Why on earth did the KG attacked Eddard Stark?

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Stupidity must be contagious over there . They had to know that if Eddard and co. does not return from Dorne , Robert would be heading to south with the entire rebel army  which would include Tywin and if there job was to protect Jon . Jon would be dead along with hundreds of innocent Dornes .

[devilish]

On 27/07/2016 at 3:19 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

[devilish]

On 30/07/2016 at 9:12 PM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Protect from what? Losing his claim to the throne?

OK, let's fast forward fourteen years. Is Jon Snow on the Iron Throne? Is Ned trying to put him there? Doesn't bloody look like it. Point proven. /thread

I doubt the plan was to stay there forever, that indeed would've been daft. Obviously, it was to GTFO as soon as possible. Ned came too soon.

You fail to recognise that Jon Snow is disowned by the loyalists, the rebels and the rule of the land. King Aerys disowned Rhaegar in favour of Viserys hence Jon has no claim to the crown. The rebels disowned anyone remotely linked to Aerys bloodline and the rule of the land do not allow bastards to claim their father's inheritance.

Fleeing Westeros would be treacherous as neither rebels nor Martells really love the boy at all. Even if they do manage to flee to Essos Dayne and co will find it hard to raise an army and fight another day. 

A- They have no proof that Jon is actually a Targ. He doesn't even have the looks
B- They were still Targ true born around, who were being supported by more people (including the Pentos guy) and despite all they were still struggling to raise an army. 

Eddard could protect him from Robert's fury and who knows, if everything goes tits up, he could provide him with the necessary army to fight for a claim to the throne. Its a shame that Eddard never told Robb and Jon whose his parents were. The Northern Lords who weren't keen in fighting for Stannis or Renly's claims would certainly fight for Lyanna's boy whose a Stark and this King of the North madness would probably be kept at bay. Jon would have also given all other houses (especially the Tyrells but also Varys who respected Ned and he knew that he would raise a decent boy) an option on whom could sit on the iron throne. Considering the competition (Joffrey the monster and fruit of incest and dour Stannis) its not a difficult decision to take at all. After Renly's death and Stannis defeat, an alliance between the North, the Reach and the Riverlands would have easily crushed any opposition. 

 

 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

1 hour ago, devilish said:

You fail to recognise that Jon Snow is disowned by the loyalists, the rebels and the rule of the land.

I've yet to find a reasonable justification for all the three knights of the Kingsguard staying at the ToJ, and immensely proud of themselves to boot, if Jon Snow didn't have mighty strong claim to the Iron Throne.

[devilish]

15 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

I've yet to find a reasonable justification for all the three knights of the Kingsguard staying at the ToJ, and immensely proud of themselves to boot, if Jon Snow didn't have mighty strong claim to the Iron Throne.

He might have had a strong claim to the Iron throne but not for the time being. I mean, lets be realistic. The three knights were within enemy land (The Martells can't and won't protect this kid whose the living embodiment of why Elia died). No one was going to back a bastard's claim, son of a former crown prince whose father got disowned by the Targ king himself wouldn't they? Especially since no one knows if Jon Snow is truly Rhaegar's son in the first place

Their best shot was to convince Eddard that Jon was Lyanna and Rhaegar son and he would probably not believe that unless he hear it from Lyanna herself. Even if Eddard didn't support Jon claims, the rules about kinslaying would make sure that the boy would remain safe (kinslaying is a line that even Roose, Randyll and Tywin are afraid to cross). A safe passage to the tower of joy would also provide Sir Arthur and co with enough brownie points with Eddard for the latter to allow them to flee to Essos unhindered. Once in Essos, Sir Arthur could attempt joining the Golden company and raise up the ranks to secure an army for the boy. That's their best shot by a mile. 

[Ygrain]

Could I please see the line where it says that Rhaegar was disowned?

To my best knowledge, all we have so far is "his new heir Viserys" after Rhaegar's death. And even if Aerys did mess with the succession line, it still doesn't mean that the three KG knew about the change.

[devilish]

2 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Could I please see the line where it says that Rhaegar was disowned?

To my best knowledge, all we have so far is "his new heir Viserys" after Rhaegar's death. And even if Aerys did mess with the succession line, it still doesn't mean that the three KG knew about the change.

His children were disowned (as Aegon should have been set as heir not Viserys). Even if the three KG didn't knew about it surely they knew that Aegon, Rhaenys, Viserys, Danny, Rhaella > A bastard

[Ygrain]

9 minutes ago, devilish said:

His children were disowned (as Aegon should have been set as heir not Viserys). Even if the three KG didn't knew about it surely they knew that Aegon, Rhaenys, Viserys, Danny, Rhaella > A bastard

They did know about the Sack, so Aegon and Rhaenys are out of the equation. And if Rhaegar played the polygamy card, then Jon is his heir.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

20 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Could I please see the line where it says that Rhaegar was disowned?

To my best knowledge, all we have so far is "his new heir Viserys" after Rhaegar's death. And even if Aerys did mess with the succession line, it still doesn't mean that the three KG knew about the change.

From what we know so far Aerys has done absolutely nothing to name Viserys his heir, someone could claim that the fact that he sent Rhaella and Viserys away, but no one in Westeros has even told how Rhaegar was disowned it is only mentioned in a book who also mentions that Elia might had killed her children.

[Ygrain]

28 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

From what we know so far Aerys has done absolutely nothing to name Viserys his heir, someone could claim that the fact that he sent Rhaella and Viserys away, but no one in Westeros has even told how Rhaegar was disowned it is only mentioned in a book who also mentions that Elia might had killed her children.

That too.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

57 minutes ago, devilish said:

He might have had a strong claim to the Iron throne but not for the time being. I mean, lets be realistic. The three knights were within enemy land (The Martells can't and won't protect this kid whose the living embodiment of why Elia died). No one was going to back a bastard's claim, son of a former crown prince whose father got disowned by the Targ king himself wouldn't they? Especially since no one knows if Jon Snow is truly Rhaegar's son in the first place

And yet all the three stayed there, which is exactly my point. In your scenario, they would have no good reason to. At best, they'd leave one of them behind, and the rest would've gone to Dragonstone, or maybe to KL. But since we found Ser Gerold Hightower, Ser Arthur Dayne and Ser Oswell Whent all staying at the Tower of Joy, apparently some or all of your assumptions must be false.

[devilish]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

error sorry

[devilish]

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

And yet all the three stayed there, which is exactly my point. In your scenario, they would have no good reason to. At best, they'd leave one of them behind, and the rest would've gone to Dragonstone, or maybe to KL. But since we found Ser Gerold Hightower, Ser Arthur Dayne and Ser Oswell Whent all staying at the Tower of Joy, apparently some or all of your assumptions must be false.

Hence why I opened this thread. It doesn't make sense for them to stay. 

What I suspect is that at one point the 3 KG pledged loyalty to Rhaegar and not Aerys. Once the crown prince died, their spirit was shattered and at that point they only wanted to die honourably with a sword in their hands. Eddard provided them with such opportunity. 

It similar to what happened to many Nazis at the very end of WW2 were they kept fighting till the very end despite the war was lost. These people couldn't live in a world without nazism and died because of it (ok Rhaegar wasn't nazism but his death streamrolled a big change in Westeros)

 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

11 minutes ago, devilish said:

Hence why I opened this thread. It doesn't make sense for them to stay.

Au contraire, it makes perfect sense if only you were willing to let go of your assumptions.

In your scenario, they were plain and simple neglectful of their duties as the knights of the Kingsguard (Viserys!), and no reason for Ned to revere the glorified deserters. Now, that's what makes no sense.

[Ygrain]

24 minutes ago, devilish said:

Hence why I opened this thread. It doesn't make sense for them to stay. 

What I suspect is that at one point the 3 KG pledged loyalty to Rhaegar and not Aerys. Once the crown prince died, their spirit was shattered and at that point they only wanted to die honourably with a sword in their hands. Eddard provided them with such opportunity. 

It similar to what happened to many Nazis at the very end of WW2 were they kept fighting till the very end despite the war was lost. These people couldn't live in a world without nazism and died because of it (ok Rhaegar wasn't nazism but his death streamrolled a big change in Westeros)

 

That assumption would make sense if Hightower didn't proclaim that had they been present at KL, Aerys would still sit the IT. The same "guard the king, not judge him" Hightower. I don't think Hightower is depicted as a guy who switched his loyalty.

[Khal BlackfyreO]

On 27/7/2016 at 3:15 PM, Valens said:

Which makes Robert an even worse criminal and barbarian. Steffon was obviously a better man than Robert and also Stannis likely. Not sure about Renly.

Actually it makes Aerys an even worse criminal and barbarian...

[devilish]

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Au contraire, it makes perfect sense if only you were willing to let go of your assumptions.

In your scenario, they were plain and simple neglectful of their duties as the knights of the Kingsguard (Viserys!), and no reason for Ned to revere the glorified deserters. Now, that's what makes no sense.

 In my assumption they are doing what the crown prince told them ie protect Lyanna and the baby against the rebels. Grief and honour won over common sense and they decided to obey the orders to the letter when the wisest option would have been to negotiate with Eddard, handle the boy to him hoping he will protect him (which he would) and flee to fight for another day.

During Robert and Joffrey's rule the KG were mostly glorified sellswords but during Aerys time they came from noble houses. People like Hightower or Dayne could have easily had a better life in their own land rather then as KG. These people chose this line because of honour and their loyalty towards the establishment. Seeing all this crumble, their crown prince killed, and a new world shaping itself up must have been tough for them. You can't really blame them for deciding to die sword in hand instead of switching loyalties or flee as cowards. 

[devilish]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

That assumption would make sense if Hightower didn't proclaim that had they been present at KL, Aerys would still sit the IT. The same "guard the king, not judge him" Hightower. I don't think Hightower is depicted as a guy who switched his loyalty.

I doubt that Hightower or any of the KG would allow Rhaegar to hurt Aerys let alone kill him (Kinslaying is a big thing in Westeros) and I am sure that Rhaegar would expect his loyalists to defend Aerys to the very end. After all Aerys is his father. My assumption is that they would allow the crown prince to send Aerys on gardening leave. Lets face it, Rhaegar as king and Aerys in retirement would do good not only to the Kingdom and the Targ dynasty but also to Aerys himself. The man lost it. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

2 hours ago, devilish said:

 In my assumption they are doing what the crown prince told them ie protect Lyanna and the baby against the rebels.

Wait, who was it who noticed that the mission of protecting baby Jon from Ned Stark would make no sense? Ah, right, you.

The methodology of "let's figure out such circumstances that the known actions of characters make no sense, and then let's stick to it" seems flawed to me.

[Ygrain]

2 hours ago, devilish said:

I doubt that Hightower or any of the KG would allow Rhaegar to hurt Aerys let alone kill him (Kinslaying is a big thing in Westeros) and I am sure that Rhaegar would expect his loyalists to defend Aerys to the very end. After all Aerys is his father. My assumption is that they would allow the crown prince to send Aerys on gardening leave. Lets face it, Rhaegar as king and Aerys in retirement would do good not only to the Kingdom and the Targ dynasty but also to Aerys himself. The man lost it. 

Oh? And where did I say that Rhaegar would want to hurt Aerys or that he wouldn't expect them to defend Aerys? Hightower, though, doesn't say "Aerys would still live", he says "Aerys would still sit the throne". That's not just defending Aerys but maintaining his status as king. Plus, Aerys had lost it way before the Rebellion, the whole realm could see it at HH, but Hightower still claimed that it is not up to him to judge the king, only to defend him. Therefore, Hightower is highly unlikely to switch allegiance to Rhaegar before Rhaegar took some legal means to depose Aerys.