The Kingsguard of Aerys: false knights

[Rheagar Prime]

i agree so much with this its not even funny i mean the KG vow must be a heavy ass vow to supersede the vow one takes as a knight. Still as warriors though they are badass in neds dream what they were saying just made my hair stand up the said no matter what they would stay loyal to the targs basically no matter how crazy one is lol, thats loyalty at its fullest, shame they couldn't use reason though, but it is to be admired.. They are like the Taliban (no offense) or any patriotic idiot who see their office the ends justify the means. Thats the only explanation i see why they do nothing even though all of the KG knew areys was mad as a hatter.

[alan12]

We were just following orders.

>_>

Can't agree. The Kingsguard are not the nazis. The nazis were a modern phenomenon and a totally different historical context. Given the advent of modern political and social ethics, theories of natural rights, rights of individuals and minorities already prevaded Western Europe before the nazis and form a modern ethic. Nuremberg essntially dictated that a rights centred ethos trumps an ethos of blind loyalty.

During the medieval era, which Martin is attempting to recreate, social and political relationships rested fundamentally on an ethos of honour, oathkeeping and fealty. The worst thing you could say to a man at this time was that he was an oathbreaker, dishonourable or a deceiver. These were fighting words, a duel was a likely result. Look at Jaimie, he did the "right" thing and slew Aerys, and the realm despises him for it, because he broke the cardinal rule.

The Kingsguard of Aerys Targaryen was formed by the greatest paragons and heroes of their time. They exemplify medieval ethos and represent on of the most highly elite champions of honour and swordsmanship. As I read the books I've become increasingly fascinated with the Kingsguard and Aerys Kingsguard was one of the best the realm saw, all true knights to the very end. (minus Jaime)

[corbon]

I agree with your counterpoints to an extent. Earlier in the thread I was teasing out a reasonable demarcation where the line could be drawn, since there is a pretty clear slippery slope argument to be made, where the KG are no longer "knights" but would cross the lines into politicking.

I do think the "trial" is a fair line to draw. As you point out, Aerys' breaking of the social contract was gradual; I think the trial was a culmination of an increasing trend, of which the KG would be aware. I think the manner in which this act was carried out, especially given the KG's knowledge of Aerys' increasing proclivities, they could easily see that this was more than simple draconian sentencing. They have unlimited access to observing the King's behavior, and as such, they could see the trial not as a single isolated act, but the "piece de resistance" of Aerys' psychopathy. With that in mind, I think that the trial very much crossed the line, and serves as an incontestable breach of the King's contract to his people, based on the illegality of the trial, as well as the senseless torture on which he got off sexually.

I don't think that you can separate the notion of "king" from "protector of the realm" in terms of honoring the vow. The KG's sanctity derives from the idea that the king is a protector of sorts; if he is no longer a protector, then he is no longer the king, and I think your last paragraph gets to that-- how the KG were arranging with Rhaegar to depose Aerys. I think the fact that they were in negotiations with Rhaegar suggests that they did truly believe that their KG vow did not cover indiscriminate protection of a jerk (to put it mildly), and they were simply too late in coming to this realization. It doesn't mean that standing by previously was honorable; in fact, I think this points toward the dishonorable nature of doing so.

I agree with the general flavour of this. This post and #190 were two of the best posts I've seen on this forum.

However, I think the judgement that the trial is a fair line to draw is, while perfectly valid, not necessarily the only 'line'. And while I think it is a fair line for us to draw, I think it is not necessarily a fair line for the KG to draw. The people involved in the trial were guilty of treason, either direction or by close association. Everybody so far mentioned is at least a player in the game. They may not be specificlly 'guilty', but they are not innocents either. Complain all you like about Aerys raping his wife, but she is still his wife, and in that time and place, while not what he does is not necessarily 'right', it is within his rights, to some extent.

As they say, the KG are not there to sit in moral judgement on every action the king makes. Somewhere, sometime, he may go over an invisible line where things are 'so bad' that the KG cannot stand by him anymore. But necessarily, because of their role, they must give him every benefit of the doubt.

It must also be remembered that brutality and the like are far more common in this society. And the need, or perhaps more accurately, leeway, for a certain amount of brutality is widely (if not totally) accepted.

I personally think that a more acceptable 'breaking point' for the KG would be the knowledge of Aerys' plans to destroy KL. That is thousands of innocents.

A few players of the game? That's brutal, perhaps unnecessary, perhaps even 'too far', but it is not the place where the KG should be judging the King.

I also think that part of the problem is 'stopping' the king without harming him or his position. Facing off against him in court must needs be a very very last resort, the sort of thing only accpetable in response to the destruction of KL plan, for example. But a quiet 'coup' by Rhaegar, now that is much more the sort of response that can keep witin their vows, within their honour.

[MagnusPrime]

I agree with the general flavour of this. This post and #190 were two of the best posts I've seen on this forum.

However, I think the judgement that the trial is a fair line to draw is, while perfectly valid, not necessarily the only 'line'. And while I think it is a fair line for us to draw, I think it is not necessarily a fair line for the KG to draw. The people involved in the trial were guilty of treason, either direction or by close association. Everybody so far mentioned is at least a player in the game. They may not be specificlly 'guilty', but they are not innocents either. Complain all you like about Aerys raping his wife, but she is still his wife, and in that time and place, while not what he does is not necessarily 'right', it is within his rights, to some extent.

As they say, the KG are not there to sit in moral judgement on every action the king makes. Somewhere, sometime, he may go over an invisible line where things are 'so bad' that the KG cannot stand by him anymore. But necessarily, because of their role, they must give him every benefit of the doubt.

It must also be remembered that brutality and the like are far more common in this society. And the need, or perhaps more accurately, leeway, for a certain amount of brutality is widely (if not totally) accepted.

I personally think that a more acceptable 'breaking point' for the KG would be the knowledge of Aerys' plans to destroy KL. That is thousands of innocents.

A few players of the game? That's brutal, perhaps unnecessary, perhaps even 'too far', but it is not the place where the KG should be judging the King.

I also think that part of the problem is 'stopping' the king without harming him or his position. Facing off against him in court must needs be a very very last resort, the sort of thing only accpetable in response to the destruction of KL plan, for example. But a quiet 'coup' by Rhaegar, now that is much more the sort of response that can keep witin their vows, within their honour.

This point sums up what a lot of us have been trying to say.

And if the kingsguard of Aerys where such monsters they are most definitely not reviled as such by the nobility or common folk years after their death.

Only Jaime is because he broke his oath which he need not have done.

[Maxpey]

This point sums up what a lot of us have been trying to say.

And if the kingsguard of Aerys where such monsters they are most definitely not reviled as such by the nobility or common folk years after their death.

Only Jaime is because he broke his oath which he need not have done.

I am not sure we should put much stock into what the people of Westeros think about Aerys's Kingsguard. It appears to me that in this society the "social contract" is that all persons have a duty to submit to those in authority, with the King being the absolute authority. If I may make an analogy, reinforcing the concept of honor and adherence to one's duty appears to be the "opiate" of the people in this particular culture. It's another form of social control, a way of ensuring that people continue accepting the social contract.

Knights are trained to believe that they have an overarching code of "honor" that places them above common people. Part of this code is to obey those in authority, without question. To do otherwise risks "dishonor." The KG represent this ideal above all. Given how much the concept of "honor" is ingrained in this culture, it is no wonder that people still admire the KG for adhering to their vows, even though doing so seemed to enable Aerys to commit horrible acts.

Edit. bad spelling mistakes

[Dragonguard]

I agree with the general flavour of this. This post and #190 were two of the best posts I've seen on this forum.However, I think the judgement that the trial is a fair line to draw is, while perfectly valid, not necessarily the only 'line'. And while I think it is a fair line for us to draw, I think it is not necessarily a fair line for the KG to draw. The people involved in the trial were guilty of treason, either direction or by close association. Everybody so far mentioned is at least a player in the game. They may not be specificlly 'guilty', but they are not innocents either. Complain all you like about Aerys raping his wife, but she is still his wife, and in that time and place, while not what he does is not necessarily 'right', it is within his rights, to some extent.As they say, the KG are not there to sit in moral judgement on every action the king makes. Somewhere, sometime, he may go over an invisible line where things are 'so bad' that the KG cannot stand by him anymore. But necessarily, because of their role, they must give him every benefit of the doubt.It must also be remembered that brutality and the like are far more common in this society. And the need, or perhaps more accurately, leeway, for a certain amount of brutality is widely (if not totally) accepted.I personally think that a more acceptable 'breaking point' for the KG would be the knowledge of Aerys' plans to destroy KL. That is thousands of innocents.A few players of the game? That's brutal, perhaps unnecessary, perhaps even 'too far', but it is not the place where the KG should be judging the King.I also think that part of the problem is 'stopping' the king without harming him or his position. Facing off against him in court must needs be a very very last resort, the sort of thing only accpetable in response to the destruction of KL plan, for example. But a quiet 'coup' by Rhaegar, now that is much more the sort of response that can keep witin their vows, within their honour.

I Agree with this

What I think a lot of people are forgetting here is that it was only about 5 years before the war of the usurper broke out that Aerys began to go mad AFTER Duskendale - before that he was a very good king, maybe a bit pervy (eg. Joanna Lannister) but not a monster. The Kingsguards loyalty was to that king (and maybe Rhaegar).

Also they were not Stark or Baratheon bennermen but KINGsguard their point of view was from kingslanding nowhere else, as far as they knew, up until the executions of Brandon and Rickard even, nothing was out of hand. they may have believed/known that lyanna went with rhaegar willingly (if she did), thought that Rickard would present himself to the king and request her return - he may even have done so if brandon 'wild wolf' stark had not decided to go hothead and storm into the capital shouting for the crown princes head! (a bit dim no?) Arresting him was normal, what Aerys SHOULD have done was order rickard, rhaegar and lyanna to kingslanding to sort it all out showing respect to his major lord but he didn't.

Just a couple of points but - the raping of Rhaella wasnt really considered rape in the setting of westeros she was his wife and thus property (i obviously dont agree with this from a moral and modern perspective but) in the setting of the story so the kingsguard may have felt affected but their vows did not conflict.

- also were ALL the kingsguard there at the executions of R and B? they were not always all present and i cant remember if any but hightower and jaime are mentioned being there? Even if they were, they did not know Rickard Stark, he did not hold their loyalty, for all they knew he WAS an enemy of their king technically he became so when Brandon acted with 'treason'.

- finally if Rhaegar was intent on somehow reducing his fathers power then Dayne and (from the sound of things) Whent were probably in on it but Rhaegar was with lyanna and NOT IN KINGSLANDING to prevent the executions and perhaps these two as wellThe problem is where is the line for the kingsguard? killing a traitor is seen as right, killing a man viewed as a traitor maybe too far but not their decision, destroying a huge city full of people jaime wonders about this doesnt he and wonders what would the others have done surely some would have done the same, just like selmy thinks it about the actions he takes in Meereen.

Really the blame lies with Aerys and to a lesser extent Brandon and Rhaegar - if it hadnt been for R and Bs actions or if R had made his changes sooner none of this would have happened BUT if not for Aerys madness then even if it had there was a chance for a peacefull resolution

btw i am most certainly not arguing that what Aerys did was right, as i said he should have arrested brandon to let him cool off and sorted things out peacefully without killing anyone in this situation im just pointing out that from the kingsguard point of view protecting a lord they were not sworn to was not in either their kingsguard or their knightly vows and beyond attempting to persuade aerys to another course of action they could not do anything without either betraying aerys outright or subverting him, or getting rhaegars backing which would still be subverting him though not as blatent. Even Ned stark respects them and he wouldnt if he thought there was something dishonourable about this, he has no problems showing it with say robert wanting to assassinate dany or the lannisters killing elia and her child'ren?'

[TristanGreyjoy]

Just to play Devil's Advocate . It's not the Kingsquards responsibilty to defend the Lord of the North and his Heir from the King. It's their responsibilty to protect themselves, Brandon Stark and Rickard Stark should have brought an army to King's Landing. What should the Kingsquard have done? Killed the King and start a Civil War? They swore an oath to protect the royal family not to play the Game of Thrones.

Brandon was locked up and that was why Rickard came at all. He came to have a trial by battle which you don't need an army for. Aerys just decided to cheat and dishonor the laws of a trial by battle. The Kingsguard shouldn't have intervened but they shouldn't have turned a blind eye either.

[jblair]

So...you think our Secret Service should take out our president any time he implements policy they disagree with?

1. Westeros (and stunningly much of the world up until the last century) had no concept of marital rape. As disgusting as I find it, there was no crime.

2. The Starks were executed as traitors. The manner in which they were executed is no less grisly than numerous other medieval "remedies": drawing and quartering and the torture of witches come to mind.

I say this not to justify Aerys' actions, but to point out how tricky it would be to allow the Kingsguard to insert their own agenda into their duties, and to be able to enforce it physically.

[Daemon Dagoghlor]

So...you think our Secret Service should take out our president any time he implements policy they disagree with?

1. Westeros (and stunningly much of the world up until the last century) had no concept of marital rape. As disgusting as I find it, there was no crime.

2. The Starks were executed as traitors. The manner in which they were executed is no less grisly than numerous other medieval "remedies": drawing and quartering and the torture of witches come to mind.

I say this not to justify Aerys' actions, but to point out how tricky it would be to allow the Kingsguard to insert their own agenda into their duties, and to be able to enforce it physically.

Very well put.

[TristanGreyjoy]

So...you think our Secret Service should take out our president any time he implements policy they disagree with?

1. Westeros (and stunningly much of the world up until the last century) had no concept of marital rape. As disgusting as I find it, there was no crime.

2. The Starks were executed as traitors. The manner in which they were executed is no less grisly than numerous other medieval "remedies": drawing and quartering and the torture of witches come to mind.

I say this not to justify Aerys' actions, but to point out how tricky it would be to allow the Kingsguard to insert their own agenda into their duties, and to be able to enforce it physically.

The Starks were UNLAWFULLY executed thats the point. Its no different than the Freys breaking the guest right at the RW. However you make a good point. Criston Cole was a lord commander who did this by seating Aegon II on the throne rather than the kings heir which caused the dance of dragons so i see how the Kingsguard shouldn't apply their own agenda

[Beets]

The Starks were UNLAWFULLY executed thats the point. Its no different than the Freys breaking the guest right at the RW. However you make a good point. Criston Cole was a lord commander who did this by seating Aegon II on the throne rather than the kings heir which caused the dance of dragons so i see how the Kingsguard shouldn't apply their own agenda

Actually, it's very different from the whole Frey situation. IIRC, neither of the Starks partook of bread or salt during their admittedly brief stay in the King's chambers before he lit them on fire, strangled them, etc. While the way that he killed them was grisly and altogether not an appropriate execution for high lords (especially without a trial), it was by no means a violation of guest right. Violation of guest right and kinslaying are two of the most atrocious crimes that can be committed in Westeros, because tradition says so. What Aerys did was cruel, but he wasn't breaking an age-old tradition like the Freys did. Aerys wasn't necessarily within his boundaries as king, but he's no Frey.

As to your second point, I think this is a perfect demonstration of why a Kingsguard should NOT apply his own morality to a situation. Rhaenyra was fed alive to a dragon (as her son watched) by her brother, who later died after Aegon III, Rhaenyra's son, ascended the throne. People all over the realm were dying like flies, there was kinslaying galore even amongst the KG (Arryk and Erryk), and nobody came out any happier. KG do not determine politics, and their job is to obey the King.

This makes most of them terrible people, and I believe that the entire system of government is extremely flawed. Being a KG takes a lot of strength, not to do what's right, but to do what's inherently wrong. The KG is an awful group of people. Jaime betraying Aerys was moral, but it made him a traitor and a terrible KG. All KG are oathbreakers to begin with - being a KG means putting your KG vows above your knightly ones, and if the two ever conflict, you've got no honor left for people on internet forums to dispute.

[KL State of Mind]

I don't know why these fictional characters are being held to real life standards. Westeros and the world of ice and fire has been established to be a much more brutal place than anything we could know in real life.

Murder, rape, torture, are all the norm in Westeros, not the exception. Let's not pretend like the rebels were innocent of atrocities as well.

Tywin MURDERED the Crown Princess and her children and Robert thanked him for it by marrying Cersei. Robert raped Cersei at least once. Brutal punishments and torture are/were commonplace on every side.

Stannis Baratheon, one of the most upright men in the whole series, says that choosing between his blood in Robert and his liege in Aerys was a very hard decision. His decision was factoring in Aerys calling for his brother's head, and he still almost chose Aerys. It's not a cut and dry, black and white choice to rebel against an unjust liege like y'all are making it out to be.

Now, if it was hard for the rebel leader's own brother to take up arms against his King, imagine what a dilemma it would be for one of the men that has sworn his whole life in service of the King to rise up? And even if you rose or protested, there is the possibility of you being burned alive, or your other six brothers do not agree and you are put to death. It's not easy at all.

As far as I'm concerned, Aerys' Kingsguard minus Jaime and Barristan are the truest knights we have witnessed in the series because they stuck it out to the bitter end and died for the blood royal. With all the circumstances allowing them an easy out from their vows, they stayed true and loyal to what they swore.

[the Old Black Crowe]

When Jamie served Aerys, a King died for what was really the good of the realm and was he loved for it? Nope. Not even by the Rebels who opposed the Aerys. If I was him I would have been bitter about that... oh thats right he was. What I'm really getting at is, this is a different world, what we may almost applaud, is seen as unforgivable.

[DanJBarn]

So...you think our Secret Service should take out our president any time he implements policy they disagree with?

1. Westeros (and stunningly much of the world up until the last century) had no concept of marital rape. As disgusting as I find it, there was no crime.

2. The Starks were executed as traitors. The manner in which they were executed is no less grisly than numerous other medieval "remedies": drawing and quartering and the torture of witches come to mind.

I say this not to justify Aerys' actions, but to point out how tricky it would be to allow the Kingsguard to insert their own agenda into their duties, and to be able to enforce it physically.

Agreed. Also something to keep in mind: the world of Westeros is modeled on medieval Europe, more specifically England. The concept of the divine right of kings to rule was prevalent during this time period and is reflected to a certain extent in Westeros. To defy a king's direct order or break an oath sworn to a king would go beyond simply dishonoring oneself. It would mean acting in direct discord with the will of God himself (or, in the case of the novels, the gods themselves). Although we have much different views on the subject today, the type of world in which these characters exist would view anything short of utter submission to the will of the king as complete disregard of divine prowess.

Although the concept of divine right truly came to the forefront during the 1600's, there are countless mentions of the godly mandate of kings going back as far as the Old Testament. Even Thomas Aquinas, who condoned the deposition of tyrants in the most extreme of circumstances for the good of one's country, stated that the only way this could be accomplished was with the blessing of the pope, church and, by implication, God himself.

[House Cearl]

he also threw a 5 year out of a window to what he thought was his death , Barristan and Arthur Dayne would never have done that.

Uhhh... What if Aerys II told them to push a five year old out of the window?

IMO, If I were in the Kingsguard I would have killed Aerys after having to witness the sick game with Brandon strung up to watch his father boil alive in his suit, topped off with the nightly torture rape of his own wife... Yeah I'd get executed (well I'd probably just kill myself after to avoid torture) but I would have done the greatest thing ever. Since Rhaegar is a much, much more nicer and less insane guy would have seated the Iron Throne.

My name would have gone down in Westeros' history as the worst ever but it would have been worth it.

[SerBrightflame]

The worst are those who play the Game of Thrones.

[corbon]

Uhhh... What if Aerys II told them to push a five year old out of the window?

IMO, If I were in the Kingsguard I would have killed Aerys after having to witness the sick game with Brandon strung up to watch his father boil alive in his suit, topped off with the nightly torture rape of his own wife... Yeah I'd get executed (well I'd probably just kill myself after to avoid torture) but I would have done the greatest thing ever. Since Rhaegar is a much, much more nicer and less insane guy would have seated the Iron Throne.

My name would have gone down in Westeros' history as the worst ever but it would have been worth it.

Thats a very easy thing to say, sitting safely at your computer desk. :cool4:

But that aside, perhaps you should put things in context?

Brandon is a criminal under a death sentence. Sure, he gets a trial, but its really only a show. He committed his crime publicly in front of everyone. Mercy might be appropriate, given the provocation he believed he was under at the time, but is not required. He is definitely guilty.

Rickard is a player of the game who has been fomenting a quiet rebellion behind the scenes. Sure, nothing that can be pinned on him, but the truth is plain for all to see, even if not provable. Yes, the manner of his death is insane and probably illegal, but he asked for trial by combat and all know that his son is guilty, so the gods would surely have led Rickard to lose (die) anyway. So Aerys' actions (until later when he calls for Robert's and Ned's heads) are crazy and over the top but they aren't actually changing anything, just making an exemplary example.

Oh, and its not nightly torture-rape of his wife. Its a one-time thing as far as we know and it might have just been rough sex, basically.

So why would the KG step in and interfere here?

[The Night's Prince]

Yes the KG are false knights. Agreed. And not just 6 of them, ALL 7. Including Jamie. There is no argument that all 7 are false knights. It's all or none. Not 6 and then Jamie. No.

[Bloodraven's Eye]

Sandor has it right in the end. Knights are all hypocrites.

Dayne was a killer.

Barristan is a killer.

Jaime is a killer.

Even Ned was a killer (though definitely the most honorable of the lot).

So if they can kill in the name of knighthood and chivalry, then why is it hard for us to fathom that they would stand by and watch others kill and rape, etc. Plus they were kings guard to a Targ dynasty who's slogan is "I will take what is mine with Fire and Blood." How could they even argue with that? Not to mention Mad King Aerys was locked up in the Red Keep for years after Duskendale so it was probably a relief that he was a shut in rather than some cruel war lord killing the masses in the name of the Seven or something (just sayin).

[Whitering]

Following orders...every government seeks out people who will do just that. The prison guards and administrators of the Nazi regime get castigated, but the pilots and navigators who killed tens of thousands of civilians in Japan, many of them slowly and super painfully get nothing.

Well, it's the nature of war, people follow orders, it is the nature of humanity that some will follow orders that others will not. Yep, all those knights were dicks. So far I have seen, ummm...no great knights, maybe Garlan is not a dick, and we've met others very briefly who seem like they might be good people, well, and Edmure and the Blackfish. Of the main and PoV characters, Brienne is the only one who hasn't and wouldn't do something reprehensible or allow it to happen in her presence. I am guessing Edmure would probably object as well, just not as effectively.