Maybe R+L=J is not true?

[summer_stark]

I think it's pretty obvious, from a religious standpoint — and knights are tied into the Faith of the Seven — why there are exactly seven knights and not five or eight or a dozen.

And no offense, but what you think should have happened is kind of moot. So you think they shouldn't have been at the Tower, OK. Fact is that they were and that's what we have to work with.

1. whenever someone says no offense, you mean to give offense.

2. the point i made is that they were not doing their duty. this although subjective, and personal is still a judgment i am making. and in saying they were not doing their duty, when speaking of duty (in the legal sense -- think, torts) people talk of "shoulds." that's how you determine guilt -- it's not moot really at all. and certainly not in a discussion of why the KG was there -- if the KG was there on orders of rhaegar, they were not doing their duty to aerys, and as such, they failed aerys. if they were there b/c aerys told them to, then that's them carrying out their duty. i doubt they were there on aerys' orders, so to be their on rhaegars orders, especially after he is dead, is a failure of their duty to aerys while he is alive -- morally at the very least.

3) it also speaks volumes about whether they supported or failed their king, or whether they were merely siding with a friend, rhaegar. we are speaking about the motivations for the KG being in the tower--what they should have been doing if they were fulfilling their duties is part of that discussion because they believe they were fulfilling their duty, which is how everyone has determined that they were guarding a married pregnant lyanna. but they weren't really fulfilling their duty, not to king aerys anyway -- but if they think they were, then maybe something else is at play. probably not, but that was my original point -- motivation for the KG to be there, if you look at my first or second post in this thread.

4) religious significance makes for a nice number, but i'd venture that symmetry is not the only reason they have more than 1 kingsguard. at the point where there is more than 1 kingsguard, my point stands.

[Dragonfish]

Holy shit! This fucking tread has inspired a Spin Off? Can't we just keep this nonsense in the RL=J threads? Do we really need two discussing the same batshit crazy nonsense?

Do you have anything to contribute other than to tell people to STFU about R+L=J? If you think these threads should be merged, then notify a mod. If you think the R+L=J thread should be shut down, then tough. Go post someplace else if you don't like the conversation.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

1. whenever someone says no offense, you mean to give offense.

Sorry if you take it that way. I'll be sure not to waste time with it from now on

2. the point i made is that they were not doing their duty. this although subjective, and personal is still a judgment i am making. and in saying they were not doing their duty, when speaking of duty (in the legal sense -- think, torts) people talk of "shoulds." that's how you determine guilt -- it's not moot really at all. and certainly not in a discussion of why the KG was there -- if the KG was there on orders of rhaegar, they were not doing their duty to aerys, and as such, they failed aerys. if they were there b/c aerys told them to, then that's them carrying out their duty. i doubt they were there on aerys' orders, so to be their on rhaegars orders, especially after he is dead, is a failure of their duty -- morally at the very least.

That is your opinion. Within the story, from what we know about the Kingsguard, there was no dereliction.

Here's a scenario for you: Aerys orders the three Kingsguard to go find Rhaegar, and they do. Absent a trumping order from Aerys, they then follow Rhaegar's order to stay at the Tower of Joy with Lyanna. Aerys, not knowing where they are, is unable to issue an order overriding Rhaegar's. Are they in dereliction of their duty? It's not like Aerys can call them up on their Droids and tell them to come back.

3) it also speaks volumes about whether they supported or failed their king, or whether they were merely siding with a friend, rhaegar. we are speaking about the motivations for the KG being in the tower--what they should have been doing if they were fulfilling their duties is part of that discussion because they believe they were fulfilling their duty, which is how everyone has determined that they were guarding a married pregnant lyanna. but they weren't really fulfilling their duty, not to king aerys anyway -- but if they think they were, then maybe something else is at play. probably not, but that was my original point -- motivation for the KG to be there, if you look at my first or second post in this thread.

If they were just there because they were BFFs with Rhaegar, they would have been in dereliction of their duty. Yet they tell Ned when he arrives that they are most definitely still fulfilling their vows, and those vows necessitate them being at the Tower. And they weren't fulfilling their duty to Aerys when Ned arrived because Aerys was dead.

4) religious significance makes for a nice number, but i'd venture that symmetry is not the only reason they have more than 1 kingsguard. at the point where there is more than 1 kingsguard, my point stands.

Except that the Kingsguard routinely guard other family members too, go on military campaigns and carry out other side projects that necessitate there being several of them, many of whom may or may not be with the king. Your idea that every Kingsguard member must be with the king at all times, as if that's feasible or regularly enforced, has no basis in the books. There are likely seven members because of the Faith tie-in, and there are multiple men so they DON'T all have to be with the king all the time.

[Jem]

1. whenever someone says no offense, you mean to give offense.

2. the point i made is that they were not doing their duty. this although subjective, and personal is still a judgment i am making. and in saying they were not doing their duty, when speaking of duty (in the legal sense -- think, torts) people talk of "shoulds." that's how you determine guilt -- it's not moot really at all. and certainly not in a discussion of why the KG was there -- if the KG was there on orders of rhaegar, they were not doing their duty to aerys, and as such, they failed aerys. if they were there b/c aerys told them to, then that's them carrying out their duty. i doubt they were there on aerys' orders, so to be their on rhaegars orders, especially after he is dead, is a failure of their duty to aerys while he is alive -- morally at the very least.

3) it also speaks volumes about whether they supported or failed their king, or whether they were merely siding with a friend, rhaegar. we are speaking about the motivations for the KG being in the tower--what they should have been doing if they were fulfilling their duties is part of that discussion because they believe they were fulfilling their duty, which is how everyone has determined that they were guarding a married pregnant lyanna. but they weren't really fulfilling their duty, not to king aerys anyway -- but if they think they were, then maybe something else is at play. probably not, but that was my original point -- motivation for the KG to be there, if you look at my first or second post in this thread.

4) religious significance makes for a nice number, but i'd venture that symmetry is not the only reason they have more than 1 kingsguard. at the point where there is more than 1 kingsguard, my point stands.

Why do you doubt that they were there on Aerys's orders? It is entirely possible, likely even, that they were there because Aerys told them to go and fetch Rhaegar.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

yes, and i am choosing to do the same -- since whether or not js is born b/f or a/f the sack is up in the air, we are in agreement that neither of us has the right of it--they are both just theories.

My last statement was not in reference to Jon's birth, but okay. You are correct.

you made two statements, one objective, one subjective. it's objective that their duty is to their king--it's subjective that they carried out that duty. so that is not a fact in the way you are using it. you can use it to prove that they thought they were carrying out their duty, but not to prove whether, objectively, they carried out their duty.

I was using it to show that they - sworn knights of the Kingsguard - strongly believed that they were carrying out their duty, so okay.

so, we have 2 facts. 1 objective, 1 subjective.

1) objective: their duty was to the king -- which is king aerys while he lived; and

2) subjective: they "believed" they were doing their duty by being in the tower with lyanna.

the second is not indicative of whether they were, in fact, carrying out their duty to the king, aerys, or whether they were carrying out a vow they made to someone they liked better, rhaegar, and carrying out that vow no matter what happened to rhaegar.

Based on the conversation, as Ned remembered it, they were referring to their duty as knights of the Kingsguard. Just as House Martell before you, you are ignoring this, but okay.

it's not a barometer of whether or not they were, in fact, carrying out their duty to king aerys. i believe that they were not doing their duty. you believe, based on those facts, that they were. my theory based on those two facts differs from your theory, based on those facts.

Your theory seems to ignore both facts. The Kingsguard duty is to the king...Aerys was not the king.

so, unless i'm mistaken, we're both theorizing based on facts. you did not just point to the text only -- you pointed to a couple of facts, this time, and then extrapolated from them -- you may not think that you did that, but you did, and so did i.

Yes, you are mistaken. Also, I have admitted several times that I have made assumptions based on the facts from the text, so yeah...I'm well aware of my actions.

[summer_stark]

1. Sorry if you take it that way. I'll be sure not to waste time with it from now on

2. That is your opinion. Within the story, from what we know about the Kingsguard, there was no dereliction.

Here's a scenario for you: Aerys orders the three Kingsguard to go find Rhaegar, and they do. Absent a trumping order from Aerys, they then follow Rhaegar's order to stay at the Tower of Joy with Lyanna. Aerys, not knowing where they are, is unable to issue an order overriding Rhaegar's. Are they in dereliction of their duty? It's not like Aerys can call them up on their Droids and tell them to come back.

3. If they were just there because they were BFFs with Rhaegar, they would have been in dereliction of their duty. Yet they tell Ned when he arrives that they are most definitely still fulfilling their vows, and those vows necessitate them being at the Tower. And they weren't fulfilling their duty to Aerys when Ned arrived because Aerys was dead.

4. Except that the Kingsguard routinely guard other family members go, go on military campaigns and carry out other side projects that necessitate there being several of them, many of whom may or may not be with the king. Your idea that every Kingsguard member must be with the king at all times, as if that's feasible or regularly enforced, has no basis in the books. There are likely seven members because of the Faith tie-in, and there are multiple men so they DON'T all have to be with the king all the time.

4) i didn't say that all members were to be w/the king at all times -- the point of them being several instead of few is to have periods of rest, be able to guard other members of the royal family (eg myrcella in dorne, which i stated earlier). but when they are not resting, and therefore out of rotation (like i said before - see asos -- jaime doesn't want to wake his KG brother bc that brother has night duty w/the king), on orders from their king to carry out a military campaign (which i stated earlier), then they should be with their king. yes, there are probably 7 instead of 6 because of the faith. but there are 7 instead of 1 b/c the king needs more than one person to be able to carry out the duty while another sleeps (as evidenced by asos, when one is sleeping so he can be on duty later)

3) the appropriate time period is not when ned arrives -- the timeperiod i'm talking about is in between rhaegar and aerys' deaths. the most plausible answer, as i said earlier, was yours. we are not disagreeing about whether they were doing their duty to king jon when ned arrived -- we are talking about earlier, so that point does not answer the argument about duty.

2) no, within the story, from what we know, they think they are doing their duty. if it is to rhaegar, then unless it's on aerys orders, as you state below, it isn't to aerys. if their duty to rhaegar ends with his death, then it comes back to the point i made earlier -- that unless they didnt know rhaegar was dead until aerys was dead, they were not fulfilling their duty. and if it is just at that moment they are speaking of --

i.e., when ned arrives after king jon has been born then that's not relevant to this discussion as we are talking about the time before he is born, and why they were there so long, and whether it was appropriate for them to be there on rhaegar's orders in the first place, especially if aerys did not order them to go find rhaegar. and, even if aerys did order them to, whether they knew rhaegar was dead before aerys was dead -- which would have been a failure of their duty. and again, i gave you props for the idea that they might not have known.

1. thank you.

[summer_stark]

My last statement was not in reference to Jon's birth, but okay. You are correct.

I was using it to show that they - sworn knights of the Kingsguard - strongly believed that they were carrying out their duty, so okay.

Based on the conversation, as Ned remembered it, they were referring to their duty as knights of the Kingsguard. Just as House Martell before you, you are ignoring this, but okay.

Your theory seems to ignore both facts. The Kingsguard duty is to the king...Aerys was not the king.

Yes, you are mistaken. Also, I have admitted several times that I have made assumptions based on the facts from the text, so yeah...I'm well aware of my actions.

neither house martell nor myself ignored the fact about what the kingsguard believed. there are two things at play here, which i will explain as clearly as i can.

1. the distinction between a subjective and objective fact -- the former being akin to hearsay -- it may not be used to prove the truth of matter asserted. it may be used to prove the subjective belief about the content, but not the content itself. this is double hearsay, but that's neither here nor there. the point, which i neither ignored nor missed, was that their belief that they carried out the their duty, is not proof that they carried out their duty. example: i believe grass is blue. i strongly believe grass is blue. my belief in the truth value of my statement does not make it anymore true.

if you want to use it like that, however, i understand. they are honorable men, and everything we have heard about them points to them being good honest men. so is your theory illogical? no. still, the distinction i am making is one based on facts versus beliefs. so using it as a fact is not something i will do without more. that's just the way i was trained.

2) i am not talking about their duty to king jon targaryen. and havent been for some time.

who is the duty to at the point they leave king aerys to go to the tower? not jon targaryen. he's not born, king aerys is still alive and so are 2 other people ahead of the unborn baby in the line of succession.

i am talking about their duty to king aerys while he was alive. and whether they fulfilled that duty by being in the tower, especially after rhaegar died, but before aerys died. they didn't get to the tower after jon was born -- or even right before he was born. so yes, i am talking about their duty to king aerys which is the duty they had to fulfill for an extended period of time during which they were at the tower. whose orders were they? probably rhaegars. why are they taking orders from rhaegar? possibly because aerys told them to. why are they still there after rhaegar is dead, but aerys is still alive? that's the point i am making. if they knew that rhaegar was dead while aerys lived, they did not carry out their duty to king aerys, since whatever orders they got from rhaegar, possibly through aerys telling them to be with rhaegar, are now over.

3. i didn't misunderstand you. nor did i ignore any facts -- i chose to give less weight to a subjective fact, and told you why. the other fact i used differed from yours based on the timing -- i was talking about while king aerys was alive, you were talking about when everyone else was dead and jon was next. that fact is not relevant to the discussion i was having...and undisputed assuming all other things are true.

if it is the discussion you thought we were having, then sure, i agree with you -- the KG are doing their duty at the point jon becomes king, which i'll concede, for the purposes of this discussion, has occurred by the time ned gets there -- rules of succession re: viserys etc. -- that discussion was complete. i realized half way through that discussion that it didn't matter about viserys since it was aerys they might have had a duty to that went unfulfilled. this discussion for the past few pages has been w/r/t aerys after rhaegar's death.

[Angalin]

Closing the thread for length. If you feel compelled to continue the discussion in a new thread, remember that, in this context, politeness won't kill any of you.