman who was nominally my supreme commander with his son and heir.

Really like this theory...

[MtnLion]

Really like this theory...

It just ignores: Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.” Ser Gerold's support for Aerys remaining king.

[Ygrain]

Agreed. They did what they did in obedience to a direct order. They were loyal to the end - even after Rhaegar's death in the Trident.

Yet they didn't. After the Battle of the Trident, they didn't run to Kings Landing to protect the king.

We don't know why. Maybe they were protecting the royal family; maybe they were blindly following orders. There is much we don't know about the tower of joy to make any kind of assumptions about the reason why Hightower decided to stay there.

You're acting as if they had a way of knowing about the Trident right after it happened. Most likely, though, they hadn't heard for quite some time.

[Lord Varys]

MtnLion,

had Rhaegar intended to kill Aerys with his own hands - say, after Aerys had burned Elia and her children alive following Rhaegar's return from the Trident - would Ser Gerold have stepped aside if he had been present or had he defended his king against Rhaegar the Traitor?

The fact that Ser Gerold obeyed Rhaegar's commanded/decided to volunteer to defend some woman and her unborn child rather than his king is a strong sign that he had chosen Rhaegar over Aerys, at least to a point, rather than sticking wholeheartedly to Aerys until the end.

Ser Gerold could even not wanted to slay Aerys himself - or have him die by the hand of some other KG - while still intending to remove him from power.

But the testimony uttered by dream images of dead people does not count. And the loyalty of Hightower and the other knights to Aerys is only based on the dream which is why I don't think there is viable evidence for this claim.

[MtnLion]

The dream sequence was written for a reason. If there was no reason, why go through the effort?

[markg171]

You're acting as if they had a way of knowing about the Trident right after it happened. Most likely, though, they hadn't heard for quite some time.

What exactly are you basing this off of? Because it has absolutely no basis in the book.

“My Sworn Brothers were all away, you see, but Aerys liked to keep me close. I was my father’s son, so he did not trust me. He wanted me where Varys could watch me, day and night. So I heard it all.” He remembered how Rossart’s eyes would shine when he unrolled his maps to show where the substance must be placed. Garigus and Belis were the same. “Rhaegar met Robert on the Trident, and you know what happened there. When the word reached court, Aerys packed the queen off to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys. Princess Elia would have gone as well, but he forbade it. Somehow he had gotten it in his head that Prince Lewyn must have betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident, but he thought he could keep Dorne loyal so long as he kept Elia and Aegon by his side. The traitors want my city, I heard him tell Rossart, but I’ll give them naught but ashes. Let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat. The Targaryens never bury their dead, they burn them. Aerys meant to have the greatest funeral pyre of them all. Though if truth be told, I do not believe he truly expected to die. Like Aerion Brightfire before him, Aerys thought the fire would transform him... that he would rise again, reborn as a dragon, and turn all his enemies to ash.

“Ned Stark was racing south with Robert’s van, but my father’s forces reached the city first. Pycelle convinced the king that his Warden of the West had come to defend him, so he opened the gates. The one time he should have heeded Varys, and he ignored him. My father had held back from the war, brooding on all the wrongs Aerys had done him and determined that House Lannister should be on the winning side. The Trident decided him.

Catelyn knew them all: the Blackwoods and the Brackens, ever enemies, whose quarrels her father was obliged to settle; Lady Whent, last of her line, who dwelt with her ghosts in the cavernous vaults of Harrenhal; irascible Lord Frey, who had outlived seven wives and filled his twin castles with children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and bastards and grandbastards as well. All of them were bannermen to the Tullys, their swords sworn to the service of Riverrun. Catelyn wondered if that would be enough, if it came to war. Her father was the staunchest man who’d ever lived, and she had no doubt that he would call his banners... but would the banners come? The Darrys and Rygers and Mootons had sworn oaths to Riverrun as well, yet they had fought with Rhaegar Targaryen on the Trident, while Lord Frey had arrived with his levies well after the battle was over, leaving some doubt as to which army he had planned to join (theirs, he had assured the victors solemnly in the aftermath, but ever after her father had called him the Late Lord Frey). It must not come to war, Catelyn thought fervently. They must not let it.

Quellon Greyjoy still sat the Seastone Chair when Robert Baratheon, Eddard Stark, and Jon Arryn raised their banners in rebellion. Age had only served to deepen his cautious nature, and as the fighting swept across the green lands, his lordship resolved to take no part in the war. But his sons were relentless in their hunger for gain and glory, and his own health and strength were failing. For some time his lordship had been troubled by stomach pains, which had grown so excruciating that he took a draught of milk of the poppy every night to sleep. Even so, he resisted all entreaties until a raven came to Pyke with word of Prince Rhaegar’s death upon the Trident. These tidings united his three eldest sons: the Targaryen were done, they told him, and House Greyjoy must needs join the rebellion at once or lose any hope of sharing in the spoils of victory.

We have Tywin, Aerys, Walder Frey, and Quellon Greyjoy all hearing about what happened at the Trident. That's 4 extremely different people so it was therefore widely disseminated information, and everyone knew when Robert won the Trident.

Trying to argue that Aerys' decree that Viserys was his heir wasn't well known is one thing. Trying to say that people didn't know that Robert had defeated Rhaegar at the Trident is completely nonsensical. Word went out at once, with at least 4 different sources confirming this. So wherever the KG were getting their information from (if they even were getting information and Ned wasn't the one who told them what happened), they would have damn well known that the Trident had been lost very early on as word went out at once about what had happened.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

Your hypothetical regarding Rhaegar killing Aerys is somewhat interesting, but not really the point, as extreme situations may always call for exceptions. But in fact, I suspect Hightower would stop Rhaegar even in that situation. But even if he would not, it tells us little about the situation we are actually analyzing.

A plausible theory has been put forth as to why Hightower would have stayed that at ToJ without any preference for Rhaegar over Aerys. It has been mentioned many times before. Assume Aerys tells Hightower to find Rhaegar and get Rhaegar back to KL. But Aerys says nothing specifically about Hightower coming back to KL. Hightower finds Rhaegar (somehow -- that is a really big mystery), and Rhaegar agrees to return to KL only if Hightower agrees to stay at ToJ (presumably until Rhaegar gets back, but not sure of specific terms). So the only way Hightower can realistically complete his mission from Aerys is to agree to stay at ToJ. This explanation is a simple and relatively obvious one that does not require the leap that Hightower switched to Rhaegar -- for which there is scant evidence.

To say that the evidence of the dream does not count is silly (IMHO). Of course GRRM chose the specific words for a reason. He wants the reader to be able to go back to that exchange after all the information comes out in later books and see how that conversation gave clues to all the information later revealed. If they do not serve as genuine and reliable clues, then GRRM is wasting his time writing a scene is so terse but appears to be so critical. Of course, we need to consider the possibility that the information is entirely misleading, but given how Ned seems to think about the dream, I don't think we have any evidence of that. Rather, the evidence is that everything said in the dream (whether actually said or not) is 100% consistent with Ned's understanding of the facts. And Ned presumably got a pretty good report from Lyanna regarding what the KL were doing at ToJ.

[PrettyPig]

The fact that Ser Gerold obeyed Rhaegar's commanded/decided to volunteer to defend some woman and her unborn child rather than his king is a strong sign that he had chosen Rhaegar over Aerys, at least to a point, rather than sticking wholeheartedly to Aerys until the end.

Ser Gerold could even not wanted to slay Aerys himself - or have him die by the hand of some other KG - while still intending to remove him from power.

“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.”

"Far away, or Aerys would YET sit the Iron Throne": ie, if the KG had been there they would have been forced to uphold the first duty and protect him. Being removed from Aerys' presence & immediate vicinity provides a loophole for the failure of the first duty.....they can't be expected to protect the king if they aren't physically there.

However, Aerys WAS left in the hands of a KG – the newest, youngest, and least experienced one – who by vow and by duty is expected to defend the king to the death, give his life for his king if need be. Aerys dies in the sack at the hands of the rebels -- the kingdom is rid of a madman. Jaime dies defending Aerys during the sack - he honorably upholds his KG vows and the kingdom is rid of a Lannister.

It was a win-win for those supporting a coup until Jaime for once opted to uphold the greater good over his Kingsguard oath.

[Lord Varys]

Well, what we know about Oswell and Arthur puts at least parts of the 'Aerys is king' part of the dream conversation into perspective. I'm inclined to believe that the dream will only be shredded more rather being confirmed by future revelations. But that's just my expectation - I could be wrong there. It could easily be reconciled with the dream by pointing that it is based on Ned's memories, and Ned didn't have the full picture.

And, yes, I also assume that Hightower may have been volunteered to stay at tower while Rhaegar commanded Arthur and Oswell to stay. But Hightower could have easily lied to Rhaegar to get him on the way and than abandoning Lyanna and rejoining his king behind Rhaegar's back - protecting the king supposedly being the first and foremost duty.

Again, it is very unlikely that Gerold did not know or at least suspect that Rhaegar and Arthur/Oswell had been plotting against Aerys. If that's the case, then he would have had reason to believe that Rhaegar's return would pose a danger to Aerys' life and crown as Rhaegar may have intended to remove his father from power/kill him. If Gerold was loyal to Aerys he would have done everything in his power to prevent that. Which means he would not have stayed at the tower even if he had promised as much. If the protect the king clause is most important, then any other oath or promise a KG makes is null and void if it conflicts with the primary duty.

ML,

I agree that the dream is in there for a reason. I just don't think that reason is giving the reader 'accurate information'.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Just to be fucking clear: Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne

means that he does not want to depose Aerys, that he expects him to be king, and he does not want to change that. He does not suggest a Targaryen other than Aerys would still sit the throne. He does not suggest that King Rhaegar would rule. Honor means something very significant, even in modern society. It is amazing how many people have forgotten what it truly is.

Didn't they say that because Rhaegar died before his dad?

[Alia of the knife]

If the KG think that the child's uncle WILL DENY him his rights and heritage, would they fight him? I say YES.

That brings up an interesting parallel to Benjen that I've always wondered about. We see Ned Stark and we assume he is the rule, and not the exception, but even he speaks about his ancestors in away that doesn't seem to relate to him.

His ancestors were hard and harsh. Robert says he didn't love his brothers, and while I think there is a loyalty between the Starks, can we say Ned "loved" his siblings with the exception of Lyanna?

And being fostered in the south with Robert may have had some effect on him in the same way that Theons father accused him being.

I've always suspected that while an able general and fighter, Ned was not as ruthless as perhaps even his brothers might have been, and that brings me to the question of Benjens exchange with Jon:

" You are a boy of fourteen," Benjen said. "Not a man, not yet. Until you have know a woman, you cannot understand what you would be giving up."

" I don't care about that " Jon said hotly.

" You might, if you knew what it meant," Benjen said. "If you knew what the oath would cost you, you might be less eager to pay the price son."

Jon felt anger rise inside him. "I'm not your son!"

Benjen Stark stood up. " Mores the pity." He put a hand on Jon's shoulder. "Come back to me when you've fathered a few bastards of your own, and we'll see how you feel...."

Now of course we speculate that Benjen knows who Jons father is, and its not Ned. Its a double entendre'.

He knows that Ned isn't his father, and he speaks that it might have been better had he been Jons father either because he didn't like who Jons father really was, or within the context of Jon thinking of Ned as his father, had Benjen been that man instead, he might have fought for Jons birthright openly. If you re-read again the tone of Benjens remarks, he actually sounds less than enthusiastic about the Wall and it makes me wonder if after the events of the TOJ, Benjen might have had a change of heart and argued with Ned regarding Jons fate, again, highligting Neds deviation from "the pack."

[Alia of the knife]

As for Neds dreams, they are coming at a time of extreme trauma for him, traumatic dreams of a traumatic events.

Is he really going to remember them fondly?

[BearQueen87]

As for Neds dreams, they are coming at a time of extreme trauma for him, traumatic dreams of a traumatic events.

Is he really going to remember them fondly?

His subconscious dream world has cast the three KG like literal white knights. Everything about them in this dream--the way they speak, their actions--scream "we are knights! we are KG!" That is how Ned remembers them. Yes, it's a fever dream. But we cannot dismiss how Ned recreated him in his head...especially when it's later backed up by other statements, like Jaime's words and his own remembrances and his own dreams. He doesn't remember the KG as standing in his way; Ned remembers them as having sworn to do their duty.

[The Twinslayer]

Didn't they say that because Rhaegar died before his dad?

Exactly. If Hightower had been in King's Landing after Rhaegar died, and Jaime tried to kill Aerys, Hightower would have killed Jaime. Aerys would have survived and, according to Hightower, he would have prevented the Sack.

That does not mean that if he had to choose between Aerys and Rhaegar, Hightower would have chosen Aerys.

[Ygrain]

Well, what we know about Oswell and Arthur puts at least parts of the 'Aerys is king' part of the dream conversation into perspective. I'm inclined to believe that the dream will only be shredded more rather being confirmed by future revelations. But that's just my expectation - I could be wrong there. It could easily be reconciled with the dream by pointing that it is based on Ned's memories, and Ned didn't have the full picture.

The perspective is that Hightower as LC is calling the shots, that it is him delivering the finale of the conversation about the vow, and that whatever Dayne and Whent allegiance might have been (and Dayne's recurring sadness is probably a hint that he had to make some choices and possibly driven to do something he felt opposed to), they are all of the same mind in that sequence.

I agree that the dream is in there for a reason. I just don't think that reason is giving the reader 'accurate information'.

Funny, no-one ever claimed that the dream is accurate. What we do claim is that the writing is giving a pretty accurate image of the three men.

[RumHam]

You cannot keep your cake and eat it, too, you know.

That's a much better version of that phrase than "have your cake and eat it too." Yet somehow I'd never heard it that way before.

Didn't they say that because Rhaegar died before his dad?

Yeah. It's really not the statement of undying loyalty to Aerys that some would have us believe. They're just pissed at Jamie for betraying their order.

The dream sequence was written for a reason. If there was no reason, why go through the effort?

I don't think anyone thinks it was a meaningless inclusion. It's just that it shouldn't be taken as an actual record of the conversation. So analyzing it line by line and drawing conclusions based on the wording is a bit iffy.