Maybe R+L=J is not true?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

you misread me -- i said that the 3 KG at the tower should have been with the king and more ready heirs -- aegon rhaegar and aerys. not that those other KG weren't with them. my point was one KG in KL is silly -- if you think about it more in the context of the war happening in KL this time around, it makes even less sense.

You have Aerys to blame for that silliness — he's the one who kept Jaime with him and sent the other three away with Rhaegar or to gather troops. If Rhaegar had wanted the three at the Tower somewhere else, he'd've ordered them somewhere else. They were there because Rhaegar ordered them to be, but they stayed there because Jon, not Viserys, was the king.

[summer_stark]

You have Aerys to blame for that silliness — he's the one who kept Jaime with him and sent the other three away with Rhaegar or to gather troops. If Rhaegar had wanted the three at the Tower somewhere else, he'd've ordered them somewhere else. They were there because Rhaegar ordered them to be, but they stayed there because Jon, not Viserys, was the king.

i don't disagree w/anything you said -- about aerys especially being a friggin crazy dumbass. but, i still have a hard time swallowing the idea that they hung out w/lyanna in an isolated tower while there king was under attack -- and then, when he is dead -- w/a woman no one knew to be rhaegar's wife, who hadn't yet given birth -- who could have given birth to a girl -- when viserys would have been king for at least a couple of weeks.

[Jem]

Umm. the main indicator that lyanna had a child is the bed of blood -- you can't have it both ways. that's the proof 9 out of 10 people use to say that lyanna had a child, myself included. not to mention the fact that most everyone thinks the jon was born after the sack -- mostly because a bed of blood is what a child birthing bed is called. otherwise, you have very little proof of a childbirth at all. or saying that it was from complications a month earlier but that no one bothered to change her bedsheets from the birth? sorry, i disagree.

further, the KG did not do their duty. the duty of the KG is to protect the king. aerys was their king. they protected his sons second wife's unborn child for how many months? and don't tell me that one KG is enough to protect the king -- that's why there are seven. why not just have one KG then? it makes no sense anyway you slice it. the KG's duty is not to the prince, certainly not after he is dead. it's to their king and the king's heir -- aegon. they should have left as soon as they found out rhaegar was dead -- it was not a secret that ned was marching to the red keep, so even if it was a secret that kl would be sacked by the lannisters, there was a war coming to KL. everyone knew that. so yea, i don't think it makes any sense if you look at how the KG act generally, especially with kings who are of age.

The 'bed of blood' and the 'bloody bed' is the Westerosi name for what we (in old fashioned times) called 'confinement'. It describes the time immediately before, during and after birth (traditionally for a period of 40 days) where a woman removed herself from the public eye.

When the Westerosi talk about a 'bloody bed', they don't mean literally. It is a metaphor to describe a woman's confinement. Of course there would be some blood during delivery, but this would be cleared up pretty quickly. Ned recalls the smell of blood in Lyanna's room, which would be normal for a woman postpartum - however it is unlikely she was lying there among the gore like you are probably imagining. In Lyanna's case, it is likely that she died from puerperal fever - possible up to a week after she delivered. Ned remembers her as being fevered, which indicates it was likely she had an infection.

It is very, very improbable that Lyanna gave birth the instant Ned rode up and killed the KG. It is much more likely - both from a story-telling perspective, and from the evidence of Lyanna's sickness - that she died of complications of child birth several days after giving birth.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

i don't disagree w/anything you said -- about aerys especially being a friggin crazy dumbass. but, i still have a hard time swallowing the idea that they hung out w/lyanna in an isolated tower while there king was under attack -- and then, when he is dead -- w/a woman no one knew to be rhaegar's wife, who hadn't yet given birth -- who could have given birth to a girl -- when viserys would have been king for at least a couple of weeks.

They knew she was Rhaegar's wife and they knew she was pregnant. That's the important thing. Historically, a new monarch is not crowned until a pregnant queen gives birth — there would be no interim king until Lyanna had given birth and they saw whether it was a boy or a girl.

[summer_stark]

The 'bed of blood' and the 'bloody bed' is the Westerosi name for what we (in old fashioned times) called 'confinement'. It describes the time immediately before, during and after birth (traditionally for a period of 40 days) where a woman removed herself from the public eye.

When the Westerosi talk about a 'bloody bed', they don't mean literally. It is a metaphor to describe a woman's confinement. Of course there would be some blood during delivery, but this would be cleared up pretty quickly. Ned recalls the smell of blood in Lyanna's room, which would be normal for a woman postpartum - however it is unlikely she was lying there among the gore like you are probably imagining. In Lyanna's case, it is likely that she died from puerperal fever - possible up to a week after she delivered. Ned remembers her as being fevered, which indicates it was likely she had an infection.

It is very, very improbable that Lyanna gave birth the instant Ned rode up and killed the KG. It is much more likely - both from a story-telling perspective, and from the evidence of Lyanna's sickness - that she died of complications of child birth several days after giving birth.

several days before he arrived is much different than before the sack, which is what i was arguing against. i don't think she was delivering as he was fighting i the tower either -- when i say birthing bed and changing sheets i envision that she has given birth in the past few day and is now ill -- but that is still not like 6 weeks before ned gets there. *shrug*

[summer_stark]

They knew she was Rhaegar's wife and they knew she was pregnant. That's the important thing. Historically, a new monarch is not crowned until a pregnant queen gives birth — there would be no interim king until Lyanna had given birth and they saw whether it was a boy or a girl.

historically when? this practice in england at least, appears in the 1600s, at least that's my very shallow understanding of it. -- not during the war of the roses certainly -- plus, if we're going by anything it should probably be how westeros runs things -- i.e., think cersei, robert, aegon the conqueror, blackfyre rebellion and so on...

i didn't say that the 3 KG didn't know, i said -- oh wait i did say no one -- my bad. ok, let me clarify -- i meant, no one outside of them 3. yes of course they knew, otherwise none of this makes a lick of sense, and while it irritates me that there are as yet undisclosed gaps in this story, i am sure the 3 KG knew.

but my point was, it wouldn't matter if just the 3 of them knew -- if rhaegar told no one else then it makes little sense since the boy could not be king w/just the say of some kingsguard -- e.g., barristan selmy. granted the KG are noble bla bla bla. but frankly if they're so noble, they should go guard their king, aerys -- esp when rhaegar is dead so his commands should die with him and it should be them going back to aerys to see what they should be doing next...

[Dragonfish]

historically when? this practice in england at least, appears in the 1600s, at least that's my very shallow understanding of it. -- not during the war of the roses certainly --

Why does this matter? George mixes and matches things from different periods of history. He's not doing a blow-by-blow account of the Wars of the Roses or anything.

plus, if we're going by anything it should probably be how westeros runs things -- i.e., think cersei, robert, aegon the conqueror, blackfyre rebellion and so on...

I don't see how these examples demonstrate that the rule we're discussing doesn't exist.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

historically when? this practice in england at least, appears in the 1600s, at least that's my very shallow understanding of it. -- not during the war of the roses certainly -- plus, if we're going by anything it should probably be how westeros runs things -- i.e., think cersei, robert, aegon the conqueror, blackfyre rebellion and so on...

It happened in Spain (Alfonso XIII) and France (John I). The king died while the queen was pregnant, and the throne was vacant until she gave birth.

i didn't say that the 3 KG didn't know, i said -- oh wait i did say no one -- my bad. ok, let me clarify -- i meant, no one outside of them 3. yes of course they knew, otherwise none of this makes a lick of sense, and while it irritates me that there are as yet undisclosed gaps in this story, i am sure the 3 KG knew.

My point is, THEY KNEW and that's what mattered to THEM. Considering that secrecy was the entire point of the Tower of Joy, why is it a deal-breaker that no one knew Rhaegar married Lyanna? Well bloody obviously no one knew, that was the point.

[summer_stark]

Why does this matter? George mixes and matches things from different periods of history. He's not doing a blow-by-blow account of the Wars of the Roses or anything.

I don't see how these examples demonstrate that the rule we're discussing doesn't exist.

well considering we have no precedent for it in the story or during that time period, i'm more inclined to believe it doesnt exist until i see otherwise. there's literally no proof of its existence, while my examples are text and historical (from the period grrm writes from, whether he mixes and matches or not, it's well established that it's that type of time period -- where civility doesn't win out). but if you want to buy into it, that's cool -- but i don't.

plus, even if it were true -- you have a woman who no one in the realm thinks is married to rhaegar, save 3KG, shut up in a tower, w/no one to even know she is pregnant or married to the prince. not to mention the fact that there is an actual live king who needs protection --

[Jem]

plus, even if it were true -- you have a woman who no one in the realm thinks is married to rhaegar, save 3KG, shut up in a tower, w/no one to even know she is pregnant or married to the prince. not to mention the fact that there is an actual live king who needs protection --

No one that we know yet know that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married. We don't know the full story and there are still ways and means.

And not to mention the fact that there is an actual live king who needs protection...so why are these honourable men who are fulfilling their vows not with this king (I assume you mean Viserys)? Because that 'king' is not the king. The king is the person who is inside the tower. And he can only be king if he is legitimate.

[Dragonfish]

well considering we have no precedent for it in the story or during that time period, i'm more inclined to believe it doesnt exist until i see otherwise. there's literally no proof of its existence, while my examples are text and historical (from the period grrm writes from, whether he mixes and matches or not, it's well established that it's that type of time period -- where civility doesn't win out). but if you want to buy into it, that's cool -- but i don't.

Well, according to Apple Martini, there is precedent for this rule, from the 1300s no less, which of course was before the Wars of the Roses (unless wikipedia is lying to me).

plus, even if it were true -- you have a woman who no one in the realm thinks is married to rhaegar, save 3KG, shut up in a tower, w/no one to even know she is pregnant or married to the prince. not to mention the fact that there is an actual live king who needs protection --

This last point is precisely why it doesn't make sense that the Kingsguard stayed at the tower, if Viserys was their king. IMO, it only makes sense if Jon was their king.

[summer_stark]

It happened in Spain (Alfonso XIII) and France (John I). The king died while the queen was pregnant, and the throne was vacant until she gave birth.

My point is, THEY KNEW and that's what mattered to THEM. Considering that secrecy was the entire point of the Tower of Joy, why is it a deal-breaker that no one knew Rhaegar married Lyanna? Well bloody obviously no one knew, that was the point.

cool. but it's not england, which is where the story derives from. spain was in the 1800s, so that is post the time i was talking about and post when the practice started in england -- so that doesn't win points in my view. your point about france is well taken, but also proves my point. they put his uncle in charge while the queen was pregnant and interestingly, the boy reigned for exactly 5 days before he mysteriously died...and his uncle was then crowned king...so this practice wasn't exactly a winner back in the 1300s.

i'm not saying its impossible -- and yes, the point was that it was a secret. but if something was supposed to matter to 3 members of the kingsguard, in my view it's guarding the living king. but that's just me, apparently. it's not a point of disagreement so much as it is a point of irritation. if everyone thinks it was ok for them to be there, that's fine -- but it's more a matter of opinion than it is a theory that i disagree with -- so it's like arguing over chocolate and vanilla to me.

[summer_stark]

Well, according to Apple Martini, there is precedent for this rule, from the 1300s no less, which of course was before the Wars of the Roses (unless wikipedia is lying to me).

This last point is precisely why it doesn't make sense that the Kingsguard stayed at the tower, if Viserys was their king. IMO, it only makes sense if Jon was their king.

right right right. yes yes yes. agreed. but-- they were there long before their prince, their king and their prince's son all died. so for a time they were protecting an unborn child over their living king (aerys, not viserys --though then it's him too) -- even if only for a short time. but even assuming this whole wait and see rule is in effect -- my point remains -- why are they guarding prince rhaegar's pregnant second wife instead king aerys -- especially true after rhaegar is dead (and their duty/commands from rhaegar then revert back to king aerys)

[Jem]

i'm not saying its impossible -- and yes, the point was that it was a secret. thanks i got that. but if something was supposed to matter to 3 members of the kingsguard, in my view it's guarding the living king. but that's just me, apparently. it's not a point of disagreement so much as it is a point of irritation. if everyone thinks it was ok for them to be there, that's fine -- but it's more a matter of opinion than it is a theory that i disagree with -- so it's like arguing over chocolate and vanilla to me.

I agree, I think we all do, that the kingsguard's proper role was guarding the living king. Absolutely 100% agree.

So why weren't they doing it? And how can they still claim to be following their vows?

Answer: they were doing it. It is just that the king was someone that no one yet knew about.

[Jem]

right right right. yes yes yes. agreed. but-- they were there long before their prince, their king and their prince's song all died. so for a time they were protecting an unborn child over their living king (aerys, not viserys --though then it's him too) -- even if only for a short time. that's what bothers me. but even assuming this whole wait and see rule is in effect -- my point remains -- why are they guarding a prince rhaegar's pregnant second wife instead king aerys -- especially true after rhaegar is dead (and their duty/commands from rhaegar then revert back to king aerys)

Aerys, Viserys, Aegon and Rhaegar all had protection from other members of the KG at various times. It is not necessary for all 7 of the KG to be with the king at all times. As long as at least one of them is with the king (which was the case) then they are not breaking their vows.

[Dragonfish]

cool. but it's not england, which is where the story derives from.

GRRM takes inspiration from all sorts of medieval history, not just English history. For instance, he has cited the Albigensian Crusades as a major source of inspiration, and those took place in the area of modern-day France.

right right right. yes yes yes. agreed. but-- they were there long before their prince, their king and their prince's song all died. so for a time they were protecting an unborn child over their living king (aerys, not viserys --though then it's him too) -- even if only for a short time. that's what bothers me. but even assuming this whole wait and see rule is in effect -- my point remains -- why are they guarding a prince rhaegar's pregnant second wife instead king aerys -- especially true after rhaegar is dead (and their duty/commands from rhaegar then revert back to king aerys)

They were there originally because they were ordered there. That is not a mystery. What is a mystery is why they stayed there even after their new king, Viserys, was in danger and without Kingsguard protection (unlike Aerys, who had 1-4 Kingsguard guarding him at various times).

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Umm. the main indicator that lyanna had a child is the bed of blood -- you can't have it both ways. that's the proof 9 out of 10 people use to say that lyanna had a child, myself included. not to mention the fact that most everyone thinks the jon was born after the sack -- mostly because a bed of blood is what a child birthing bed is called. otherwise, you have very little proof of a childbirth at all. or saying that it was from complications a month earlier but that no one bothered to change her bedsheets from the birth? sorry, i disagree.

further, the KG did not do their duty. the duty of the KG is to protect the king. aerys was their king. they protected his sons second wife's unborn child for how many months? and don't tell me that one KG is enough to protect the king -- that's why there are seven. why not just have one KG then? it makes no sense anyway you slice it. the KG's duty is not to the prince, certainly not after he is dead. it's to their king and the king's heir -- aegon. they should have left as soon as they found out rhaegar was dead -- it was not a secret that ned was marching to the red keep, so even if it was a secret that kl would be sacked by the lannisters, there was a war coming to KL. everyone knew that. so yea, i don't think it makes any sense if you look at how the KG act generally, especially with kings who are of age.

As I stated in an earlier post on this thread...when I say fact, I mean FACT! I am not referring to any of my assumptions or theories. My point is that it is easy to make intelligent assumptions and theories when you do not ignore the facts.

Also, when I say she had the child before the sack I am not saying no one changed her sheets in a month. I have witnessed women having extended complications from childbirth, and also heard of a woman dying three months after childbirth due to an infection, so it is certainly possible.

As far as everything else you have stated...believe as you wish. You seem to answer your own questions without realizing it.

I appreciate you editing your post, because it was quite rude when I first read it. ;)

[summer_stark]

Aerys, Viserys, Aegon and Rhaegar all had protection from other members of the KG at various times. It is not necessary for all 7 of the KG to be with the king at all times. As long as at least one of them is with the king (which was the case) then they are not breaking their vows.

i don't think they broke their vows -- not in a traditional sense, but to leave one KG to guard their aerys and aegon both? that to me reeks of poor planning at the very least. especially since, as i've mentioned, if the timeline is how most of us think of it, they left 1 kg to guard their king and his heir (post rhaegar dying) -- aerys and aegon -- while they guarded someone who hadn't even yet had a child -- and the child wasn't even yet king! i'll grant that by the time ned gets their jon snow is legitimately king -- but, while aegon and aerys live, they are not following their duty -- they need 3 kg to guard one woman all the way in dorne when their king is fighting a war??

that's like everyone leaving robert b/c joffrey ordered them to let's say go protect sansa who is now in ToJ...and then joffrey dying, sansa is pregnant, but robert is alive and kicking...that's my point -- yes, fine it will turn out that jon snow is born as soon as aerys dies or as soon as a raven could get there so it makes no difference...but i still don't like, in a time of war leaving 1 kg to guard the king and first in line while 3 guard a second wife who is pregnant w/the 3rd in line at that point

[salt]

Brandon Stark+Ashara Dayne=Jon Snow wake up sheeple

[Dragonfish]

i don't think they broke their vows -- not in a traditional sense, but to leave one KG to guard their aerys and aegon both? that to me reeks of poor planning at the very least. especially since, as i've mentioned, if the timeline is how most of us think of it, they left 1 kg to guard their king and his heir (post rhaegar dying) -- aerys and aegon -- while they guarded someone who hadn't even yet had a child -- and the child wasn't even yet king!

You don't have the timeline right, if I understand you correctly. The Kingsguard were sent to guard Lyanna before Rhaegar died. At that time, there were 1-4 Kingsguard with the King at various points, in addition to the hundreds of soldiers in the city itself, so they weren't leaving the King unprotected.

i'll grant that by the time ned gets their jon snow is legitimately king -- but, while aegon and aerys live, they are not following their duty -- they need 3 kg to guard one woman all the way in dorne when their king is fighting a war??

The Kingsguard were doing their duty when they sent to the ToJ, in that they were following their orders. But after Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon died, their orders ought to have been nullified by the new circumstances.