R + L = J v 74

[Ygrain]

Old Threads Are Funny :D

Whistling for the devil, aren't we?

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Jamie Lannister "His vow to his king came first" When talking about his vow to cat

Barristan "Strictly speaking it's up to the king to extend kingsguard protection"

None of these fit with what Rhaegar saying guard my mistress and her bastard no matter what. And i think refutes to idea that they swore a personal vow to Rhaegar

Based on TPATQ 2 kingsguard for the heir seems standard

@alia apparently Statwofwhatever thinks Aeries madness is propaganda and has nothing to do with his fall, or something i didn't read to closely

[stateofdissipation]

Jamie Lannister "His vow to his king came first" When talking about his vow to cat

Barristan "Strictly speaking it's up to the king to extend kingsguard protection"

None of these fit with what Rhaegar saying guard my mistress and her bastard no matter what. And i think refutes to idea that they swore a personal vow to Rhaegar

Based on TPATQ 2 kingsguard for the heir seems standard

@alia apparently Statwofwhatever thinks Aeries madness is propaganda and has nothing to do with his fall, or something i didn't read to closely

We know the KG is sworn to obey the king

We know the LC was ordered to return Rhaegar to KL.

Obeying Rhaegar's orders was below their vows and the Kings orders.

Rhaegar did not have the authority to order the LC but he did have leverage on him-- The King's order to return Rhaegar to KL

Swear a vow to guard the ToJ until I return and I will go.

Rhaegar did not plan to die on the trident. In fact there is evidence to show he planned on deposing Aerys. The LC in KL would not help him to that end.

This scenario makes the LC's we swore a vow fit perfectly

If the vow was not new information it was a statement that explained common knowledge.

The KG presence at ToJ shows that there was something very important to Rhaegar there.

That with Lyanna's crypt

Mormont's Raven

and Thorne

the legitimazation of bastards

setting aside of wives

(can't include polygamy as it was not practiced in the Seven Kingdoms in living memory)

the fact that the birth was over a year after Lyanna went missing.

Make a great case for the thing that was very important to Rhaegar was his wife and child.

As a standalone theory KG at ToJ= Jon Targaryen is not conclusive and requires too many stretches to be convincing, Something that claims to be the only logical explaination is neither only nor logical.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

We know the KG is sworn to obey the king

We know the LC was ordered to return Rhaegar to KL.

Obeying Rhaegar's orders was below their vows and the Kings orders.

Rhaegar did not have the authority to order the LC but he did have leverage on him-- The King's order to return Rhaegar to KL

Swear a vow to guard the ToJ until I return and I will go.

Rhaegar did not plan to die on the trident. In fact there is evidence to show he planned on deposing Aerys. The LC in KL would not help him to that end.

This scenario makes the LC's we swore a vow fit perfectly

If the vow was not new information it was a statement that explained common knowledge.

The KG presence at ToJ shows that there was something very important to Rhaegar there.

That with Lyanna's crypt

Mormont's Raven

and Thorne

the legitimazation of bastards

setting aside of wives

(can't include polygamy as it was not practiced in the Seven Kingdoms in living memory)

the fact that the birth was over a year after Lyanna went missing.

Make a great case for the thing that was very important to Rhaegar was his wife and child.

As a standalone theory KG at ToJ= Jon Targaryen is not conclusive and requires too many stretches to be convincing, Something that claims to be the only logical explaination is neither only nor logical.

The raven and saying his full name for the first time is b/c it's most likely Bran and not Bloodraven, we have no idea what Bran knows, but we do know Bloodraven telling Jon's parentage to Bran wasn't a high priority

Once Rhaegar's dead his leverage disappears

[stateofdissipation]

The raven and saying his full name for the first time is b/c it's most likely Bran and not Bloodraven, we have no idea what Bran knows, but we do know Bloodraven telling Jon's parentage to Bran wasn't a high priority

Once Rhaegar's dead his leverage disappears

No piece of the Jon Targaryen theory is proof there is no it must be.

All the pieces could go in several ways. However when all the pieces are together, it becomes hard to deny.

I personally HATE Jon Targ. I can explain away three beore I start to wonder if i am just trying to deny it because I hate it. I can explain away all 6 individually. When i try to explain away them all at the same time, I see that i am missing something that actually is there.

The King's order for LC to return Rhaegar to KL was his leverage.... to get the vow

The vow kept them there.

that was LC's we swore a vow...

We swore a vow, Ser Gerald explained...

Either that was him explaining common knowledge or explaining that the vow that kept them from the trident, and KL is going to keep him from yeilding.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

No piece of the Jon Targaryen theory is proof there is no it must be.

All the pieces could go in several ways. However when all the pieces are together, it becomes hard to deny.

I personally HATE Jon Targ. I can explain away three beore I start to wonder if i am just trying to deny it because I hate it. I can explain away all 6 individually. When i try to explain away them all at the same time, I see that i am missing something that actually is there.

The King's order for LC to return Rhaegar to KL was his leverage.... to get the vow

The vow kept them there.

that was LC's we swore a vow...

We swore a vow, Ser Gerald explained...

Either that was him explaining common knowledge or explaining that the vow that kept them from the trident, and KL is going to keep him from yeilding.

I just posted a quote where Jamie says his vow to his king trumps his other vow, Rheagar was never king so ergo any vow to Rhaegar would be trumped, F Logic though

[Alia of the knife]

Whistling for the devil, aren't we?

Wow, that was fast! :wideeyed:

And as to your advice on hives, I just went to the entertainment part of the thread to discuss "Vikings," so I had my therapy. :laugh:

[stateofdissipation]

I just posted a quote where Jamie says his vow to his king trumps his other vow, Rheagar was never king so ergo any vow to Rhaegar would be trumped, F Logic though

Jamie... the person that the LC called our false brother. Jamie... there are too many vows. The Kingslayer. the man that had sex with his king's wife..quoted about his vow to his king--who happened to be his son-- to prove that LC Hightower would make and break a vow to anybody because Hightower's vow to his king came first. The mind wobbles ergo-Consequently; therefore--

You missed an ERGO-- Aerys and Aegon

The KG first dury is to his king ERGO the KG rode back to KL.... I suppose that was not included because it did not happen.

Jamiie sees vows as competing and conflicting, that is what makes him dishonorable. LC Hightower kept his vows...if he made it he lived up to it that is what made him an honorable man.

In my scenario....the LC plus 2 obeyed the king and returned Rhaegar to KL The price they paid was a vow. They obeyed their vows as KG and their vow to Rhaegar. There is nothing that conflicts.

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Jamie... the person that the LC called our false brother. Jamie... there are too many vows. The Kingslayer. the man that had sex with his king's wife..quoted about his vow to his king--who happened to be his son-- to prove that LC Hightower would make and break a vow to anybody because Hightower's vow to his king came first. The mind wobbles ergo-Consequently; therefore--

You missed an ERGO-- Aerys and Aegon

The KG first dury is to his king ERGO the KG rode back to KL.... I suppose that was not included because it did not happen.

Jamiie sees vows as competing and conflicting, that is what makes him dishonorable. LC Hightower kept his vows...if he made it he lived up to it that is what made him an honorable man.

In my scenario....the LC plus 2 obeyed the king and returned Rhaegar to KL The price they paid was a vow. They obeyed their vows as KG and their vow to Rhaegar. There is nothing that conflicts.

Aeries and Aegon are "protected" by jamie. The argument is not why they stayed before Rhaegars death, it's why they stayed after Aeryes and Aegon died.

THe fact that it's jamie doesn't support your argument, it actually opposes it.......I would also point out that Jamie is basically a different person with a different out look on honor/vows when he says my quote

[Alia of the knife]

Dear LC Hightower,

Here are the updated policies that you wanted clarified. I do hope that this clears up any confusion.

1). A robot KG may not injure a human member of the royal family or, through inaction, allow a human being royal to come to harm.
2). A robot KG must obey orders given it by human beings the King except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3). A robot KG must protect its his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

You will note that we have borrowed similar rules which exist in far flung kingdoms and have proven most successful, so if there is any continued confusion in your ranks, I don't know what to tell you to do other than to fire them, (um not fire them literally- please try to handle this locally, and through effective coaching, make sure that this doesn't have to go all the way to the top).

Kind Regards,
Maester Crapster
Citadel Research Team

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.......(she says running away) :leaving: :leaving:

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Dear LC Hightower,

Here are the updated policies that you wanted clarified. I do hope that this clears up any confusion.

1). A robot KG may not injure a human member of the royal family or, through inaction, allow a human being royal to come to harm.

2). A robot KG must obey orders given it by human beings the King except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3). A robot KG must protect its his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

You will note that we have borrowed similar rules which exist in far flung kingdoms and have proven most successful, so if there is any continued confusion in your ranks, I don't know what to tell you to do other than to fire them, (um not fire them literally- please try to handle this locally, and through effective coaching, make sure that this doesn't have to go all the way to the top).

Kind Regards,

Maester Crapster

Citadel Research Team

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.......(she says running away) :leaving: :leaving:

Applause!!

:D

[Fred of Ashai]

Aeries and Aegon are "protected" by jamie. The argument is not why they stayed before Rhaegars death, it's why they stayed after Aeryes and Aegon died.

Don't you mean, after Aerys and Rhaegar died? They didn't know Aegon was "dead."

[stateofdissipation]

Aeries and Aegon are "protected" by jamie. The argument is not why they stayed before Rhaegars death, it's why they stayed after Aeryes and Aegon died.

THe fact that it's jamie doesn't support your argument, it actually opposes it.......I would also point out that Jamie is basically a different person with a different out look on honor/vows when he says my quote

Rheagar was never king so ergo any vow to Rhaegar would be trumped

Your quote said the KG first duty is to the king.

Aerys did not order the LC to remain at the tower of joy. Any vow the LC gave to Rhaegar was trumped because he was not king. Ergo LC rode back to Kingslanding.

Of course the argument is not why they stayed before Rhaegar's death and Aerys and Aegon's as well. That is because if you include it the first duty to the king does not make sense.

Look, I support, (and hate), Jon Targaryen. I can wholeheartedly agree that there was something pretty important to Rhaegar in the ToJ. I can't see a way to twist things to make it a needs must be or logical for the KG to remain because of their duties. I would love to. It would elevate the Theory of Jon Targ to a fact. It just isnt there.

You can prove without a doubt that whatever was in the ToJ was important.... that is all. with the other evidence it is enough to make it a solid theory maybe even an accepted theory. What you are looking for is for one small part of a bigger picture to sprout into a fact.

It may. but it won't be as easy as quoting jamie.

[Fred of Ashai]

Dear LC Hightower,

Here are the updated policies that you wanted clarified. I do hope that this clears up any confusion.

1). A robot KG may not injure a human member of the royal family or, through inaction, allow a human being royal to come to harm.

2). A robot KG must obey orders given it by human beings the King except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3). A robot KG must protect its his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

You will note that we have borrowed similar rules which exist in far flung kingdoms and have proven most successful, so if there is any continued confusion in your ranks, I don't know what to tell you to do other than to fire them, (um not fire them literally- please try to handle this locally, and through effective coaching, make sure that this doesn't have to go all the way to the top).

Kind Regards,

Maester Crapster

Citadel Research Team

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.......(she says running away) :leaving: :leaving:

What would happen if the king (let's call him Aegon) had to flee Kimg's Landing (let's say there was a civil war going on) and he had two King's guards (let's call them Rickard and Willas), two of his children and his master of whisperers with him.

Now let's say the king wants to go to Dragonstone, he wants to divide his heirs and he wants each of them to have a King's guard with him/her. So he orders one to go with his son and the other to go with his daughter, which would have him, the king, fleeing to Dragonstone with no King's guards protecting him.

Would the King's guards obey that order?

What if it was the master of whisperers instead of the king who gave the order? (Why don't we go ahead and call him Larys?)

[Alia of the knife]

What would happen if the king (let's call him Aegon) had to flee Kimg's Landing (let's say there was a civil war going on) and he had two King's guards (let's call them Rickard and Willas), two of his children and his master of whisperers with him.

Now let's say the king wants to go to Dragonstone, he wants to divide his heirs and he wants each of them to have a King's guard with him/her. So he orders one to go with his son and the other to go with his daughter, which would have him, the king, fleeing to Dragonstone with no King's guards protecting him.

Would the King's guards obey that order?

What if it was the master of whisperers instead of the king who gave the order? (Why don't we go ahead and call him Larys?)

I was a little dramatic because the KG irritate me.

I don't have a good answer as I am actually not a fan of the KG with their "just following orders" and find them disturbing.

If your alluding to Varys having a role, I think he does, as to what extent, I don't know.

[Ygrain]

Dear LC Hightower,

Here are the updated policies that you wanted clarified. I do hope that this clears up any confusion.

1). A robot KG may not injure a human member of the royal family or, through inaction, allow a human being royal to come to harm.

2). A robot KG must obey orders given it by human beings the King except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3). A robot KG must protect its his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

You will note that we have borrowed similar rules which exist in far flung kingdoms and have proven most successful, so if there is any continued confusion in your ranks, I don't know what to tell you to do other than to fire them, (um not fire them literally- please try to handle this locally, and through effective coaching, make sure that this doesn't have to go all the way to the top).

Kind Regards,

Maester Crapster

Citadel Research Team

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.......(she says running away) :leaving: :leaving:

Well done! Now, where's the manual how to use your KG?

I was a little dramatic because the KG irritate me.

I don't have a good answer as I am actually not a fan of the KG with their "just following orders" and find them disturbing.

If your alluding to Varys having a role, I think he does, as to what extent, I don't know.

Because it is not a good question. We know already that the king can order the KG to stand aside - Robert ordered that to Barristan when hunting the boar, and the same Barristan knows that he would have to obey Dany if she assigned him to guard Hizdahr instead of her. The king/queen, though, is the person that they are sworn to, and thus the only person who can relieve them of the duty. Note also that fulfilling the duty is a collective requirement - the king needs a KG, no matter which, and as long as that one is doing his duty, they all are. Remove that one, and none of them is, and without the king's direct order, they have no excuse. The vow knows no conditions, either it is being kept, or not. If it is not being kept, and they make no attempt at its fulfilling, they are oathbreakers.

[Eira Seren]

"I still have questions as to Dayne and Whents presence with Rhaegar prior to the "abduction."

He didn't always have them 24/7 since he went alone to Summerhall, so is it posdible that Aerys eventually found out that Lyanna was tKotLT and Aerys ordered the three to arrest her, but Rhaegar took her instead to th TOJ to hide her?

Or else what were Dayne and Whent doing away from Aerys to start with?

Wouldn't they have to have Aerys permission to accompany Rhaegar on the day of the abduction?

Edited by Alia of the knife, Today, 04:42 AM. "

I wonder if there was some kind of understanding, where Dayne and Whent were frequently on retainer, so to speak, to Rhaegar, seeing as how they were so close. Otherwise, it would appear very odd and suspicious to Aerys (who already seemed suspicious of Rhaegar going to the Whent-hosted Tourney) that two members of the KG disappeared just when Rhaegar did. Instead of ordering the arrest of Brandon et. al, he doesn't call for Rhaegar's arrest. Though perhaps that's what he sent Hightower to do? Not sure if that fits.

Alright... :-)

Er... sorry. Get the ointment ready :leaving:

Except being consistently considered to be the very embodiment of an ideal knight, there is one more feature repeatedly connected with Arthur Dayne: sadness.

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life. Yet these were no ordinary three. They waited before the round tower, the red mountains of Dorne at their backs, their white cloaks blowing in the wind. And these were no shadows; their faces burned clear, even now. Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips.

“I swore an oath to keep him safe,” she said to Rhaegar’s shade. “I swore a holy oath.”

“We all swore oaths,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, so sadly.

In both situations, the sadness is connected with the vows (as i tis the reason why the KG at ToJ act the way they do). I think that it indicates that Dayne was forced by his vows into something he very much didn't want to do but he was trapped in the concept of honour that didn't allow him a way out. What I find interesting is that the second quote is Jaime's PoV (his dream on the weirwood) and I wonder what he might know about the source of Arthur's sadness.

Furthermore, Arthur's sadness is reflected in Ned's own attitude to the ToJ fight:

He had asked Lord Eddard if the Kingsguard were truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms. “No longer,” he answered, “but once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world.”

“Was there one who was best of all?”

“The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed.” Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more.

“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.”

I believe that Ned's respect and sadness for Dayne stems from the fact that they were both men of honour, acting by the same codes, which makes the inevitable fight at ToJ even more tragic.

Furthermore, if Dayne is the finest knight that ever lived and a shining example to the world in Ned’s eyes, it can mean only one thing: he was indeed true to his KG vows till the end. Ned, whose own honour wavered only for love, would never accept any excuses why the KG weren’t with Viserys if he was the king.

Nice catch on the sadness. This is quite convincing.

Ygrain, that is great stuff digging up the sadness aspect to Arthur Dayne.

I wonder though if it is meant to be part of Dayne or rather the bitterness of being honour-bound to do things that seem wrong to the heart.

Oh my. This. :)

I think maybe it was always part of Dayne, though when the future looked bright and he could dream of helping Rhaegar put the kingdom right, it was a much easier choice. The bitterness likely came after the Trident.

And once Ned has to make some difficult choices between love and duty/honor, I think he finally understands Dayne.

Dear LC Hightower,

Here are the updated policies that you wanted clarified. I do hope that this clears up any confusion.

1). A robot KG may not injure a human member of the royal family or, through inaction, allow a human being royal to come to harm.

2). A robot KG must obey orders given it by human beings the King except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3). A robot KG must protect its his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

You will note that we have borrowed similar rules which exist in far flung kingdoms and have proven most successful, so if there is any continued confusion in your ranks, I don't know what to tell you to do other than to fire them, (um not fire them literally- please try to handle this locally, and through effective coaching, make sure that this doesn't have to go all the way to the top).

Kind Regards,

Maester Crapster

Citadel Research Team

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.......(she says running away) :leaving: :leaving:

Excellent, as always!

Athelstan in season 2 is also a good cure for the hives :)

[Ygrain]

I might also add that the KGing seems very much like parental duties. A young child must always be supervised, by mother or father, not necessarily both. In their absence, an au-pair may be arranged, for a short period of time.

The situation with Viserys on Dragonstone is as if the mother was taken to hospital, the child was staying with some distant relatives, and the father didn't bother to return from a business trip nor showed the slightest inclination to.

[J. Stargaryen]

I think this KG-at-the-ToJ business is a lot less complex than some make it out to be. Forget the minutia of the situation. Pull back the lens for a minute and take a look at what you see: a fantasy story in which the dead Crown Prince's secret baby boy is guarded by three knights of a group called the Kingsguard. If you knew nothing else about the story, but you had to guess whether or not that baby is the heir to the throne, I bet most of you would assume he is.

But knowing more about the story you realize that there are certain obstacles in place of this baby being the heir. For example, the baby must be of legitimate birth to be the heir. And as we all know, this cannot be the case because the Crown Prince was already married. But upon closer inspection, the author has provided a solution to this problem in the form of polygamous marriage. Convenient. Again, if you knew only this, would you be more likely to believe the baby was legitimate, or not? I'm guessing it would be the former, by a good margin too. I can go on a bit further, but I think you get the point.

Because of this 'big picture' problem, people who attempt to argue against the KG's presence at the ToJ as evidence of Jon's legitimacy move right on to arguing details. Yet, as luck would have it, those same details work at least as much in favor of Jon's legitimacy as not. In fact, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, the dots connect in a most coherent way. Strange, that.

So, from where I'm sitting, it seems to me that individuals who wish to argue against Jon's legitimacy are left only with the ability to suggest alternatives when gaps in information present themselves. Which makes it appear as if that argument has been painted into a corner, so to speak. Odd, that.

Not that most of you need convincing, but it's just something I wanted to get off my chest after watching the last thread get buried under details.

[Lyse Stark]

I think this KG-at-the-ToJ business is a lot less complex than some make it out to be. Forget the minutia of the situation. Pull back the lens for a minute and take a look at what you see: a fantasy story in which the dead Crown Prince's secret baby boy is guarded by three knights of a group called the Kingsguard. If you knew nothing else about the story, but you had to guess whether or not that baby is the heir to the throne, I bet most of you would assume he is.

But knowing more about the story you realize that there are certain obstacles in place of this baby being the heir. For example, the baby must be of legitimate birth to be the heir. And as we all know, this cannot be the case because the Crown Prince was already married. But upon closer inspection, the author has provided a solution to this problem in the form of polygamous marriage. Convenient. Again, if you knew only this, would you be more likely to believe the baby was legitimate, or not? I'm guessing it would be the former, by a good margin too. I can go on a bit further, but I think you get the point.

Because of this 'big picture' problem, people who attempt to argue against the KG's presence at the ToJ as evidence of Jon's legitimacy move right on to arguing details. Yet, as luck would have it, those same details work at least as much in favor of Jon's legitimacy as not. In fact, as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, the dots connect in a most coherent way. Strange, that.

So, from where I'm sitting, it seems to me that individuals who wish to argue against Jon's legitimacy are left only with the ability to suggest alternatives when gaps in information present themselves. Which makes it appear as if that argument has been painted into a corner, so to speak. Odd, that.

Not that most of you need convincing, but it's just something I wanted to get off my chest after watching the last thread get buried under details.

:agree:

The point most of us agree on is that Jon was born legitimate, but he was forced to live as a bastard for his own safety. Yet the false identity of "Snow" is melting away to reveal "Targaryen".