R+L=J v.162

[J. Stargaryen]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

What is the central mystery in the series? Jon Snow's true parentage?

I did not doubt that the presence of the Kingsguard at the tower is a strong hint that Lyanna gave birth to Rhaegar Targaryen's child in said tower (or was residing with said child in there at a certain point in time).

But I see no reason to arbitrarily make a big deal about these three Kingsguard dying protecting Lyanna and the child. There is no reason to see that as foreshadowing for Jon's eventual destiny just there is little reason to buy a lot of the other real or alleged foreshadowing. Jon could very well become king in the end - but that has nothing to do with the question whether he was seen as king by the three Kingsguard or by anybody else at the time of his birth.

In fact, I think the chances for that to happen, the chances that Jon Snow was born as the rightful king and just never crowned and raised as a bastard effectively died with TWoIaF. If he becomes King on the Iron Throne he'll only do so after the other Targaryen claimants have died.

I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary. The ToJ scene is one of the most important in the first book, and the series really. There's good reason to value the (potential) symbolism in it. Aside from what I'm talking about, GRRM didn't just coincidentally give the three KG bat, bull and magical sword symbolism. That stuff has meaning. It was carefully chosen by GRRM.

As for TWoIaF, Jon can still be born the rightful claimant, especially in the eyes of the KG.

[Kingmonkey]

5 hours ago, MtnLion said:

We know how reviled Jaime is for breaking his vow.  Ned revered, honored and respected these three Kingsguard.  He did not erect a communal grave for them, but built each one their own cairn.  He says to Bran that once the Kingsguard had been a shining example to the world, and that the greatest knight among them was Arthur Dayne.  So, what did they do that gathered Ned's respect and admiration?  It seems the most likely explanation is that they held true to their vow and died defending their king. 

Ned didn't revile Jaime for simply breaking his vow -- to protect they king -- he reviled Jaime for dishonoring the vow by being the person who actually killed the king. 

Barristan Selmy did NOT die defending the Targaryens, he switched sides. Jonothor Darry and Lewyn Martell did die defending their king, yet it's Selmy, not either of those two, who Ned seems to regard most highly of the KG who weren't at the ToJ. Clearly holding true to their vows and dying defending the king is not sufficient nor necessary for Ned to hold a KG in high honour.

It's fairly fundamental to the way Ned is presented in contrast to the attitudes of the south that he places huge importance on honour, but very little on chivalric dressings.  Which would Ned consider more honorable -- a knight who broke his vows for the sake of honour, or a Knight who followed a dishonourable order for the sake of his vows?

What the 3KG did that gathered Ned's respect and admiration must have been something he considered honorable, but that's really all that can be said about it.

[MtnLion]

4 hours ago, Black Crow said:

Yet GRRM makes it very clear that they are bound to obey orders given by Prince Rhaegar

No, he says, "certain orders".  Now, a good question might be what certain orders could Prince Rhaegar give?  Perhaps like the one that he gave Jaime, as he left for the Trident. 

[Lord Varys]

48 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I'm not sure what you mean by arbitrary.

I mean that the fact that this scene might be important for the plot doesn't mean that it has to be treated very specially. It is a part of the books like a lot of other scenes and chapters much of which are equally important. I don't see a good reason to single it out to be super special.

That doesn't I want to say it is an average or unimportant scene. It is an important scene. But there are lots of them in those books. And actually, if I'd do an in-depth study of the books I'd not search for a lot foreshadowing in the fever dream scene but would rather compare and contrast it to the other dream scenes we have in the books. But that's just me.

48 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

The ToJ scene is one of the most important in the first book, and the series really.

I'm not sure it is that important, though. This 'central mystery thing' is overrated. I find the mystery of the Others to be much more central to the overall story than who the hell Jon Snow's parents were. It is already quite clear that he is a core character of the series despite the fact that people yet think he is Ned Stark's bastard. The story could be finished even without revealing this mystery with little change to the overall plot.

Yes, it is interesting to know who Jon Snow's parents were and how that relays to the overall plot. But the fever dream and whatever transpired at the tower is not really all that important for the mystery itself. In AGoT it just works as a way to provide us with a clue.

George could easily enough reveal the mystery of Jon Snow's parentage as well as his role in the prophecy/final battle etc. without ever returning to the tower in detail or elaborate on the fight between Ned and the Kingsguard. We don't need to know all the details to know or figure out who Jon Snow is. We already know it. So George could just have some guy confirm it for us and then move on with the plot - which should be concerned with Jon Snow's actual role in the story, not what a bunch of dead people thought his role might be.

In that sense I don't think this scene is particularly special among all the other scenes that give us hints about Jon Snow the series has to offer.

48 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

There's good reason to value the (potential) symbolism in it. Aside from what I'm talking about, GRRM didn't just coincidentally give the three KG bat, bull and magical sword symbolism. That stuff has meaning. It was carefully chosen by GRRM.

A lot of stuff is carefully chosen by the man. There is reason why he takes his time writing the books.

48 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

As for TWoIaF, Jon can still be born the rightful claimant, especially in the eyes of the KG.

Not after the revelation that Viserys III was Aerys' new heir after the Trident. If the dream Kingsguard knew about the Sack they also knew about that, and if they knew about that they would and could not have seen Lyanna's son as the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. If you want to insist they did not know about Aerys' death and the Sack but not about that you are just not making any sense.

Besides, the symbolic meaning pretty much disappears anyway if you think about it. A bunch of knights in the middle of nowhere believing an infant is the true king when the previous king has actually chosen and anointed his successor weeks ago, and his wife subsequently had him crowned.

I mean, honestly, what worth is such a 'symbolic meaning' if it is just the minority opinion of those three guys? The symbolism was strong while one could assume that the line of succession was sort of fixed (and not just a guideline) and that the Targaryens (Aerys and Rhaella) would have considered Lyanna's son next in line after Aegon. But that is dead now, considering that Aerys II had already preferred Viserys to Aegon, and might even have been able to disinherit Rhaegar in favor of Viserys.

There is nothing left of the concept of a rightful king in such a scenario. And thus the knights at the tower would look like utter morons if they actually thought that this infant was the rightful king. They would ignore the legal realities of the world they are living - and of which they would have to be very aware - and instead treat their personal opinion about the royal succession as sacrosanct facts.

Jon Connington, Lemore, and the entire Golden Company also think Prince Aegon is the rightful King of Westeros. Yet none of them ever refers to him or addresses him as King Aegon VI.

The knights at the tower can think Lyanna's son has royal blood. They can think he is a Targaryen prince and has a claim to the Iron Throne. But it doesn't make any sense that they would believe he already is the king or that only he could be the next Targaryen king.

And speaking about that:

Things change. AGoT gave us no indication that there was tension or mistrust between Aerys and Rhaegar. Thus it is hardly surprising that the dream Kingsguard present themselves as stalwart Targaryen loyalists who make no difference between Aerys and Rhaegar. But we know since ASoS that things aren't as easy as they appeared in the first book, making it entirely possible that the fever dream dialogue does not accurately depict the opinions of the people featured therein. George didn't write the whole thing as a dream for no reason. It gives him more than a little leeway to change things, especially considering that he has already stated that we should not take this dream literally.

[Black Crow]

7 hours ago, MtnLion said:

No, he says, "certain orders".  Now, a good question might be what certain orders could Prince Rhaegar give?  Perhaps like the one that he gave Jaime, as he left for the Trident. 

Now we're into semantics because as always context is everything. GRRM gave that response to the question why the Kingsguard were at that tower.

[Lord Varys]

@Kingmonkey

Your words fall on ears made of stones. It has been repeatedly pointed out that

- Ned does not hold the three knights at the tower but only Ser Arthur Dayne (for an unknown reason) in high regards.

- Ned has no reason to consider a Kingsguard staying true to his vow to be a great deal - presumably Robert's Kingsguard are supposed to do the same, right? Yet he has no great praise for them.

- Ned is asked about great knights and knighthood when he talks about the Kingsguard as a shining example. His focus and point is not what makes a good Kingsguard but what makes a good knight.

- Ned's problem with the post-Aerys KG is not so much that Jaime slew Aerys but that he was allowed to remain on the Kingsguard, forever tainting the order by his mere presence. A Kingsguard including a Kingslayer is no Kingsguard at all and nobody should expect to live up the high standards of the past. After all, we do know that a lot of Kingsguard actually betrayed their monarchs (back in Maegor's days and during the Dance) but that didn't damage the order as a whole.

[Wayward Sand Star]

On 16/08/2016 at 1:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

I mean that the fact that this scene might be important for the plot doesn't mean that it has to be treated very specially. It is a part of the books like a lot of other scenes and chapters much of which are equally important. I don't see a good reason to single it out to be super special.

...

And speaking about that:

Things change. AGoT gave us no indication that there was tension or mistrust between Aerys and Rhaegar. Thus it is hardly surprising that the dream Kingsguard present themselves as stalwart Targaryen loyalists who make no difference between Aerys and Rhaegar. But we know since ASoS that things aren't as easy as they appeared in the first book, making it entirely possible that the fever dream dialogue does not accurately depict the opinions of the people featured therein. George didn't write the whole thing as a dream for no reason. It gives him more than a little leeway to change things, especially considering that he has already stated that we should not take this dream literally.

I generally agree with you on all these points.

I do, however, think that GRRM made a new initial narrative choices in AGoT which could reasonably skew a reader's perception of the Tower of Joy's importance in the larger picture. I must admit that I was not struck by the change of perspective in ASoS in my first reading.

But, more importantly, even though the significance of battle at the Tower of Joy is overestimated, in the greater picture (even if much of it is still obscured) Rhaegar's abduction and (summed) impregnation of Lyanna is exactly the nexus of the two big arcs of ASoIaF: the war against the Others and the reinstatement of the Targaryan line. GRRM's notion of prophecy can't be understated, and it is in this exact context that it resonates the most powerfully: in ASoIaF, prophecies are both self-fulfilling and deterministic. The perceived meaning of a prophecy will affect its believer's actions in such a way that would bring about events that would be considered validation of the prophecy. So Rhaegar's obsession with the prophecy of the Prince That Was Promised was a contributing factor to Rhaegar's actions, which brought about a chain of reactions that would inevitably effect both the war with the Others and the return of the Dragonkings to Westeros. So for the tiny, coincidental part that the whole Tower of Joy thing plays in the larger story, it is meaningful. 

[Jon Snow Nothing]

On 15/08/2016 at 7:06 PM, Kingmonkey said:

Barristan Selmy did NOT die defending the Targaryens, he switched sides. Jonothor Darry and Lewyn Martell did die defending their king, yet it's Selmy, not either of those two, who Ned seems to regard most highly of the KG who weren't at the ToJ. Clearly holding true to their vows and dying defending the king is not sufficient nor necessary for Ned to hold a KG in high honour.

 

Really? Can you point me to the text where it is written? I always thought he was pardoned by Robert and after the Trident he surrended, when he was totally cured from the wounds. He switched sides before the battle?

I'm trully shocked now

 

edited to add: oh, now i understand what you mean. But did Darry and Martell die defending the King? Jaime was defending the King, the others were defending the Realm, the Targaryens, or even Rhaegar, but not the King. And Barristan is a legend.

The fact that makes the 3 KG in the ToJ so suspicious is that they said they swore a vow. They could be defending Lyanna and Jon, but being ready to die for them, this is highly suspicious. It's not only the presence there, but giving their life to defend the people inside the tower. Ned was certainly, before finding Lyanna, as suspicious as we are, if we recall what he asks them. There are ways to surrender, you know, in a fight...

[purple-eyes]

On August 15, 2016 at 5:22 PM, MtnLion said:

No, he says, "certain orders".  Now, a good question might be what certain orders could Prince Rhaegar give?  Perhaps like the one that he gave Jaime, as he left for the Trident. 

what order did he give to jaime?

i left my wife and children in your hands? 

this is not an order. 

if it is order, it should be " i asked you to protect them". 

rhaegar just carelessly left all his royal family to jaime, including parents, brother, wife and children. he did not order anything and he can not order KG either when his dad is around.  

 

 

[Kingmonkey]

6 hours ago, Jon Snow Nothing said:

But did Darry and Martell die defending the King? Jaime was defending the King, the others were defending the Realm, the Targaryens, or even Rhaegar, but not the King.

I think that's a pretty thin distinction, to be honest. The rebels were going to depose Aerys, the battle of the Trident was intended to stop that happening. Had the royalists won at the Trident, Aerys would not have been killed. You don't have to be standing next to the king to be defending him.

Either way, the 3KG did not die defending the king. At best they died defending a claimant to the throne.

Ned rather pointedly states in the dream dialogue that "Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were." That's rather hard to reconcile with the idea that Ned's primary thought about the 3KG is that they died defending their king. All of Ned's dialogue essentially asks the same question: why were you not doing your duty? It's a question they decline to answer, beyond saying that they swore a vow. It doesn't make much sense to argue that they were in fact doing that duty when whatever Jon's status, he certainly was NOT the king before Aerys died.

When we look at Ned's apparently positive opinion of the 3KG, we ought to be paying attention to this questioning. Somehow the 3KG must have answered Ned's questioning of their duty to his satisfaction, and that they died defending a subsequent king (or indeed someone they erroneously believed to be so) simply does not answer Ned's questions. 

6 hours ago, Jon Snow Nothing said:

And Barristan is a legend.

Agreed. As were Arthur Dayne and Gerold Hightower. I think on that basis we can assume that unless they'd done something abhorrent to him, Ned would probably have held them in high regard anyway.

6 hours ago, Jon Snow Nothing said:

The fact that makes the 3 KG in the ToJ so suspicious is that they said they swore a vow. They could be defending Lyanna and Jon, but being ready to die for them, this is highly suspicious. It's not only the presence there, but giving their life to defend the people inside the tower. Ned was certainly, before finding Lyanna, as suspicious as we are, if we recall what he asks them. There are ways to surrender, you know, in a fight...

Sure it's suspicious. I absolutely agree it meshes with the possibility that Jon was legitimate, and makes that possibility worth considering. It's the idea that it's some kind of slam-dunk proof that I find absurd. 

While I'm on the subject, let's keep in mind how little we actually know about what went on at the toj. That the 3KG "gave their life to defend the people inside the tower" is just an assumption. A very reasonable one to be sure, but there's plenty of room for major twists yet to be unveiled there. 

[IceFire125]

1 hour ago, Kingmonkey said:

Sure it's suspicious. I absolutely agree it meshes with the possibility that Jon was legitimate, and makes that possibility worth considering. It's the idea that it's some kind of slam-dunk proof that I find absurd. 

While I'm on the subject, let's keep in mind how little we actually know about what went on at the toj. That the 3KG "gave their life to defend the people inside the tower" is just an assumption. A very reasonable one to be sure, but there's plenty of room for major twists yet to be unveiled there. 

I'm of the opinion that majority of the really hardcore/longtime fans of RL=legitimate J, have this already as an understanding.  We went through the possibilities with the same severity and scrutiny (even more with the bias trying to supplant RLJ with alternatives), however we saw that it's the most likely.  

So people who are trying to be "neutral" just for the sake of neutrality and trying to display "reasonable" for other's opinions, should have such understanding as well, and hold their imposing "neutrality" on hardcore believers, for the sake of discussion, at the door.

It's like the saying... "you don't think I've thought of that before?" should always ring on opposing views/opinions of RLJ before they harp on the hardcore believers of being "open minded".

GRRM can always create room for twists in any story line in the series, not just Jon's parentage.  As a reader, I'm not hoping of GRRM trying to just give us twists, but on him to continue and tell "his" story.  If twists are in store, then let it be, if not, I won't hope for it.  I will accept them as they are in the page.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

I generally agree with you on all these points.

I do, however, think that GRRM made a new initial narrative choices in AGoT which could reasonably skew a reader's perception of the Tower of Joy's importance in the larger picture. I must admit that I was not struck by the change of perspective in ASoS in my first reading.

It is not exactly a big change of things. But since ASoS/ADwD/TWoIaF it is clear that it is rather unlikely that When or Dayne would have said something along the lines that Aerys would still sit the Iron Throne if they had been at KL - because especially Ser Oswell was actually trying to push his king out of the Iron Throne when he was helping Rhaegar to arrange the tourney at Harrenhal.

This means that Whent/Dayne and Hightower were either on opposite sides or had different agendas at the tower, or Hightower eventually came round and joined camp Rhaegar. But then it is odd that he would talk in a way about Aerys that indicated that he/they were still his men when they had long abandoned him.

But then, Rhaegar apparently never intended to actually kill his father. Technically he would still sit the Iron Throne even if a regent would rule in his stead so this might not be as big a contradiction as it seems. On the other hand Hightower's talk does indicate that he talks about his king as his sovereign monarch not some sort of puppet or figurehead whose regent is calling the shots.

19 hours ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

But, more importantly, even though the significance of battle at the Tower of Joy is overestimated, in the greater picture (even if much of it is still obscured) Rhaegar's abduction and (summed) impregnation of Lyanna is exactly the nexus of the two big arcs of ASoIaF: the war against the Others and the reinstatement of the Targaryan line. GRRM's notion of prophecy can't be understated, and it is in this exact context that it resonates the most powerfully: in ASoIaF, prophecies are both self-fulfilling and deterministic. The perceived meaning of a prophecy will affect its believer's actions in such a way that would bring about events that would be considered validation of the prophecy. So Rhaegar's obsession with the prophecy of the Prince That Was Promised was a contributing factor to Rhaegar's actions, which brought about a chain of reactions that would inevitably effect both the war with the Others and the return of the Dragonkings to Westeros. So for the tiny, coincidental part that the whole Tower of Joy thing plays in the larger story, it is meaningful. 

I actually don't think there is any reason to assume that there is a prophecy indicating a Targaryen restoration. It is evident that this is going to happen because of the four pretenders out there right now are there are two Targaryens (Aegon & Dany) and neither Stannis nor Euron are likely to survive or win the struggle for the throne. But then, all the remaining Targaryens might actually die in the War for the Dawn - Aegon, Dany, and Jon Snow. In such a scenario we would only have a rather short Targaryen restoration unless any Targaryen children are produced in the meantime.

In fact, it is pretty obvious that the Targaryen obsession with the prophecy about the promised prince actually led to the deposition of the dynasty in the first place.

The past of our heroes is not really that important, though. Whatever Aerys or Rhaegar believed about the prophecy is not remotely as important as its actual meaning. And we'll see that unfold in the coming books not by looking back. Make no mistake, I'm very interested in the past of the characters, not just Lyanna-Rhaegar but also Joanna-Aerys if they were a thing, but we don't necessarily need many details of those stories for the plot.

11 hours ago, Jon Snow Nothing said:

edited to add: oh, now i understand what you mean. But did Darry and Martell die defending the King? Jaime was defending the King, the others were defending the Realm, the Targaryens, or even Rhaegar, but not the King. And Barristan is a legend.

He is not legend enough to be singled out as a great knight by Eddard Stark, though. Ned likes Ser Arthur Dayne for some reason more than anybody else.

And Darry, Selmy, and Martell were definitely defending the king at the Trident. They were fighting his battles and attempting to kill those enemies of the king who had taken the field against him. If they weren't defending the king I don't know who defended the king. The Kingsguard at the tower never defended a king, though, because Lyanna Stark never was a king. And they were there long before she actually gave birth to a child (which wasn't born a king, though, because a king has to be crowned and anointed to be a king).

11 hours ago, Jon Snow Nothing said:

The fact that makes the 3 KG in the ToJ so suspicious is that they said they swore a vow. They could be defending Lyanna and Jon, but being ready to die for them, this is highly suspicious. It's not only the presence there, but giving their life to defend the people inside the tower. Ned was certainly, before finding Lyanna, as suspicious as we are, if we recall what he asks them. There are ways to surrender, you know, in a fight...

It is not highly suspicious because we don't know what vow they are referring to. It could be the specific part of the Kingsguard oath, but it could also be a vow they swore to Prince Rhaegar upon his departure.

If it was a part of the Kingsguard vow you don't have to assume it was the part of defending the king. It could be the part about obeying him or another part we don't know anything about yet (say, a part stipulating that you should not make common cause with the king's enemies or never negotiate with or yield to the enemies of the king). It is not exactly far-fetched to assume that the Kingsguard vow would include such parts.

The overall purpose of the Kingsguard is to protect the king. But it is the king, the royal family, and Crown and its officials who actually decides how this works. A Kingsguard might want to live and die protecting the king but it is not his decision whether he is allowed to do this. Knowing this we have absolutely no reason to believe the king was inside that tower.

Just ask yourself: Do you think the fever dream conversation would have gone any differently when Elia and Rhaenys had been in there? Or Rhaella and Daenerys? I don't think so.

5 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Ned rather pointedly states in the dream dialogue that "Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were." That's rather hard to reconcile with the idea that Ned's primary thought about the 3KG is that they died defending their king. All of Ned's dialogue essentially asks the same question: why were you not doing your duty? It's a question they decline to answer, beyond saying that they swore a vow. It doesn't make much sense to argue that they were in fact doing that duty when whatever Jon's status, he certainly was NOT the king before Aerys died.

When we look at Ned's apparently positive opinion of the 3KG, we ought to be paying attention to this questioning. Somehow the 3KG must have answered Ned's questioning of their duty to his satisfaction, and that they died defending a subsequent king (or indeed someone they erroneously believed to be so) simply does not answer Ned's questions.

Indeed. What Ned is basically asking is 'What are you guys doing here with my sister? Your duty demanded that you protected your king and his throne.' From dynastic point of view Lyanna Stark's son by Prince Rhaegar (and she herself) were of no significance whatsoever. If the child had been female it would have been irrelevant, if it had been male it would have still been at the very end of the line of succession.

The idea that the king's best men should protect some unborn child rather than the king himself is just very odd. Just as the idea that Aerys I would command Bloodraven to assign three Kingsguard including the Lord Commander to his nephew Egg would be very odd.

5 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

While I'm on the subject, let's keep in mind how little we actually know about what went on at the toj. That the 3KG "gave their life to defend the people inside the tower" is just an assumption. A very reasonable one to be sure, but there's plenty of room for major twists yet to be unveiled there. 

If you think you can use the incomplete information we have on the tower of joy scenario as evidence to explain everything about it you are simply wrong.

We have enough evidence to reasonably conclude that Jon Snow is Lyanna's son by Rhaegar (especially because we have a lot of other hints independent of the tower of joy setting) but the idea that we have the full picture of events there is just stupid methodology.

There are gaps in the story. We don't know why they went there, why they stayed there, why Rhaegar left Lyanna and did not take her with him, why the Kingsguard stayed with Lyanna, whether Lyanna herself played a role in the fight, and so on.

Most importantly we do not know what happened at the tower itself prior to and after the fever dream conversation - which may or may not be just loosely inspired by real events.

Anybody who believes he has the complete picture already or can sort of create a version of the complete picture using only the available evidence is clearly mistaken. Any complete picture has to take the gaps and blanks into account that are obviously there and then make educated guesses on the basis of added speculation.

If you don't do that it is as if you would be trying to explain the past of characters only with AGoT or ACoK knowledge in mind. That doesn't really work.

[Wayward Sand Star]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I actually don't think there is any reason to assume that there is a prophecy indicating a Targaryen restoration. It is evident that this is going to happen because of the four pretenders out there right now are there are two Targaryens (Aegon & Dany) and neither Stannis nor Euron are likely to survive or win the struggle for the throne. But then, all the remaining Targaryens might actually die in the War for the Dawn - Aegon, Dany, and Jon Snow. In such a scenario we would only have a rather short Targaryen restoration unless any Targaryen children are produced in the meantime.

In fact, it is pretty obvious that the Targaryen obsession with the prophecy about the promised prince actually led to the deposition of the dynasty in the first place.

The past of our heroes is not really that important, though. Whatever Aerys or Rhaegar believed about the prophecy is not remotely as important as its actual meaning. And we'll see that unfold in the coming books not by looking back. Make no mistake, I'm very interested in the past of the characters, not just Lyanna-Rhaegar but also Joanna-Aerys if they were a thing, but we don't necessarily need many details of those stories for the plot.

I wasn't suggesting the Prince That Was Promised prophecy indicated a Targaryen restoration at all. Understanding GRRM's notion of prophecies (which is intrinsic to his Realism), as applied to ASoIF , prophecies have a psychological effect on characters, and certainly influence their actions in ways other than the deterministic literal meaning of the prophecy. So I argue that the Targaryen's, and specifically Rhaegar's, obsession with the prophecy of the Prince That Was Promised influenced Rhaegar to make certain decisions and take certain actions that would eventually snowball into the two main storylines of ASoIF. In this sense, Rhaegar's role in the whole thing is causal and rather coincidental, in which case the central character's past has less of a justifying role in the characters' arcs (because prophecies are not deterministic), but rather provide the psychological context to the characters' actions. 

[Black Crow]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If it was a part of the Kingsguard vow you don't have to assume it was the part of defending the king. It could be the part about obeying him or another part we don't know anything about yet (say, a part stipulating that you should not make common cause with the king's enemies or never negotiate with or yield to the enemies of the king). It is not exactly far-fetched to assume that the Kingsguard vow would include such parts.

In real life as a soldier I swore an oath [or vow if you prefer] of loyalty to the Queen and at the same time promised to obey the orders of those set over me by the Queen.

The King's Guard were operating under exactly the same regime. They swore a vow to protect the King, just as I did, and as GRRM makes very clear in that SSM part of that vow involved obeying the orders given by those set over them; in this case Prince Rhaegar.

In that encounter outside the tower when asked why they were not with Aerys [or with Viserys] they responded that they had sworn a vow. At the same time they affirmed their loyalty to Aerys, stating that had they been there he would still be sitting on the Iron Throne. GRRM when asked why they were at the tower referred to the matter of their obeying orders, even if they didn't like them.

At one level there is no great mystery about why they were at the tower. As members of the Kings Guard they had indeed sworn an vow; one which compelled them to obey orders given by Prince Rhaegar, and being thus compelled to do so, meant that they were not there to protect him when the crisis came.

As to why Rhaegar ordered all three to remain at the tower, or at least to remain in the south, that's a different matter entirely, but its worth noting the arithmetic. There is no reason to suppose that Jon was born before Rhaegar gave those orders and returned to King's Landing, but what is indisputable is that there were seven members of the Kings Guard and while King Aerys was still living Rhaegar gave orders which compelled three of the seven, including the Lord Commander, to remain in the south as far as possible from King's Landing, and took three others up north to the Trident, leaving the living King protected only by the youngest and least trusted one.

[Jon Snow Nothing]

3 hours ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

I wasn't suggesting the Prince That Was Promised prophecy indicated a Targaryen restoration at all. Understanding GRRM's notion of prophecies (which is intrinsic to his Realism), as applied to ASoIF , prophecies have a psychological effect on characters, and certainly influence their actions in ways other than the deterministic literal meaning of the prophecy. So I argue that the Targaryen's, and specifically Rhaegar's, obsession with the prophecy of the Prince That Was Promised influenced Rhaegar to make certain decisions and take certain actions that would eventually snowball into the two main storylines of ASoIF. In this sense, Rhaegar's role in the whole thing is causal and rather coincidental, in which case the central character's past has less of a justifying role in the characters' arcs (because prophecies are not deterministic), but rather provide the psychological context to the characters' actions. 

Regarding the Prophecy, it was a bit like the prophecy about Valyria doom. We might assume that Rhaegar and Maester Aemon were very interested in this because it related not only to Westeros, but the whole world.

When Melisandre talks about AA in front of the old Targaryen maester, he asks if she is talking about TPTWP. So we might think that this Prince was chose to fight when "evil, cold darkness descends upon the world" and therefore "the darkness shall flee before him".

The prophecy is not a simple one, if you believe in it, all sacrifices should be made to save the whole world.

The fact the Targaryens believed in the prophecy was a result of their own history. One of them had a powerful prophetic dream and visions that Valyria would be destroyed, so they fled. Well, at least they have a very realistic reason to believe in a prophecy, and it seems related to R'hllor too, because all Red Priests and Priestesses are waiting for this to happen.  They wait for Azor Ahai, and they know the time is coming.

The reason this prophecy is linked to the Targaryens is that

1) They are proof that a prophecy regarding a tragedy might be foreseen;

2) Jaeherys was not going to marry Aerys to Rhaella until the woods witch told him that the prince that was promised would be born from their line;

and

3) Both Aemon and Rhaegar are bookish types who "think a lot" and are regarded as intelligent. Rhaegar was especially affected by the tragedy of Summerhall, and Aemon is old enough to have read many old books and study, and also is right there at the Wall, and might have been aware that the time for the Prince to fight Evil is coming ("Winter is Coming" has many meanings in ASoIaF).

I wonder why Melisandre is not aware of the wood witch prophecy. She might maybe know that the Prince would have Targaryen blood (and Stannis is indeed 1/4 Targaryen).

So, Melisandre thinks that, to fight this evil, a man should have power. And should be King (or Queen if we think about the gender problem Aemon pointed they have forgotten). Therefore, being TPTWP and, at the moment of the battle against evil, being King, is, according to Melisandre, a very important thing.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

I wasn't suggesting the Prince That Was Promised prophecy indicated a Targaryen restoration at all. Understanding GRRM's notion of prophecies (which is intrinsic to his Realism), as applied to ASoIF , prophecies have a psychological effect on characters, and certainly influence their actions in ways other than the deterministic literal meaning of the prophecy. So I argue that the Targaryen's, and specifically Rhaegar's, obsession with the prophecy of the Prince That Was Promised influenced Rhaegar to make certain decisions and take certain actions that would eventually snowball into the two main storylines of ASoIF. In this sense, Rhaegar's role in the whole thing is causal and rather coincidental, in which case the central character's past has less of a justifying role in the characters' arcs (because prophecies are not deterministic), but rather provide the psychological context to the characters' actions. 

Oh, well, since the story really begins in medias res with no proper beginning and past events and grudges always playing a crucial role both in the motivation of the characters as well as the plot I'd not single out prophecies in this manner.

They play a significant role in the lives and stories of Melisandre/Stannis, Cersei, Dany but Doran, Ned, Cat, Littlefinger, Robb, Tywin, Jaime, Balon are motivated by past events of a different sort.

But I certainly agree that prophecies are special cases of this motivational thing and their magical nature makes them rather poignant plot devices to mess with the minds of both characters and readers.

28 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

In real life as a soldier I swore an oath [or vow if you prefer] of loyalty to the Queen and at the same time promised to obey the orders of those set over me by the Queen.

Well, out of interest, does this mean Elizabeth II could actually give orders to you directly? And: Does this oath also include other members of royal family as the people set over you as a soldier by the Queen? Meaning, are the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and so forth actually part of the chain of command (I don't think so but I'm really interested in this kind of thing).

28 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

The King's Guard were operating under exactly the same regime. They swore a vow to protect the King, just as I did, and as GRRM makes very clear in that SSM part of that vow involved obeying the orders given by those set over them; in this case Prince Rhaegar.

That is not exactly true. For one, the Kingsguard does not really have a clear military chain of command. The six lesser White Swords are obliged to obey the Lord Commander, but as a body they are individually and collectively answerable to the king - he can issue orders via the Lord Commander or personally.

If the king is incapacitated the Hand can step in and speak with the King's Voice giving commands to the Kingsguard as well as to any other official or subject of the king, including members of the royal family.

The members of the royal family are only able to give orders to the Kingsguard if the king has granted them that privilege. That's what Selmy tells us in ADwD. Queen Consort Cersei Lannister is able to issue commands to the Kingsguard long before she seizes power and has herself declared Queen Regent. Granted, such commands most likely should not contradict standing orders of the king but aside from that they seem to have been forced to do what she commanded (this is most evident when she commands Barristan Selmy to arrest Ned as a traitor). Queen Regnant Daenerys Targaryen has left no specific orders for her Queensguard to protect or obey her King Consort, Hizdahr zo Loraq which later is Barristan's excuse to arrest Hizdahr.

The problem with the idea that Prince Rhaegar had the authority to give commands not only to his personal sworn shields (assuming Dayne or Whent or both of them held such a position) but also to the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. That man should technically only receive orders from the king himself and his Hand. He would certainly not subservient to a man the king himself suspected of planning or committing treason. Even if Aerys himself had not given specific orders how to treat or consider Rhaegar the man never was a part of the king's inner circle nor did he ever hold any formal position at court. He was just the king's heir and a member of the royal family - which basically means he was a glorified private citizen who lives off the money given to him by the king.

He has certain privileges and stuff but just because you are the son or the brother of the king you don't have any authority over the king's government, militia, or army. The king has to grant you such authority.

In Rhaegar's case Dayne, Whent, and especially Hightower would only have been obliged to obey Rhaegar in anything if Aerys II had commanded them to do so - either by specific command, or by granting Rhaegar a rank or office that would allow him to give orders to the Kingsguard (i.e. if he either made him Hand or Protector of the Realm).

28 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

In that encounter outside the tower when asked why they were not with Aerys [or with Viserys] they responded that they had sworn a vow. At the same time they affirmed their loyalty to Aerys, stating that had they been there he would still be sitting on the Iron Throne. GRRM when asked why they were at the tower referred to the matter of their obeying orders, even if they didn't like them.

One of them (Hightower) says that Aerys would still be sitting the Iron Throne. Not all of them. Not even in the fever dream. George also spoke hypothetically in the SSM. If Rhaegar had given them an order, they would have been forced to obey it. But we actually don't yet know whether Rhaegar has given them an order or in what capacity Rhaegar has given such an order.

I'm not saying he didn't give them an order (in fact, I find it very likely that he did), I'm saying that just being Prince Rhaegar doing that wouldn't have been enough to make such an order binding, especially if the king had given other orders - and Hightower (who had the authority to give orders to the other Kingsguard on his own) certainly was given the order to search for Prince Rhaegar and bring him back to KL.

What I'm saying is that just pointing to the SSM and letting the matter rest with 'Rhaegar can give commands to the Kingsguard for some reason' isn't enough. We have to ask ourselves how exactly this works and in what kind of scenario Rhaegar would actually have had the authority to give binding orders to the Kingsguard. Because we do know and have a lot precedents making it clear that other princes, queens, and members of the royal family do not have the authority to give binding orders to the Kingsguard. Tommen, Stannis, or Renly most certainly could not order Robert's Kingsguard to protect their mistress/(second) wife in the midst of nowhere without previously double-checking with King Robert whether he actually wants them to do such a thing.

28 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

At one level there is no great mystery about why they were at the tower. As members of the Kings Guard they had indeed sworn an vow; one which compelled them to obey orders given by Prince Rhaegar, and being thus compelled to do so, meant that they were not there to protect him when the crisis came.

That really seems to to be core of the thing. The question is why Rhaegar could command them and why they actually felt obliged to follow an order given to them by Rhaegar. In Whent/Dayne's case we can be reasonably sure that their friendship played a huge role there but Hightower would not really have been bound by any order of Rhaegar's because he could have either been or claimed to be under contradicting orders given to him by Aerys. Not to mention that he could certainly also have put forth the fact that his place as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard was at the side of his king and on his king's Small Council. 

28 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

As to why Rhaegar ordered all three to remain at the tower, or at least to remain in the south, that's a different matter entirely, but its worth noting the arithmetic. There is no reason to suppose that Jon was born before Rhaegar gave those orders and returned to King's Landing, but what is indisputable is that there were seven members of the Kings Guard and while King Aerys was still living Rhaegar gave orders which compelled three of the seven, including the Lord Commander, to remain in the south as far as possible from King's Landing, and took three others up north to the Trident, leaving the living King protected only by the youngest and least trusted one.

Indeed, that is the problem. In theory and practice the decision to organize the (Kingsguard) protection of the king and suggest new members of the order falls to the Lord Commander. We see all that in Jaime's chapters in ASoS, AFfC, and ADwD. The idea that a royal prince - even the Prince of Dragonstone - could order the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard to leave the side of his king permanently in the middle of a war is very odd. Even if Rhaegar had been the Hand at that point one should assume that Hightower would have contested such an order. And one should also believe that even the hint of suspicion of Rhaegar plotting against the king or Rhaegar's command putting the king in danger indirectly should have been more than enough for Hightower to act against such an order.

The fact that he and the others stayed with Lyanna anyway means that they must have considered the duty of protecting her at least as important as protecting Rhaegar or the king himself. Else they just would not have done it regardless who gave them an order.

[Black Crow]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, out of interest, does this mean Elizabeth II could actually give orders to you directly? And: Does this oath also include other members of royal family as the people set over you as a soldier by the Queen? Meaning, are the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and so forth actually part of the chain of command (I don't think so but I'm really interested in this kind of thing).

In theory yes. The actual wording of the oath encompassed Queen Elizabeth, and "her heirs and successors".

In practice everything would go through those military officers set over me, who were likewise bound by the same oath.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

One of them (Hightower) says that Aerys would still be sitting the Iron Throne. Not all of them. Not even in the fever dream. George also spoke hypothetically in the SSM. If Rhaegar had given them an order, they would have been forced to obey it. But we actually don't yet know whether Rhaegar has given them an order or in what capacity Rhaegar has given such an order.

I'm not saying he didn't give them an order (in fact, I find it very likely that he did), I'm saying that just being Prince Rhaegar doing that wouldn't have been enough to make such an order binding, especially if the king had given other orders - and Hightower (who had the authority to give orders to the other Kingsguard on his own) certainly was given the order to search for Prince Rhaegar and bring him back to KL.

What I'm saying is that just pointing to the SSM and letting the matter rest with 'Rhaegar can give commands to the Kingsguard for some reason' isn't enough. We have to ask ourselves how exactly this works and in what kind of scenario Rhaegar would actually have had the authority to give binding orders to the Kingsguard.

The point is that GRRM did answer pretty directly that they were obeying orders and very clearly implied that Rhaegar had given those orders. Obviously enough the King remains the ultimate authority and if he says go east and Rhaegar says go west, they have to obey the King, not Rhaegar and that goes too for his sworn shields who are bound first and foremost by their vow to the King.

We can reasonably assume therefore that whatever those orders actually were, they did not conflict with their primary duty to the King. He died, and Hightower at least regrets his death, because their absence at the crucial moment was a consequence of their obeying Rhaegar's orders - a consequence which he at least had not foreseen. 

The point I'm making in the last paragraph is that its all very well to suggest that the Lord Commander and two other members of the King's Guard were guarding the tower because Jon Snow was in their estimation the rightful king, but why were they there in the first place when Jon was not yet born and their King Aerys [and Rhaegar and the other princes ahead of Jon in the line of succession] was yet living.

By giving those orders Rhaegar was deliberately stripping the King of his protectors and whether or not Messrs. Whent and Dayne were complicit in this, Hightower was the one man who could be relied upon to defend his King in the event of a coup.

[Lord Varys]

17 hours ago, Black Crow said:

In theory yes. The actual wording of the oath encompassed Queen Elizabeth, and "her heirs and successors".

In practice everything would go through those military officers set over me, who were likewise bound by the same oath.

Well, then lets hope for you guys that the Anarchy never comes back. But man, if you guys ever face some political unrest and/or the attempt to return the reins of the government to monarch the military cannot really possibly stand with the democratic guys if they take this oath seriously. 

17 hours ago, Black Crow said:

The point is that GRRM did answer pretty directly that they were obeying orders and very clearly implied that Rhaegar had given those orders. Obviously enough the King remains the ultimate authority and if he says go east and Rhaegar says go west, they have to obey the King, not Rhaegar and that goes too for his sworn shields who are bound first and foremost by their vow to the King.

The thing is that the SSM did not confirm that Rhaegar had given any orders nor given a reason why the hell the Kingsguard should obey Rhaegar in that situation.

If we take this as a given without asking about the reasons behind this we would arrive at a general saying that, say, Egg could also have assigned three Kingsguard including the Lord Commander to his wife or mistress during the reign of his uncle, Aerys I. But Egg was just the youngest son of Aerys' brother. Nothing suggests he would have had such an authority despite the fact that he was a royal prince.

I mean, there are only seven Kingsguard. Imagine a Kingsguard walking through the Red Keep not having a mission or a task right now. The royal family is big (say, we are in the last years of the reign of Daeron II) and the king has not only four sons but also a veritable army of grandchildren and daughters-in-law. The idea that any of these persons would have had the authority to issue commands to a random Kingsguard makes no sense even if the king had decided to have the Kingsguard not only protect his royal person and the queen's but also his sons and their families.

In such scenarios there must have been a chain of command or some sort of regulation on the side of the Kingsguard whose orders took precedent.

Theoretically one would assume that the Prince of Dragonstone had a strong authority over the Kingsguard in a setting in which the king granted Kingsguard protection to his children but Rhaegar is special case insofar as his royal family actively mistrusted him. Aerys apparently put a lot of trust in his Kingsguard so the idea that he would allow them to continue to obey Rhaegar's commands at a point in time where he had begun to assume that Rhaegar and Tywin were plotting against him makes little sense.

In addition, we see that the guy in charge during the crisis of Duskendale is Tywin as the Hand, not Rhaegar as the Prince of Dragonstone - and that despite the fact that Rhaegar was already a man grown at the time. Selmy needs Tywin's permission for his rescue plan, not Rhaegar's.

17 hours ago, Black Crow said:

We can reasonably assume therefore that whatever those orders actually were, they did not conflict with their primary duty to the King. He died, and Hightower at least regrets his death, because their absence at the crucial moment was a consequence of their obeying Rhaegar's orders - a consequence which he at least had not foreseen.

That is completely unclear and open to interpretation by the people involved. Since Hightower, Dayne, and Whent decided to stay with Lyanna they obviously must have had a reason to make that decision. But this doesn't mean that they stayed true to their oath or their duty to protect the king. The king wasn't Lyanna Stark, after all. They might have believed that King Aerys would approve or not object to that decision - assuming they still cared what Aerys thought.

It is easily imaginable that Aerys was as obsessed with the promised prince prophecy as Rhaegar was so that the belief that Lyanna's child would be one of the dragon heads might have been enough to warrant her special protection. The other thing is that all three decided to acknowledge Rhaegar as the true head of House Targaryen at this point because his father was truly mad and incapable of issuing orders.

17 hours ago, Black Crow said:

The point I'm making in the last paragraph is that its all very well to suggest that the Lord Commander and two other members of the King's Guard were guarding the tower because Jon Snow was in their estimation the rightful king, but why were they there in the first place when Jon was not yet born and their King Aerys [and Rhaegar and the other princes ahead of Jon in the line of succession] was yet living.

The problem with that is that it seems rather unlikely that the Kingsguard would know about the Sack, Aerys' death, and the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys, and Viserys' move to Dragonstone and not know that Aerys II chose Viserys III as his new heir and successor.

In such a scenario considering Lyanna's son the rightful king would at best just wrong and at the worst treason. It does not fall to the Kingsguard to choose, crown, or anoint a king. The Kingsguard certainly can have an opinion about the succession but their opinion does not matter because they are servants and not in a position to decide such matters (or even offer an opinion).

17 hours ago, Black Crow said:

By giving those orders Rhaegar was deliberately stripping the King of his protectors and whether or not Messrs. Whent and Dayne were complicit in this, Hightower was the one man who could be relied upon to defend his King in the event of a coup.

Well, that really assumes that Rhaegar had any intention to stage a coup at the time of his return to KL. He did not try to do such a thing before the Trident, and Aerys had other loyal allies on which he could count. Not to mention that he had Rhaegar's wife and children as hostages. The idea that Rhaegar left Hightower with Lyanna to get him out of the way to stage a coup makes little sense. Especially not considering that this actually would have put one of Aerys' men in control of Lyanna and Rhaegar's unborn child. Hightower could easily enough have delivered Lyanna and the child to Aerys or later used them as hostages to force Rhaegar to reinstate his father as king or not go through with his coup.

[Black Crow]

There are all sorts of interpretations that can be placed on Rhaegar's motives and intentions, but in the end there's no getting away from the fact that when GRRM answered the question as to why the Kings Guard were at the tower he replied that they were obeying orders and implied those orders - whatever they were - came from Prince Rhaegar.

And there the fact remains the orders were given at a time before Jon was born and when the king and all his acknowledged heirs and successors were still living.

[MtnLion]

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

There are all sorts of interpretations that can be placed on Rhaegar's motives and intentions, but in the end there's no getting away from the fact that when GRRM answered the question as to why the Kings Guard were at the tower he replied that they were obeying orders and implied those orders - whatever they were - came from Prince Rhaegar.

And there the fact remains the orders were given at a time before Jon was born and when the king and all his acknowledged heirs and successors were still living.

You make some good points, but it seems that you are missing some keys in GRRM's answer; if it is truly an answer.  I believe that it is likely that the three Kingsguard were far away when Jaime stabbed Aerys.  In fact so far away that it was a week or two before they knew about it.  I believe that it is entirely possible that Whent and Dayne returned to the tower only when Jon's birth was nigh, and that could have been after the fact of Aerys' death.  If Rhaegar intended to ensure that Hightower remained at the tower until after Jon's birth, it makes sense to order Whent and Dayne to time their arrival with the appropriate day.  Furthermore, there would be no reason for Hightower to depart in haste, until word of the fall of House Targaryen arrived, possibly news of the Trident and the Sack arriving from the same source; at the same time. 

So, looking back at GRRM's answer (if it really is an answer, unlike his many other misdirections, or red herrings if you prefer); it is true that they had to follow Rhaegar's orders, as long as they did not conflict with their primary duty.  What is their primary duty?  GRRM says, right there in you quote, "They protect the king. They serve the king."  It should be quite clear, especially given that the screenplay has revealed the oath, through Brienne, that Ned would only hold these knights in high esteem if they went down, true to their words.  ". . . to die for you, if need be." 

As for your argument about superiors, I don't find it compelling.  There are no superiors to the White Knights, unless the king grants them.  That is one of the reasons that I cannot see a split between Rhaegar an Aerys as viable.  If there had been a split, Aerys was sure to revoke Rhaegar's powers of command over the White Knights.  So, there was never a split between Rhaegar and Aerys.  However, the three at the tower included the Lord Commander, and it is clear in the conversation that they know that Viserys does not have Kingsguard protection, and that there are no other living male Targaryens as far as Ned knows.  Logic tells us that the Kingsguard know of another living male Targaryen, and that they give their lives defending him. 

QED