A Thread for Small Questions for ADwD IV

[lostinwesteros]

If Aegon is real, then yes, his claim trumps Jon's, because he's older. However, I think he's 99% likely to be fake. I think that Jon's parentage is important in terms of the prophecy, not so much in terms of the Iron Throne. I don't think there will even be an Iron Throne in the end.

Thank you! And what you also said about the Iron Throne makes sense. I certainly can't see Jon sitting it.

I always enjoy your posts. :bowdown:

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

In your opinion Arthur Dayne would stop defending an otherwise defenseless woman and baby that he had sworn to Rhaegar to protect the instant that Rhaegar died -- even if they were still in deadly danger? That seems implausible to me.

Their fealty is primarily to the king. At that point, the king "should" have been Viserys. But say that Dayne broke his vow — which the men tell Ned explicitly that they haven't; they're fulfilling their vows (to protect the king) — and decided to stay with Lyanna and Jon, as you suggest. How does this account for the other two guys staying and not going to Viserys? At least one of them should have gone; none of them did. This is a giant, huge, blinking red neon sign that Viserys was not the rightful king. I don't know how much plainer I can say it.

I also think that while Jon being legitimate would be a good explanation for the tenacity of the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy, it's not the only explanation. They could as well have realized their war was lost and wanted to go out in a bang, or felt the obligation to honour Rhaegar's orders even after his death (which may be something he explicitely included).

It does not work that way. A king's/prince's orders die with him. Whatever Rhaegar asked of them before he died was nullified when he did. If you want to see this in action, consider Robert's death and how power passed to Joffrey. Robert had been the king yet not one of those men worked to execute his will, not even Selmy when pressed. Why? Because Robert was dead and was no longer the king and his will was, as we saw, worthless. Joffrey was the king. Rhaegar's orders are probably what got those men to the Tower, but that alone doesn't explain what kept them there. They were there because Jon was there and because at that point, Jon was the king, not Viserys.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

It does not work that way. A king's/prince's orders die with him. Whatever Rhaegar asked of them before he died was nullified when he did. If you want to see this in action, consider Robert's death and how power passed to Joffrey. Robert had been the king yet not one of those men worked to execute his will

Yes, and Selmy was shocked at that. Granted, he did not die a heroic death and fought a hall full of Lannister guardsmen to fulfill the wishes of the dead king, but neither did he approve of going against the dead kings wishes even though the new king explicitely told them to. So please understand that your view that death means complete nullification is not completely universal. While some people feel no longer bound by promises they gave a dead man or orders they received from him, others do. And while I'm glad for you that you believe to possess secret knowledge of the exact personality of Arthur Dayne & co to tell in which category he fell, just assume for a second that others are not so blessed.

Of course it's very possible that they protected Rhaegar's child because it was trueborn and I do happen to personally believe that. But it's absurd not to acknowledge that this is but one of the possibilities.

[Bastard of the White Knife]

Their fealty is primarily to the king. At that point, the king "should" have been Viserys. But say that Dayne broke his vow — which the men tell Ned explicitly that they haven't; they're fulfilling their vows (to protect the king) — and decided to stay with Lyanna and Jon, as you suggest. How does this account for the other two guys staying and not going to Viserys? At least one of them should have gone; none of them did. This is a giant, huge, blinking red neon sign that Viserys was not the rightful king. I don't know how much plainer I can say it.

It does not work that way. A king's/prince's orders die with him. Whatever Rhaegar asked of them before he died was nullified when he did. If you want to see this in action, consider Robert's death and how power passed to Joffrey. Robert had been the king yet not one of those men worked to execute his will, not even Selmy when pressed. Why? Because Robert was dead and was no longer the king and his will was, as we saw, worthless. Joffrey was the king. Rhaegar's orders are probably what got those men to the Tower, but that alone doesn't explain what kept them there. They were there because Jon was there and because at that point, Jon was the king, not Viserys.

I'm confused on the timing. I am positive that Rheagar died on the Trident before the sack of KL. His children were killed (at least allegedly) by Lannister men during the sack. Jon's place in line for the throne (assuming R+L=J which I think true) would still be behind Rheagar's two children with Ellia. Rheagar would have had to confide in some of the Kingsguard that "Jon is my trueborn son and third in line to the Iron Throne after me: protect him" before he went to the Trident. Of course, this would have left his two children in KL without Kingsguard protection. There's no indication Rheagar would have thought that he was destined to die on the Trident. Even if he did, why would he prioritize protecting Jon over the other two? And why would he confide this fact in only three of his Kingsguard (Selmy doesn't know, for instance).

I'm not saying this is an impossible scenario, but there seems to be a little disconnect here, from my perspective.

[Rune Targaryen]

And we have to think of another stuff, like how do the 3 KG were going to go to Viserys?

After Kings Landing was taken wasn't Dragonstone the only one place that was still loyal to targs? So how would they get a boat to go there?

And, about Barristan disrespecting the will of Robert, Joffrey (who Barrystan thought was heir) told him do to that, no new king told the 3 KG at ToJ to forget what Rhaegar told them.

And , if you think about it, Barristan was a coward.

If he truly believed that Robert nominated Ned as Regent until Joffrey was of age, and still let the Cersei steal the power he should have fought on Ned side, even if meant his death (as it would be), but he decided that his life was worth more than his honor.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm confused on the timing. I am positive that Rheagar died on the Trident before the sack of KL. His children were killed (at least allegedly) by Lannister men during the sack. Jon's place in line for the throne (assuming R+L=J which I think true) would still be behind Rheagar's two children with Ellia. Rheagar would have had to confide in some of the Kingsguard that "Jon is my trueborn son and third in line to the Iron Throne after me: protect him" before he went to the Trident. Of course, this would have left his two children in KL without Kingsguard protection. There's no indication Rheagar would have thought that he was destined to die on the Trident. Even if he did, why would he prioritize protecting Jon over the other two? And why would he confide this fact in only three of his Kingsguard (Selmy doesn't know, for instance).

I'm not saying this is an impossible scenario, but there seems to be a little disconnect here, from my perspective.

It's stated pretty clearly in the books that Aerys kept a tight watch on Elia and the children because of their hostage value. The children were also in the (assumed) safety of the Red Keep; Lyanna and Jon were in a more vulnerable position and had to be kept a secret. It's not so much that he prioritized them more; it's that Elia and her kids couldn't really be helped, and they were supposedly in a more secure position. Rhaegar wouldn't have to tell the three Kingsguard at the Tower about Jon's legitimacy; they would've already known, possibly even from witnessing the actual marriage ceremony.

Selmy says, clearly, that Rhaegar never trusted him as much as he did Dayne. So there's your answer there.

And we have to think of another stuff, like how do the 3 KG were going to go to Viserys?

After Kings Landing was taken wasn't Dragonstone the only one place that was still loyal to targs? So how would they get a boat to go there?

I'm sure there would have been some Dornish loyalists around to help them if they needed it. King's Landing isn't the only port on that side of the world. It's not that they try to get to Viserys and fail. It's that they don't even try.

And, about Barristan disrespecting the will of Robert, Joffrey (who Barrystan thought was heir) told him do to that, no new king told the 3 KG at ToJ to forget what Rhaegar told them.

And , if you think about it, Barristan was a coward.

If he truly believed that Robert nominated Ned as Regent until Joffrey was of age, and still let the Cersei steal the power he should have fought on Ned side, even if meant his death (as it would be), but he decided that his life was worth more than his honor.

They don't need a new king to give them orders; the shift in fealty is automatic. They're supposed to protect whoever the king is. I don't know how many more times I can say this. They're not with Viserys because he's not the king. Martin goes to pretty great detail in the books about how the Kingsguard operates (like in SoS when they meet and Jaime asks, "Who's with the king?"). It's all useful to clue readers in to the Kingsguard's behavior at the Tower. If you take what he says about the Kingsguard and apply it to that situation, there's only one solution that works, and that's that Jon is, at that time, the new king.

And on the contrary, Barristan had no reason to believe that Joffrey was anything but legitimate. In his eyes, he was being honorable by fulfilling his vow to obey the king.

But hey, keep arguing against this. It's amusing.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yes, and Selmy was shocked at that. Granted, he did not die a heroic death and fought a hall full of Lannister guardsmen to fulfill the wishes of the dead king, but neither did he approve of going against the dead kings wishes even though the new king explicitely told them to. So please understand that your view that death means complete nullification is not completely universal. While some people feel no longer bound by promises they gave a dead man or orders they received from him, others do. And while I'm glad for you that you believe to possess secret knowledge of the exact personality of Arthur Dayne & co to tell in which category he fell, just assume for a second that others are not so blessed.

Of course it's very possible that they protected Rhaegar's child because it was trueborn and I do happen to personally believe that. But it's absurd not to acknowledge that this is but one of the possibilities.

I do acknowledge other possibilities. I acknowledge them, consider them and reject them.

[Bastard of the White Knife]

It's stated pretty clearly in the books that Aerys kept a tight watch on Elia and the children because of their hostage value. The children were also in the (assumed) safety of the Red Keep; Lyanna and Jon were in a more vulnerable position and had to be kept a secret. It's not so much that he prioritized them more; it's that Elia and her kids couldn't really be helped, and they were supposedly in a more secure position. Rhaegar wouldn't have to tell the three Kingsguard at the Tower about Jon's legitimacy; they would've already known, possibly even from witnessing the actual marriage ceremony.

Selmy says, clearly, that Rhaegar never trusted him as much as he did Dayne. So there's your answer there.

Makes sense. Jon's claim would revolve around the legitimacy of his birth. I cannot recall GRRM giving us any clue about serial/bigamist marriages in Westeros, assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna got married. And the only living person who was present at the TOJ is Howland Reed, who, I'm pretty sure, wasn't present for any marriage.

[Lykos]

@Apple Martini

I do acknowledge your expertise in these matters, and this is probably not the right thread. But since I think you are giving conclusions based on speculation I want to put out another also speculative view.

You confirmed the possibility that the KG present at the ToJ were regarding Rhaegar as their lawful king (R+L=J thread) and we think that Arthur Dayne was loyal to Rhaegar beyond his KG vows.

The KG never told Ned that they were keeping their vow as KG, and we have seen people being caught between two vows for example Brienne. Jaime is dispised as Kingslayer because he actively acted against his vow as KG without declaring himself first (as a rebel or no longer KG for Aerys acting against the realm).

The KG of the ToJ are respected by Ned, who was a rebel himself and Barristan Selmy, who acknwoledged Robert as king even though Viserys was still alive.

I can´t understand why you reject the idea that the KG felt bound to a personal vow, they´ve given to Rhaegar and that was deemed honourable by Ned, also. And why would they even try to protect a son of a king they have renounced.

I will not reject your view, because it works, even though I find the marriage of Rhaegar and Lyanna a bit tricky. I favor the view that the KG followed Rhaegars believe that Lyanna and Jon were worth dying for. And I like the idea of The Dornishmen, that the KG wanted to go out in a bang for their cause (putting Rhaegar on the throne) was lost. I think they also sacrificed their lifes for Jon as Qhorin Halfhand did, only to keep him secret.

Edit typos.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You confirmed the possibility that the KG present at the ToJ were regarding Rhaegar as their lawful king (R+L=J thread) and we think that Arthur Dayne was loyal to Rhaegar beyond his KG vows.

The KG never told Ned that they were keeping their vow as KG, and we have seen people being caught between two vows for example Brienne. Jaime is dispised as Kingslayer because he actively acted against his vow as KG without declaring himself first (as a rebel or no longer KG for Aerys acting against the realm).

The KG of the ToJ are respected by Ned, who was a rebel himself and Barristan Selmy, who acknwoledged Robert as king even though Viserys was still alive.

I can´t understand why you reject the idea that the KG felt bound to a personal vow, they´ve given to Rhaegar and that was deemed honourable by Ned, also.

The answer to this is in Ned's conversation with the Kingsguard at the Tower. At that time, if Jon was not legitimate, the Kingsguard — at least one of them — should have gone to Dragonstone or attempted to get to Dragonstone to guard Viserys. If Viserys was the king, then by staying at the Tower, the Kingsguard would have been breaking their vows. You suggest that they're actually at the Tower fulfilling a secondary vow to Rhaegar.

BUT.

Ned says he thought he'd see them elsewhere and obtusely asks why they're not on Dragonstone with Viserys; Willem Darry is.

Whent: "Willem Darry is a good man, and true."

Hightower: "But not of the Kingsguard. The Kingsguard does not flee."

Dayne: "Then or now."

Hightower: "We swore a vow."

It's pretty clear from the dialogue that they're fulfilling the vows as Kingsguard, not as Rhaegar's BFFs. Nothing in that dialogue suggests that they're staying at the Tower solely for Rhaegar's sake. If Viserys is the king, they're breaking their vows by staying there. But they suggest to Ned that they're not breaking their vows as Kingsguard, they're fulfilling them. No mention or allusion to Rhaegar, and they have no reason to lie outright to Ned at that point.

So I reject the "personal vow" theory because it's not supported in the text.

I said that the Kingsguard probably considered Rhaegar the de facto king, not the de jure (i.e. lawful) king. Small difference maybe but still a difference.

And Barristan had been wounded and tended to by Robert. He also personally saw the Targ host defeated at the Trident. I don't think he had much of a choice but to declare for Robert.

[Lykos]

@Apple Martini

<snip>

Ned says he thought he'd see them elsewhere and obtusely asks why they're not on Dragonstone with Viserys; Willem Darry is.

Whent: "Willem Darry is a good man, and true."

This is telling me that house Darry is loyal to Aerys.

Hightower: "But not of the Kingsguard. The Kingsguard does not flee."

Dayne: "Then or now."

Hightower: "We swore a vow."

Well, this sounds very much like Ned misleading Robert into believing that Wylla was Jon´s mother. But you´re right this would serve no purpose other than to confuse us readers. They see themselves as Kingsguard, who accept their fate after failure and do not flee. And now it ends.

I said that the Kingsguard probably considered Rhaegar the de facto king, not the de jure (i.e. lawful) king. Small difference maybe but still a difference.

I think that´s the crucial difference however small it is. I consider you the better expert on this, but wouldn´t they have foresworn their vow to Aerys by considering Rhaegar their de facto king?

And Barristan had been wounded and tended to by Robert. He also personally the Targ host defeated at the Trident. I don't think he had much of a choice but to declare for Robert.

Still Barristan thinks that Rhaegar would have made a better king than Aerys, so there would be sympathy towards the cause of Rhaegar´s KG, and since he served Robert though de jure he should have declined, he could still hold Arthur Dayne in high esteem.

To me it boils down to the fact wether Rhaegar´s KG declared in any way for Rhaegar towards Aerys, which we don´t know, just as we don´t know the whereabouts of LC Hightower since Brandon and Rickard Stark were executed by Aerys untill the scene at the ToJ.

Edit for corrections.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

@Apple Martini

This is telling me that house Darry is loyal to Aerys.

The Darrys were loyalists, yeah. But it also makes the pointed statement that Willem Darry isn't in the Kingsguard, yet he's the only one with Viserys and Rhaella. Alarm bells should be going off.

Well, this sounds very much like Ned misleading Robert into believing that Wylla was Jon´s mother. But you´re right this would serve no purpose other than to confuse us readers. They see themselves as Kingsguard, who accept their fate after failure and do not flee. And now it ends.

Yes. That doesn't mean that they're only still there for Rhaegar, though.

I think that´s the crucial difference however small it is. I consider you the better expert on this, but wouldn´t they have foresworn their vow to Aerys by considering Rhaegar their de facto king?

I think this might be a case of, better to ask forgiveness than permission. The three men apparently took orders from Rhaegar to go to the Tower (but not necessarily to stay there after Rhaegar died) and simply weren't in a position after that for Aerys to give conflicting orders. If they had gone to the capital though, at that point, Aerys' orders probably would have superceded Rhaegar's, unless that was the event of the coup it's implied Rhaegar was plotting. They basically found a loophole in the system: They must follow Aerys' orders first, but Aerys can't give them orders if he doesn't know where they are. Or by that point they had said to hell with it and were openly "for" Rhaegar.

Still Barristan thinks that Rhaegar would have made a better king than Aerys, so there would be sympathy towards the cause of Rhaegar´s KG, and since he served Robert though de jure he should have declined, he could still hold Arthur Dayne in high esteem.

I'm arguing what he did, not what he should have done.

To me it boils down to the fact wether Rhaegar´s KG declared in any way for Rhaegar towards Aerys, which we don´t know, just as we don´t know the whereabouts of LC Hightower since Brandon and Rickard Stark were executed by Aerys untill the scene at the ToJ.

Even if they did "officially" declare for Rhaegar, that doesn't explain why the men were still at the Tower when Ned arrived, if Jon wasn't legitimate.

[Lykos]

@Apple Martini

They were there to go down honourably fullfilling the vow to protect Lyanna and the great Stark / Targaryen secret (we´re all dying to find out). The vow they gave Rhaegar, who died without heir (or with legitimate Jon in that case you´re right, but they shouldn´t have let themselves be killed). They died and took the secret and 5 Northmen, who knew too much, to their graves.

ETA: Gotta go for today, thanks Apple.

[Lykos]

No rhetorical iteration, just a double post. Sigh.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

@Apple Martini

They were there to go down honourably fullfilling the vow to protect Lyanna and the great Stark / Targaryen secret (we´re all dying to find out). The vow they gave Rhaegar, who died without heir (or with legitimate Jon in that case you´re right, but they shouldn´t have let themselves be killed). They died and took the secret and 5 Northmen, who knew too much, to their graves.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. They were there because Jon was there and Jon was legitimate. Rhaegar's orders died with him and if Viserys had been the rightful king at that point, they should have been with him. Period. That's likely why Martin goes into details about the Kingsguard and how it works, so that you can examine the Tower situation and root out the reason they were actually there. I don't think they "let" themselves be killed. They came very close to successfully fending off Ned's men; I don't think "letting" came into any of it.

[It Rhymes With Meek]

I think this might be a case of, better to ask forgiveness than permission. The three men apparently took orders from Rhaegar to go to the Tower (but not necessarily to stay there after Rhaegar died) and simply weren't in a position after that for Aerys to give conflicting orders. If they had gone to the capital though, at that point, Aerys' orders probably would have superceded Rhaegar's, unless that was the event of the coup it's implied Rhaegar was plotting. They basically found a loophole in the system: They must follow Aerys' orders first, but Aerys can't give them orders if he doesn't know where they are. Or by that point they had said to hell with it and were openly "for" Rhaegar.

This is a main reason why I don't think your reasoning in itself is strong evidence that Jon is legitimate. On the one hand you have the KG technically breaking their vows but asking "forgiveness rather than permission" to follow Rhaegar in the first place, and on the other hand you insist that it is 100% impossible that they would have done the same to defend Rhaegar's son by his beloved.

To repeat, I think it's possible that Jon is legitimate -- I just don't think this argument is very good evidence for that position.

[Bastard of the White Knife]

I'm coming back to the timing on this issue. Where were the KG when KL was sacked? We know Ned left KL to find Lyanna (IIRC) before Robert's coronation, which happened within days of the sack. I can assume that the KG had a head start on Ned. When Ned and his guys arrive at the TOJ, they are confronted by the KG and a fight ensues. Ned, either during, shortly before or shortly after speaks to Lyanna while she is in the "bed of blood" which we assume means that Lyanna died giving birth to Jon very, very recently. So, I take from this that the KG left KL before Jon was born, as travel from KL to western Dorne is going to take at least a week, maybe more, even on horseback. Jon wasn't born when the KG left for the TOJ.

It may sound somewhat trivial as a detail, but if your view is that the KG strictly follow the letter of the law, then when they left KL to protect the new King, it wasn't Jon, because he wasn't born. I'm still not convinced on how we are to believe that a child born of a "plural marriage" is "trueborn." I cannot think of any basis from the books establishing that this would make Jon "trueborn" in the Westerosi sense.

[It Rhymes With Meek]

I'm coming back to the timing on this issue. Where were the KG when KL was sacked? We know Ned left KL to find Lyanna (IIRC) before Robert's coronation, which happened within days of the sack. I can assume that the KG had a head start on Ned. When Ned and his guys arrive at the TOJ, they are confronted by the KG and a fight ensues. Ned, either during, shortly before or shortly after speaks to Lyanna while she is in the "bed of blood" which we assume means that Lyanna died giving birth to Jon very, very recently. So, I take from this that the KG left KL before Jon was born, as travel from KL to western Dorne is going to take at least a week, maybe more, even on horseback. Jon wasn't born when the KG left for the TOJ.

Jaime was in King's Landing, Barristan Selmy was injured and both Prince Lewyn Martell and Jonothor Darry were killed at the Battle of the Trident. I don't think those last two were replaced before Aerys died, but I could be wrong.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm coming back to the timing on this issue. Where were the KG when KL was sacked? We know Ned left KL to find Lyanna (IIRC) before Robert's coronation, which happened within days of the sack. I can assume that the KG had a head start on Ned. When Ned and his guys arrive at the TOJ, they are confronted by the KG and a fight ensues. Ned, either during, shortly before or shortly after speaks to Lyanna while she is in the "bed of blood" which we assume means that Lyanna died giving birth to Jon very, very recently. So, I take from this that the KG left KL before Jon was born, as travel from KL to western Dorne is going to take at least a week, maybe more, even on horseback. Jon wasn't born when the KG left for the TOJ.

It may sound somewhat trivial as a detail, but if your view is that the KG strictly follow the letter of the law, then when they left KL to protect the new King, it wasn't Jon, because he wasn't born. I'm still not convinced on how we are to believe that a child born of a "plural marriage" is "trueborn." I cannot think of any basis from the books establishing that this would make Jon "trueborn" in the Westerosi sense.

The only Kingsguard who was present at the Sack was Jaime. Selmy was wounded, Darry and Martell were dead and Dayne, Whent and Hightower were presumably already at the Tower of Joy and had been for some time, before Jon was actually born.

The Targaryens had practiced polygamy in the past; there's a precedent for it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This is a main reason why I don't think your reasoning in itself is strong evidence that Jon is legitimate. On the one hand you have the KG technically breaking their vows but asking "forgiveness rather than permission" to follow Rhaegar in the first place, and on the other hand you insist that it is 100% impossible that they would have done the same to defend Rhaegar's son by his beloved.

To repeat, I think it's possible that Jon is legitimate -- I just don't think this argument is very good evidence for that position.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. It's plain as day to me but to you apparently it isn't. If you're not convinced now you're not going to be until Martin spoonfeeds it. Stalemate.