R+L=J v.49

[MtnLion]

I don't think anyone questions the fact that Rhaegar gave an order. GRRM is telling us that if that is true (and I think we all agree that it is), then that order explains the presence of the 3KG at the TOJ and the fact that they fought Ned.

Then you are saying that Rhaegar told the Kingsguard to fight Ned?

So I don't think GRRM was trying to be cryptic -- when he doesn't want to answer a question he just says "no comment."

The more interesting question, to me, is what was the order? It might have been: guard this woman and don't let her escape.

Until when? Does it matter if they guard her after his death?

It might have been: guard this woman, she is carrying my bastard.

And why would they care after Rhaegar died? They really have better things to be doing.

It might have been: guard this woman, she is carrying a legitimate Targ heir.

That does not explain why they reaffirm their vow and fight, unless the child is a boy.

The point of the SSM is that whichever order was given, the 3 KG would have followed it even after they learned that Aerys and Rhaegar were dead, regardless of whether they had any reason to think Aegon was dead (which is very much open to question), and regardless of whether they thought the Targ claim had passed to Viserys.

I think with a little reflection you will also see the light. Of course, on can always lead a horse to water . . .

[Ser Leftwich]

I believe you are correct. And I think that when Jaime tells Trant to obey the Regent, the Hand and the Lord Commander, that is fine, too. Tommen has not yet come into his powers as king and until he does, Cersei gives orders on the king's behalf. In effect, as long as she is Regent, an order from Cersei is an order from the king while an order from Tommen is not.

But we have the case of the KG doing what Joffrey said, before he was of age. Perhaps the vows do not elaborate on if the king is "of age."

This also relates to the quote from Bolton about the perils of having a child Lord, the same holds for a child king. Whomever holds him and can hold him can suddenly be the Regent.

[MtnLion]

I believe you are correct. And I think that when Jaime tells Trant to obey the Regent, the Hand and the Lord Commander, that is fine, too. Tommen has not yet come into his powers as king and until he does, Cersei gives orders on the king's behalf. In effect, as long as she is Regent, an order from Cersei is an order from the king while an order from Tommen is not.

Jaime does qualify that, they are to follow Tommen's orders unless they don't make sense.

[Twinslayer]

But we have the case of the KG doing what Joffrey said, before he was of age. Perhaps the vows do not elaborate on if the king is "of age."

This also relates to the quote from Bolton about the perils of having a child Lord, the same holds for a child king. Whomever holds him and can hold him can suddenly be the Regent.

I think you are absolutely right. The problem with Joffrey is that Cersei claimed to be Regent but did not act like it -- she let him give orders as though he had already assumed power as well as the title -- and that resulted in Ned's death.

And I think the "boy lords" point is going to be very important going forward. It's why LIttlefinger wants Sansa, Manderly wants Rickon, Ramsay wants "Arya", etc.

[MtnLion]

I don't know where the idea that a bastard Targaryen could mount a claim for the throne came from. I can see that houses within the Seven Kingdoms may allow this, if the bastard were to be legitimized by the king. Also, a Targaryen bastard could be legitimized and therefore have a claim, but it would require a king to legitimize him/her. We know that Targaryen inheritance is a highly modfied form of Agnatic Primogeniture, and all legitimate heirs would come before a bastard candidate, including females. But, at the end of the war, if the Kingsguard is guarding a bastard Targaryen they have a priority of a king in danger, that is on Dragonstone under siege. Failing his protection brings Robert Baratheon into line for the throne, not any unnamed Targaryen bastard. Robert's claim can only be trumped by Viserys, but he is in flight, and Robert won't let him live long enough to make a claim. (Or, maybe the child at the tower is legitimate and has a stronger claim than Viserys.)

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Jaime does qualify that, they are to follow Tommen's orders unless they don't make sense.

Don't we also have to remember that it's Jaime Lannister making that statement? Here's the guy who stood by and followed a King's orders because he was the King, until it got to the point that the orders no longer made sense to him. My impression is that at this point Jaime is taking advantage of his position to clarify the duties of the KG in a way that makes sense to him, but isn't necessarily enshrined in their tradition.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

I don't know where the idea that a bastard Targaryen could mount a claim for the throne came from. I can see that houses within the Seven Kingdoms may allow this, if the bastard were to be legitimized by the king. Also, a Targaryen bastard could be legitimized and therefore have a claim, but it would require a king to legitimize him/her. We know that Targaryen inheritance is a highly modfied form of Agnatic Primogeniture, and all legitimate heirs would come before a bastard candidate, including females. But, at the end of the war, if the Kingsguard is guarding a bastard Targaryen they have a priority of a king in danger, that is on Dragonstone under siege. Failing his protection brings Robert Baratheon into line for the throne, not any unnamed Targaryen bastard. Robert's claim can only be trumped by Viserys, but he is in flight, and Robert won't let him live long enough to make a claim. (Or, maybe the child at the tower is legitimate and has a stronger claim than Viserys.)

I think it's very important to keep in mind exactly how strong Robert's claim was. Some may call him Usurper, but after the deaths of all of the Targ heirs he would have been heir apparent to Viserys, who was after all a child and already showing signs of the Targaryen madness. You could argue that the Great Council set the precedent for someone with as close a claim as Robert to be set upon the throne based solely on his heritage.

The problem of course is that a legitimate male child of Rhaegar and Lyanna represents not only another claim between Robert and the IT, but the possibility of Robert's allies throwing their support behind this child of the North. The uncertainty and dangerous possibilities of what others would do with Jon, or in his name, would have been as important to Lyanna as any worries about Robert. IMO, that would have been a big part of the promises she extracted: "promise me you will never let him be used as a pawn in the Game."

[Twinslayer]

I don't know where the idea that a bastard Targaryen could mount a claim for the throne came from. I can see that houses within the Seven Kingdoms may allow this, if the bastard were to be legitimized by the king. Also, a Targaryen bastard could be legitimized and therefore have a claim, but it would require a king to legitimize him/her. We know that Targaryen inheritance is a highly modfied form of Agnatic Primogeniture, and all legitimate heirs would come before a bastard candidate, including females. But, at the end of the war, if the Kingsguard is guarding a bastard Targaryen they have a priority of a king in danger, that is on Dragonstone under siege. Failing his protection brings Robert Baratheon into line for the throne, not any unnamed Targaryen bastard. Robert's claim can only be trumped by Viserys, but he is in flight, and Robert won't let him live long enough to make a claim. (Or, maybe the child at the tower is legitimate and has a stronger claim than Viserys.)

I would think that in the absence of a king, a Great Council could legitimize a bastard and make him king. During the Great Council that put Egg on the throne, there was no king. The Council skipped over rival claimants to pick Egg. In fact, if Jon takes the Iron Throne, I think it is very possible that that is how he'll do it. But during all the jockeying, his rivals will argue that he should not be king because he is a bastard.

[Dr. Pepper]

Re: "Then or Now"

This is definitely a good point to carry forward in future discussion.

Angalin, hello Angalin. You hoo Angalin, wake up, time to kill the thread.

Angalin?

Angalin!

ANGALIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hereby solemnly swear to never allow anyone to rub it in. I will not flee from this duty, now and never.

[corbon]

Thats not sarcasm, that's pain.

I'm sorry for your pain.

But happy for you revelation.

Rhaegar didn’t need to give them the order to protect Jon, if Jon was indeed the king, that would be dictated by their vows. So, if an order was issued by Rhaegar it had to be a different one.

Of course. When Rhaegar gave them an order, Jon was not even born, let alone King. So Rhaegar couldn't give them an order to guard their King at ToJ.

He could give them an order to guard his wife and unborn child. Which isn't dictated to by their vows.

Don't we also have to remember that it's Jaime Lannister making that statement? Here's the guy who stood by and followed a King's orders because he was the King, until it got to the point that the orders no longer made sense to him. My impression is that at this point Jaime is taking advantage of his position to clarify the duties of the KG in a way that makes sense to him, but isn't necessarily enshrined in their tradition.

I think its likely that the traditions are enshrined by each LC differently. Hightower was a 'letter-over-spirit' guy, Barristan a follower, Criston Cole was a meddler, Jaime, after losing his hand and examining his life and coming to the conclusion its not been a worthwhile one, seems to have become a 'find-the-spirit' kind of LC.

Every organisation has its rules, and every set of rules invariably turns out to have gaps where following the rules actually goes contrary to the intent behind them. How things turn out then depends on the lead from the top, and varies as the head changes..

[The Lordly Oak]

The entire royal family did not die before the KG could reach them.

True, but that's irrelevant to the fact that the Kingsguard would have had no way of knowing that this would happen.

You dismissed an argument that you had no real response to. Simply put, Arys guards a legitmate heir, for your comparison to be valid you must recognize Jon as a legitimate heir; but claim that he is a bastard. Therefore the comparison fails.

Check your premises and you will find that the conclusion fails. My argument is not that Arys is guarding an heir presumptive and not the King and therefore the Kingsguard can guard heirs presumptive instead of the King. My argument is that Arys' order to guard the heir presumptive did not expire upon the King's death, and therefore, assumptions that orders expire upon the death of a King are false. Ser Balon Swann was ordered to lead a force to attack Gerold Dayne and leave defense of above mentioned heir (now heir apparent by the reckoning of some) to the Dornish (probably less trustworthy than Ser Willem Darry). Orders to the Kingsguard are not limited to defense of King and heirs and orders to the Kingsguard do not automatically expire at the death of the King or the one giving the orders.

I feel that I have nothing that I can contribute to enlighten you as to how a good story is written, thus ends our conversation.

I will not reply in kind (though it is tempting). I will only say that if that is your response, you do not understand my position.

Well, there is no certainty that GRRM didn't botch his writing, either, but in all likelihood, he has it right.

With the emphasy on being Kingsguard, referring to any other part of their vow than the primary one would be bad writing because that's not what the emphasy points at. Anything else would be as if they said "We're Kingsguard, and we're here because we swore to wear colour white" - totally unrelated.

Certainly how the quality of that scene changes if the facts on the grounds change is good evidence in favor of the notion that Jon is the legitimate heir to the Targaryen throne upon his birth. However, I think you may be overemphasizing the valence of a single scene when you call a less satisfying version "botched" writing. The goal of the writer shouldn't be to write a single beautiful scene (though beautiful scenes are encouraged), but to write a beautiful narrative in its sum totality and there are ways of doing that without that particular scene living up to its full potential. But beyond that minor point of emphasis, I think you and I are in complete agreement.

But we have the case of the KG doing what Joffrey said, before he was of age. Perhaps the vows do not elaborate on if the king is "of age."

This also relates to the quote from Bolton about the perils of having a child Lord, the same holds for a child king. Whomever holds him and can hold him can suddenly be the Regent.

Don't we also have to remember that it's Jaime Lannister making that statement? Here's the guy who stood by and followed a King's orders because he was the King, until it got to the point that the orders no longer made sense to him. My impression is that at this point Jaime is taking advantage of his position to clarify the duties of the KG in a way that makes sense to him, but isn't necessarily enshrined in their tradition.

Sure, but remember what a regency means. The King is the figurehead and nothing more and Tommen's reign is a more accurate representation of this than Joffrey's, in which the Queen Regent didn't adequately assert herself as regent. Jaime is essentially chastising his more junior brothers for their simplistic interpretation of their duties. Indeed, a member of the Kingsguard should obey the King...when he is of age and has the full power of Kinghood. During the regency, they should certainly follow orders that make sense from Tommen (to maintain "the trappings of power" as referred to by Melisandre), but should defer to the actual rulers (the Regent, Hand, and Lord Commander) when the orders are questionable.

Yes, Jaime is himself a special case because he enacted the antithesis of the spirit of his vows when he found the King's orders sufficiently horrifying, but my impression is that in times other than that circumstance, he honors his vows, especially after running across Brienne, who tries to live as the epitome of chivalry. It would be interesting to see how he would behave serving an adult King, but alas, I do not think we will have the opportunity to see that.

[corbon]

My argument is that Arys' order to guard the heir presumptive did not expire upon the King's death, and therefore, assumptions that orders expire upon the death of a King are false. Ser Balon Swann was ordered to lead a force to attack Gerold Dayne and leave defense of above mentioned heir (now heir apparent by the reckoning of some) to the Dornish (probably less trustworthy than Ser Willem Darry). Orders to the Kingsguard are not limited to defense of King and heirs and orders to the Kingsguard do not automatically expire at the death of the King or the one giving the orders.

Thats fair enough as far as it goes.

However, there is a hierarchy of orders. The highest ranking order is to guard the king. Only if that is satisfied, or a direct order from the king countermands it, may other orders be followed.

At the ToJ, if Jon is not legitimate, the 3KG are failing their primary order. Viserys ought to be their king and is not guarded sufficiently nor has he ordered them not to guard him. Therefore at least one of them ought to have detatched back to Viserys so that their primary function is fulfilled and the others can continue in their secondary function of following whatever order Rhaegar (who was never King) gave them.

Is there any part of this you don't agree with?

[Ser Leftwich]

snip

My argument is not that Arys is guarding an heir presumptive and not the King and therefore the Kingsguard can guard heirs presumptive instead of the King. My argument is that Arys' order to guard the heir presumptive did not expire upon the King's death, and therefore, assumptions that orders expire upon the death of a King are false.

snip

The counter argument is that Arys's oath (not order) is that he is supposed to do his utmost to secure and crown the immediate heir, upon the king's death. Who, in Arianne's assessment, is Myrcella.

For Arys, the vow succession goes: Joffrey, Myrcella, Tommen, because it is worded from the time of Aegon I.

According to the post-Aegon II law, the succession goes: Joffrey, Tommen, Myrcella.

This is the same theme as Jaime's Dilemma, Stannis's Choice, and others in the books.

[The Lordly Oak]

Thats fair enough as far as it goes.

However, there is a hierarchy of orders. The highest ranking order is to guard the king. Only if that is satisfied, or a direct order from the king countermands it, may other orders be followed.

At the ToJ, if Jon is not legitimate, the 3KG are failing their primary order. Viserys ought to be their king and is not guarded sufficiently nor has he ordered them not to guard him. Therefore at least one of them ought to have detatched back to Viserys so that their primary function is fulfilled and the others can continue in their secondary function of following whatever order Rhaegar (who was never King) gave them.

Is there any part of this you don't agree with?

In terms of likelihoods, no. One of the strange things about this discussion is that I've been forced to argue against what I believe is likely the case in the book because I've seen a lot of sloppy arguments for it and found the arguments against it to be either admirable or unintelligible. This thread's an echo chamber, so those who argue against the main narrative are either clever or obtuse with little in between, whereas those who buy into the main narrative can produce some startlingly wrong arguments in favor of what is in all likelihood a correct answer.

I could give you an explanation of how various hypotheticals could thread the needles you've put forth, but repeatedly doing so with scenarios I find unlikely is getting tedious, especially with the type of debating form I'm beginning to see come out (I'm not referring to you, for whom I have no complaints). So my final parting shot on the point of certainty is that when a theory regarding a fictional work that has not yet been confirmed by the text is put forward, it is not good policy to wed one's outlook to the certainty of that theory's veracity, and it is not enough to get the right answer, but to have the right reasons for coming to that answer. Otherwise, it is very easy to be shocked when it turns out that the author has a different outlook from what was expected in a way that sours an otherwise excellent narrative.

The counter argument is that Arys's oath (not order) is that he is supposed to do his utmost to secure and crown the immediate heir, upon the king's death. Who, in Arianne's assessment, is Myrcella.

That certainly is an interesting tangent and it explains Arianne's wording, though I still think it was a clever redirect rather than a direct engagement of Arys' views. But of course the real point to make about it was that it worked.

[corbon]

In terms of likelihoods, no.

Ok then.

One of the strange things about this discussion is that I've been forced to argue against what I believe is likely the case in the book because I've seen a lot of sloppy arguments for it and found the arguments against it to be either admirable or unintelligible. This thread's an echo chamber, so those who argue against the main narrative are either clever or obtuse with little in between, whereas those who buy into the main narrative can produce some startlingly wrong arguments in favor of what is in all likelihood a correct answer.

I can't disagree with you here. Although I'm struggling to think of many (any?) of the arguments against that have been either clever or admirable.

I could give you an explanation of how various hypotheticals could thread the needles you've put forth, but repeatedly doing so with scenarios I find unlikely is getting tedious,

I understand, although its a shame, because I really can't see any that are reasonable, and not entirely contrived.

especially with the type of debating form I'm beginning to see come out (I'm not referring to you, for whom I have no complaints).

Some, more engaged than others, have not covered themselves in glory, agreed. There is only so much patience for the level of obtuseness demonstrated frequently here.

I venture to reflect that being one of the less engaged this time is perhaps the largest reason you have no complaints of me, this time. I'm far from perfect.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

1175? Hasn't this thread gone beyond the point when it needs close & a new one needs to start?

[Black Crow]

In terms of likelihoods, no. One of the strange things about this discussion is that I've been forced to argue against what I believe is likely the case in the book because I've seen a lot of sloppy arguments for it and found the arguments against it to be either admirable or unintelligible. This thread's an echo chamber, so those who argue against the main narrative are either clever or obtuse with little in between, whereas those who buy into the main narrative can produce some startlingly wrong arguments in favor of what is in all likelihood a correct answer.

From the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:

A fool is someone who when presented with the facts reaches an entirely wrong conclusion. A madman is someone who presented with the wrong facts reaches the correct conclusion.

[Black Crow]

1175? Hasn't this thread gone beyond the point when it need s close & a new one needs to start?

Yes, the preferred housekeeping standard is 20 pages/400 posts. All it requires is for someone to take ownership of the thread, do an OP and report the old thread for locking. Works perfectly well on Heresy.

[Winds of Winter blow cold]

Yes, the preferred housekeeping standard is 20 pages/400 posts. All it requires is for someone to take ownership of the thread, do an OP and report the old thread for locking. Works perfectly well on Heresy.

I guess I'm going to have to do it. huh? 'K :leaving: