Why did the Kings guard at the ToJ try keep Eddard away from Lyanna?

[Fred of Ashai]

Apples and pears. Once again, exceptions, usurpations and clearly stated changes of succession do not invalidate the basic principle. While Dorne has its own rules, applicable solely to Dorne, North via Bran's PoV apparently does not dispute the Frey succession, and everyone who believes Joffrey to be Robert's son, accepts him as Robert's heir, not Stannis. The same for Tommen being Joffrey's heir, again before Stannis. Ever since DoD, the Targaryens follow the same rule as everyone else, with the exception of excluding the female claimants. IIRC, there is a SSM about this somewhere.

I wouldn't expect the North to dispute the Frey succession. What I don't know is whether the North would follow the same rule as the Freys and let the Lord's grandson inherit before that Lord's younger son.

The situation with Joffrey inheriting is different becuase Joffrey's father was the king, not a prince.

The point about the Targaryens is that they don't have clear rules, and that has led them into great problems in the past. If there were clear rules after the Dance of the Dragons, as you say, there would have been no need for a Great Council when King Maekar died. Aerion Brightflame's son would have been king automatically instead of Aegon V.

But the rules weren't clear, so a Council had to be called. They skipped the son of the dead prince in favor of the King's younger son.

Arguably, that created a precedent that means that Viserys would come before Jon Snow. Even if it didn't, it certainly did not create a new rule that means that Jon Snow would come before Viserys.

I don't believe that this matters to anything, though. There was no king, but there were two potential heirs. One was safe on Dragonstone with the royal master-at-arms and a fleet defending him. The other, an infant, was in a remote tower with virtually no protection. Of course the Kings guards would stay with the less-well protected one.

[Ygrain]

I wouldn't expect the North to dispute the Frey succession. What I don't know is whether the North would follow the same rule as the Freys and let the Lord's grandson inherit before that Lord's younger son.

The situation with Joffrey inheriting is different becuase Joffrey's father was the king, not a prince.

The point about the Targaryens is that they don't have clear rules, and that has led them into great problems in the past. If there were clear rules after the Dance of the Dragons, as you say, there would have been no need for a Great Council when King Maekar died. Aerion Brightflame's son would have been king automatically instead of Aegon V.

But the rules weren't clear, so a Council had to be called. They skipped the son of the dead prince in favor of the King's younger son.

Arguably, that created a precedent that means that Viserys would come before Jon Snow. Even if it didn't, it certainly did not create a new rule that means that Jon Snow would come before Viserys.

I don't believe that this matters to anything, though. There was no king, but there were two potential heirs. One was safe on Dragonstone with the royal master-at-arms and a fleet defending him. The other, an infant, was in a remote tower with virtually no protection. Of course the Kings guards would stay with the less-well protected one.

If the succession differed in the North, then that very spot about the Freys was the place where it should have been commented on. It wasn't.

The Great Council was called not because the succession was unclear but because the next in the line was an infant son of a mad prince, which would mean years of regency and a very uncertain outcome. We are told elsewhere that a child lord is not good for the land and the same applies for a child king - not because his claim is somehow at doubt but because an adult king is better for the realm.

Whether Viserys was safe at Dragonstone did not matter. If he is the first in the succession line, then the KG are not doing their job by letting other people do it.

[finger]

IMO, the question doesn't stand a serious analysis. The KG defend the king, obey the king and so on. Who was their king? Put in another way, was Jon his king?

A) He wasn't. Why on earth were they fighting to dead to protect some boy from his own uncle?

B ) He was. Queen Regent Lyanna ruled their party. Did she ordered them to kill his own brother before seing him?

No way.

Forget about orders from a dead man, and convulated explanations. They had a duty, and it can't be with Jon. I'm afraid you'll have to try harder.

[mambru]

I agree with you, and I will propose a very logical political reasoning for why that's the case. Nobody cares whether the ruling Targ has 4 (let's say) children from the same wife, or two from one and two from another - the inheritance line is still the same - order of birth and gender. Whereas incest as such being legitimate robs other great houses from the opportunity to get mixed with the royal line.

I think you're wrong about how "nobody cares" whether the Royal Family decides to revive polygamy as an institution. Polygamy means that the importance of each wife (hence the importance of her Paramount Family) is reduced, since there's another woman (or several) , of equal status married to the king or prince. In the case of Rhaegar and Dorne, they would ESPECIALLY object to this. They're okay with men having concubines and bastards, but Rhaegar taking a new wife and having more LEGITIMATE kids with her - with ambitious Lord Stark for their grandfather - knocks Elia's status back to also-ran and puts HER children in danger of rivalry from their half-siblings, because Lyanna's kids would have a legitimate claim to the throne, and if Rickard Stark decides he wants HIS grandchildren to inherit the Iron Throne, he can back their claim, and Dorne would have to defend the claim of Elia's kids - in war.

This happened a lot in our own history with polygamous royalty; the siblings and their powerful families would fight the heir for the throne once dad was dead. This infighting became so bad that it became the usual accepted practice of one of those Muslim empires (the Ottoman, I think) to have the new emperor execute every single brother of his just to keep the succession peaceful.

This, IMO, doesn't make royal polygamy look very attractive to the Lords Paramount - especially without dragons to enforce it.

Are you kidding? I did absolutely not "kind of say that", "not taking a chance" (=the chance of Ned putting his friendship and loyalty to Robert above Lyanna) is evidently different from considering the fight "a sure win".

All I'm saying is that BOTH options - fighting with Ned without trying to negotiate with him OR trusting him to keep a bargain if they DO negotiate and make a deal - are risky. Either way they choose, they ARE taking a chance. And what I really don't see is why it's MORE risky to TRY to negotiate with Ned than to fight WITHOUT TRYING to negotiate at all.

What do they risk by bringing Ned in, letting him talk to Lyanna, and seeing if they can make a deal to get Jon safely out of the country? If the negotiations fail and the KG is unconvinced, then they just put Ned out on the doorstep and try to kill him like they did in the book; nothing is WORSE than before for them. But if the negotiations succeed - if they can come to an agreement with Lyanna and Ned about how they can get safely out of the country with the baby (say, as I suggested, that Ned leaves his friends behind after swearing them to silence and comes WITH the KG to the port as insurance for the good behavior of his friends) then they have REDUCED the risk to the baby and themselves. So much to gain and NOTHING to lose by trying to negotiate.

Basically, you still haven't told me what the KG have to lose by trying to negotiate with Ned and enlisting Lyanna's help in convincing him, instead of ignoring her screaming and going all "HULK SMASH!" indiscriminately at Ned - risking Jon's life unnecessarily.

btw, care to back up the claim that Ned and his six were involved in any hand-to-hand combat?

Er, what? Are you saying they all just sat in a tent moving pins on a map while the grunts did the work of fighting? That's not how leaders of soldiers work in Westeros. Or are you saying they all were just archers and shot arrows while the grunts did the hand-to-hand combat? We never saw Ned use a bow. But we DID see him use a sword. Archery is a highly skilled specialization, but ALL gentlemen are trained to use their swords. Do you care to back up the claim that Ned and his friends went through an entire war and did NO hand-to-hand combat?

[Petyr Patter]

Honorable Death.

They are the King's Guard, they are suppose to die defending their king, and on their watch the King, the Crown Prince, the Crown Prince's firstborn son, and the Crown Prince's daughter were all killed. The Queen dies in childbirth, leaving two children to run in exile. For their part, they stood around a Tower keeping the Crown Prince's mistress safe.

My goodness, for knights whose entire identity is protecting the King and his family, they failed miserably.

When an enemy general shows up, they were probably grateful for a chance to die in the war they weren't around to fight in.

[Not Dead Just Broken]

Maybe they were giving Lyanna time to kill herself. We know she wanted no part of Robert. I think people underestimate that part of the equation.

The whole "they were defending the King" part is doubtful. Even if Rhaegar and Lyanna are married, the succession is complicated by the exact timing of Jon's birth. Here's the chronology of Targ deaths with Ned's actions.

1. Rhaegar killed at The Trident
   
2. Ned sent with Robert's van to King's Landing
   
3. Aerys stabbed in the back by Jamie
   
4. Rhaenys killed by Amory Lorch
   
5. Aegon (?) killed by Gregor Clegane
   
6. Ned arrives in KL; waits for Robert to arrive to give him the throne (remember Robert is injured which is why he sends Ned ahead. We aren't told how long it took for him to get to KL with the rest of the Rebel army)
   
7. Ned and Robert argue about the killing of the Targ children
   
8. Ned goes to Storm's End to lift the siege with a large army (not a quick ride)
   
9. Ned travels from Storm's End to the Tower of Joy (smaller party; could have been done quickly)
   

In order for Jon to be King he has to be born BEFORE Aegon dies. If Jon (or whoever) isn't born yet when Aegon dies, Viserys inherits. An unborn child can't be king. If it is Jon, we have an additional benchmark: Robb. We know Robb is older than Jon and is conceived after Brandon's death (282 AL) and Catelyn's subsequent marriage to Ned in 282 AL (which takes place after Jon Arryn refuses to turn Ned over and he's negotiated the marriages with Hoster Tully). Both Robb and Jon are born in 283 AL but Robb is always described as older. However, he is still a babe in arms when Ned gets home. The window to be born in 283 AL after Robb but before Aegon dies cannot have been that long given that the battle at the Tower of Joy was still in 283 AL. Also, if you believe Lyanna died as a result of childbirth, it is almost impossible that Ned could have 1. waited for Robert to arrive in KL 2. Get down to Storm's End; lift the siege 3. Go to the Tower of Joy in the time it took her to die. In other words, the child was likely born after Aegon's death, making him not the King.

[Ygrain]

In order for Jon to be King he has to be born BEFORE Aegon dies. If Jon (or whoever) isn't born yet when Aegon dies, Viserys inherits. An unborn child can't be king. If it is Jon, we have an additional benchmark: Robb. We know Robb is older than Jon and is conceived after Brandon's death (282 AL) and Catelyn's subsequent marriage to Ned in 282 AL (which takes place after Jon Arryn refuses to turn Ned over and he's negotiated the marriages with Hoster Tully). Both Robb and Jon are born in 283 AL but Robb is always described as older. However, he is still a babe in arms when Ned gets home. The window to be born in 283 AL after Robb but before Aegon dies cannot have been that long given that the battle at the Tower of Joy was still in 283 AL. Also, if you believe Lyanna died as a result of childbirth, it is almost impossible that Ned could have 1. waited for Robert to arrive in KL 2. Get down to Storm's End; lift the siege 3. Go to the Tower of Joy in the time it took her to die. In other words, the child was likely born after Aegon's death, making him not the King.

That is incorrect in two respects. First, unborn children are not removed from the succession line - we have RL examples of interregnum (vacant throne) while the queen of a deceased king was pregnant and everyone waited for the birth to establish the gender of the child. Second, there is the issue of time delay taken by the news to reach ToJ. By the time the KG learned, Jon might well have been born. He is 8-9 months older than Dany, which places his birth approximately within a month since the Sack, and if Lyanna died of childbed fever as her feverish state seems to indicate, there is enough time for Ned to arrive.

[Lady Howell]

It does seem a little weird that Lyanna was apparently screaming so loudly for her brother that he could hear her from hundreds of yards outside the tower, calling for him desperately despite being seriously ill, and the King's Guard were still trying to kill him. What the Hell guys?

Lyanna, if she had lived and they had killed Ned, would have been fucking pissed.

[Black Crow]

Honorable Death.

They are the King's Guard, they are suppose to die defending their king, and on their watch the King, the Crown Prince, the Crown Prince's firstborn son, and the Crown Prince's daughter were all killed. The Queen dies in childbirth, leaving two children to run in exile. For their part, they stood around a Tower keeping the Crown Prince's mistress safe.

My goodness, for knights whose entire identity is protecting the King and his family, they failed miserably.

When an enemy general shows up, they were probably grateful for a chance to die in the war they weren't around to fight in.

:agree:

That's what that exchange with Ned before the fight is all about. Their king was Aerys and they failed, and as I said earlier they are all three of them standing outside the tower, no-one is inside protecting Jon.

[Sub_Zero94]

wouldn't Ned have crossed Benjen's path up in Winterfell when he called his banners? You would think Benjen would have told Ned what he knew and that Lyanna was Not kidnapped

But, Ned still amongst Roberts army when they went south to Storms End, had to continue to play it off I suppose , and keep with Robert's opinion , as a front, that she was kidnapped.

If she went willingly and that was commonly known, that may have soured things for the Baratheons and the Starks.. Not something ideal to kick off a new reign in the realm

[Sub_Zero94]

It does seem a little weird that Lyanna was apparently screaming so loudly for her brother that he could hear her from hundreds of yards outside the tower, calling for him desperately despite being seriously ill, and the King's Guard were still trying to kill him. What the Hell guys?

Lyanna, if she had lived and they had killed Ned, would have been fucking pissed.

It was a "Tower Long Fallen" ..

doesn't sound soundproof to me

[alienarea]

Because this is a fever dream.

[Lady Howell]

It was a "Tower Long Fallen" ..

doesn't sound soundproof to me

Still, she was screaming for him. And apparently loud enough that Ned could hear, so the King's Guard probably did, too.

[Sub_Zero94]

Still, she was screaming for him. And apparently loud enough that Ned could hear, so the King's Guard probably did, too.

had something important to say just before she died and the perfect candidate to tell this to had just arrived. "Lord Eddarrrrd"

[Lady Howell]

had something important to say just before she died and the perfect candidate to tell this to had just arrived. "Lord Eddarrrrd"

And yet the King's Guard decides they're gonna kill that perfect candidate.

[Jory Cassel]

All I'm saying is that BOTH options - fighting with Ned without trying to negotiate with him OR trusting him to keep a bargain if they DO negotiate and make a deal - are risky. Either way they choose, they ARE taking a chance. And what I really don't see is why it's MORE risky to TRY to negotiate with Ned than to fight WITHOUT TRYING to negotiate at all.

What do they risk by bringing Ned in, letting him talk to Lyanna, and seeing if they can make a deal to get Jon safely out of the country? If the negotiations fail and the KG is unconvinced, then they just put Ned out on the doorstep and try to kill him like they did in the book; nothing is WORSE than before for them. But if the negotiations succeed - if they can come to an agreement with Lyanna and Ned about how they can get safely out of the country with the baby (say, as I suggested, that Ned leaves his friends behind after swearing them to silence and comes WITH the KG to the port as insurance for the good behavior of his friends) then they have REDUCED the risk to the baby and themselves. So much to gain and NOTHING to lose by trying to negotiate.

Basically, you still haven't told me what the KG have to lose by trying to negotiate with Ned and enlisting Lyanna's help in convincing him, instead of ignoring her screaming and going all "HULK SMASH!" indiscriminately at Ned - risking Jon's life unnecessarily.

umm..:

All I'm saying is that BOTH options - fighting with Ned without trying to negotiate with him OR trusting him to keep a bargain if they DO negotiate and make a deal - are risky.

If an option has risks, which are, as you mention, Ned not sticking to what was negotiated afterwards is one, then they have something to lose. You just answered your own question.

Several potential reasons come to mind, secrecy for instance: they could've manage to defeat the seven (almost did) and in that case, who else would know of the tower?

Then there's the one you name yourself: if they make a bargain, who can say whether Ned does not crack later on and give away their flight? Considering Ned's loyalty and devotion to Robert, it certainly is a viable possibility.

Er, what? Are you saying they all just sat in a tent moving pins on a map while the grunts did the work of fighting? That's not how leaders of soldiers work in Westeros. Or are you saying they all were just archers and shot arrows while the grunts did the hand-to-hand combat? We never saw Ned use a bow. But we DID see him use a sword. Archery is a highly skilled specialization, but ALL gentlemen are trained to use their swords.

That is how Tywin and Stannis conduct war.

Examples of the contrary would be Robert and Jaime, who are not only both excellent fighters, but they also revel in it, which can't be said for Ned.

Do you care to back up the claim that Ned and his friends went through an entire war and did NO hand-to-hand combat?

It is absolutely absurd to make a claim one is not being able to back it up and then assume it is valid until the opposite is proven.

[The guy from the Vale]

IMO, the question doesn't stand a serious analysis. The KG defend the king, obey the king and so on. Who was their king? Put in another way, was Jon his king?

A) He wasn't. Why on earth were they fighting to dead to protect some boy from his own uncle?

B ) He was. Queen Regent Lyanna ruled their party. Did she ordered them to kill his own brother before seing him?

No way.

Forget about orders from a dead man, and convulated explanations. They had a duty, and it can't be with Jon. I'm afraid you'll have to try harder.

If a QR had already been established by this time (not a given, but ok...) Rhaella, as the wife of the last king, grandmother of the current king, and a Targ herself, would have been a much better option than a feverish teenage girl with family ties to the rebels.

It does seem a little weird that Lyanna was apparently screaming so loudly for her brother that he could hear her from hundreds of yards outside the tower, calling for him desperately despite being seriously ill, and the King's Guard were still trying to kill him. What the Hell guys?

Lyanna, if she had lived and they had killed Ned, would have been fucking pissed.

First of all, that's probably Vayon Poole seeping into the dream. But even then... a watchtower is unlikely to be "hundreds of yards" high, and it sounds like they fought at the foot of said tower. Taken together, I'd guess they were no more than one hundred feet away from Lyanna, and possibly much less.

[FittleLinger]

IMO, the question doesn't stand a serious analysis. The KG defend the king, obey the king and so on. Who was their king? Put in another way, was Jon his king?

A) He wasn't. Why on earth were they fighting to dead to protect some boy from his own uncle?

B ) He was. Queen Regent Lyanna ruled their party. Did she ordered them to kill his own brother before seing him?

No way.

Forget about orders from a dead man, and convulated explanations. They had a duty, and it can't be with Jon. I'm afraid you'll have to try harder.

Wait what? In one case they had a duty, in the other - someone must've ordered them?

I really, really don't get the ordering part. No, there is noone running the show. Their vow is running the show, as much as they admit.

If a janitor is at work and sees a spilled soda, does he clean it because someone ordered him, or because it's his job?

And if later you ask him why he did it, and he says, "Because it's my job", and you still wonder who gave him the order, then there's something convulted in your world perceptions.

If a QR had already been established by this time (not a given, but ok...) Rhaella, as the wife of the last king, grandmother of the current king, and a Targ herself, would have been a much better option than a feverish teenage girl with family ties to the rebels.

First of all, that's probably Vayon Poole seeping into the dream. But even then... a watchtower is unlikely to be "hundreds of yards" high, and it sounds like they fought at the foot of said tower. Taken together, I'd guess they were no more than one hundred feet away from Lyanna, and possibly much less.

Didn't the wildlings hear Hodor hodoring in a similar tower while they were outside? Or was it just the show (I think the books had it as well?).

[Ygrain]

If a QR had already been established by this time (not a given, but ok...) Rhaella, as the wife of the last king, grandmother of the current king, and a Targ herself, would have been a much better option than a feverish teenage girl with family ties to the rebels.

Not to mention that Rhaegar was never king, so Lyanna is not a queen.

Wait what? In one case they had a duty, in the other - someone must've ordered them?

I really, really don't get the ordering part. No, there is noone running the show. Their vow is running the show, as much as they admit.

If a janitor is at work and sees a spilled soda, does he clean it because someone ordered him, or because it's his job?

And if later you ask him why he did it, and he says, "Because it's my job", and you still wonder who gave him the order, then there's something convulted in your world perceptions.

To take your analogy a bit further: if the spilled soda is on the tenth floor and the janitor doesn't go there because he is currently sweeping the ground floor, the lift is out of order and there is a secretary on the tenth floor who can clean it away for him, is he doing his job?

[Fred of Ashai]

The Great Council was called not because the succession was unclear but because the next in the line was an infant son of a mad prince, which would mean years of regency and a very uncertain outcome. We are told elsewhere that a child lord is not good for the land and the same applies for a child king - not because his claim is somehow at doubt but because an adult king is better for the realm.

Doesn't this logic apply equally to a newborn Jon Snow?

I could see your point if Aerion Brightflame's son had been proclaimed king immediately upon Maekar's death, and then the Great Council ousted him in favor of Aegon V. That is not what happened. There was a period of time after Maekar died when there was no king. Then the Council decided to give it to Aegon V. Similarly here, when Aerys died, there would have to be a period of time when there was no king but there were two candidates. The Kings guards don't have the right to make their own decision as between those two candidates.

Whether Viserys was safe at Dragonstone did not matter. If he is the first in the succession line, then the KG are not doing their job by letting other people do it.

Where do you get the idea that Jon would automatically come before Viserys in the line of succession? It isn't stated anywhere in the texts. The Targaryens set up new rules when they needed to, and the only time this issue came up before Aerys died, a Great Council had to be called to sort it out.

The fact is, as far as the Kings guards were concerned, there were two potential claimants. They would have been remiss if they had abandoned one of those claimants to go guard the other one, since they aren't supposed to play the Game of Thrones.

The proper solution for Viserys being without Kings guards at that point would be to appoint some new Kings guards. There were several vacancies after the Trident (with Martell and Darry dead, for example) and it would have been easy to fill those spots with loyal knights on Dragonstone.