R+L=J v.49

[Dr. Pepper]

Is it about the Dynasty? Berristan and Jaime served Robert,

We swore a Vow does not equal the King is dead long live the King.

We already know that Barristan and Jaime did not follow their vows to the letter. Jaime is known as the Kingslayer, ffs. Barristan regrets his decision to kneel and he has a watery spine. There are also several other historical KG who's legacy is marred because they did not did not follow their vows to the letter. It would be unreasonable to assume that no KG ever stumbled. Just look at Arys Oakheart for another example. This isn't to say that the KG vows are honorable or those who take them are honorable. Obviously, KG vows conflict with knightly vows. Case in point, Merwyn Trant.

How is it not about dynasty? The KG are not like the bloodriders. The bloodriders live and die with their khal, and only outlive their khal long enough to avenge them. The KG are also not the Swords of Braavos who serve for a finite term. The KG, on the other hand, serve for life. "We swore a vow" is absolutely equal to "The king is dead, long live the king." The transfer of power to the heir of the dynasty occurs immediately when one discovers the king has died.

[MtnLion]

If the marriage happened, how widespread was knowledge of it? Did the entire Kingsguard know and if so, would that lead to the possibility of Jaime and Barristan knowing of it. Further, regardless of the validity of Jon's claim at birth, his vows to the Night's Watch would seemingly nullify them as they did for Aemon. So I guess my question for members of this thread is whether you think the claim will be resurrected and how that will be received given attitudes toward the marriage and Jon's joining of the Night's Watch?

That would be off topic, but feel free to start a new thread as relates to that. ;)

[MtnLion]

According to the SSM, it was because that is what Rhaegar ordered them to do.

According to the SSM they stayed because of his orders, GRRM does not address why they fight, for an obvious reason.

[Moët]

Whoa, you are trying to compare two completely different things. The military oath of a representative democracy is no way comparable to the oath of a bodyguard unit of a dynastic, pre-Magna Carta fictional society. Even trying to compare the U.S. President's bodyguard unit - a tiny part of the Secret Service - wouldn't fly because the U.S. isn't a monarchy.

The Kingsguard are created to protect the dynasty. A dynasty is represented by a single figure - the king. The king has absolute authority. While he's alive, he's orders are to be obeyed without question. If he tells a Kingsguard to stand in the corner and pick his nose, that's what the KG does so long as the representative of the dynasty is protected and still alive. If the king loses protection, the KG picking his nose in a corner stops what he is doing and goes to protect the king. If the king dies, the KG immediately stops picking his nose in the corner and protects the new king.

"We swore a vow" is about a vow sworn to protect the dynasty. This is why the KG serve for life, not until a king dies. "We swore a vow" = The king is dead, long live the king.

This x ∞ :agree:

[Moët]

I just completed a re read, and I completely understand the references to the parentage theories mentioned in many of these threads, but I still think that Jon's end may have come in Dance. I think he is dead, and we will never know. He is one of the most intriguing characters, but as Martin has demonstrated....all men must die. I certainly hope I am wrong.

There's an interview (I think it's a video) where GRRM comments on Jon's status.... where he basically said, "You think he's dead? Really?" then drops, "unreliable narrator" - so...... no, we've not seen the end of Jon Snow.

[Lady Beyond the Wall]

I saw that interview, still not convinced. GRRM wouldn't give away his status, we are going to have to wait for that! He is reaching out for Ghost, mentally, at the end. He could warg. I love to read the parentage theories because it would be quite a twist if Jon was Targ, but I think his story lies in the north with the Others.

[MtnLion]

That's not what the post was about. You had pointed the book only introduced one way of anything making sense. I was just pointing out there are other options, like being legitimized. Which is why I brought up Robb, Stannis and Ramsay.

I stopped you because three errors was more than enough. I don't want to read a post that continues to make errors, false assumptions, and repeats itself several times and respond to each line. Haven't we all had enough of those efforts? You say the same thing over and over, and I can reply the same way over and over, but you never bother to stop and think about what I am writing, so why should I bother? It is a wasted effort on my part. So, if I don't respond, you will eventually go away, since you apparently don't want to learn.

[MtnLion]

I just completed a re read, and I completely understand the references to the parentage theories mentioned in many of these threads, but I still think that Jon's end may have come in Dance. I think he is dead, and we will never know. He is one of the most intriguing characters, but as Martin has demonstrated....all men must die. I certainly hope I am wrong.

GRRM has gone on record saying that we will know.

[corbon]

Perhaps you're right, he loved those people who were holding his sister. You should now explain why he atacked them.

Throwing out a straw man does nothing for your position.

Throwing out an easily answered, many-times-over-already-answered straw man does less for your credibility.

Anyhow, since a few posts now, I don't really know what we're discussing. I think Ned was angry, but even if he wasn't, he fought and killed the 3 KG.

The 3 KG had a good reason to avoid the fighting and go away with Jon. So the scene is easier to understand if it's Ned who's ready for fighting than if he offers something and the KG refuse. But it's no big deal, they fought.

You can say the same about Ned goading or apeasing them: in the end, they fought. This is the fact and I rather cling to the facts.

Knowing their reasons can be good to better explain the scene, but we're seing it dosn't make much difference.

Ahh, so now after arguing beyond the point of reason, it now 'doesn't matter' because you lost? :thumbsdown:

I don't see any value in 'clinging' to a fact that is not in dispute.

Ned fought because the KG blocked his way to Lyanna. He fought sadly, because he respected them and knew friends, and respected enemies, were going to die for no good reason but honour - and we've all seen that for all his honour, Ned Stark values people more.

This matters, because he doesn't want to fight them. He's sad that he needs to. It backs up the inferences Ned makes that the KG are free to go (to Viserys at Dragonstone, or hell, just anywhere but here), but they decline.

Their turnng down the implied offer (and your argument against the implied offer was that Ned is scoring them, not making an implied offer, but thats been shown to be wrong) shows that they have a reason to decline. And given they affirm their loyalty to House Targaryen, and proclaim their vows, and Viserys has no KG, the reason can only be that Viserys is not king, and they are already guarding their king, her at ToJ.

[Twinslayer]

According to the SSM they stayed because of his orders, GRRM does not address why they fight, for an obvious reason.

Okay, I'll bite. The SSM answers the specific question "Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members." The answer is, Rhaegar's orders. To me, that addresses "why they fight."

[corbon]

Okay, I'll bite. The SSM answers the specific question "Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members." The answer is, Rhaegar's orders. To me, that addresses "why they fight."

Oh you sweet summer child. :cool4:

Isn't the answer qualified? I don't think you are telling the whole truth here...?

[Ygrain]

Arguments that "We swore a vow" can only refer to the duty to defend the King are not particularly convincing. It is the most likely scenario, but not a certain one.

...

As I've mentioned earlier, we are dealing with a compressed dream sequence. Quite a bit is possible while staying true to spirit. It's possible that the dialogue was stylized in a more epic manner in Ned's memory (who talks like that in real life?) or that the information arrived the same day as Ned by an independent source or that they receive only some of the information beforehand. The size of the realm of the impossible has a tendency to be overestimated due to the natural human desire for certainty. Certainty is not what we have here.

That compressed sequence is a little masterpiece of writing, every word counts. Yet, it uses a heavy pattern of repetition by emphasizing their status as Kingguard. With this reiteration, it really doesn't make sense for them to refer to any other part of their oath than the one defining them, and that's neither following orders, nor being chaste, nor anything else, but defending and protecting the king. That's the sole reason of their existence.

[Twinslayer]

Oh you sweet summer child. :cool4:

Isn't the answer qualified? I don't think you are telling the whole truth here...?

I don't think it is qualified. Do you? GRRM says "if" Rhaegar gave them an order, they would have to follow it and they could not decide for themselves to do something else. And I think everyone agrees that Rhaegar ordered them to stand guard at the TOJ, right?

[corbon]

I don't think it is qualified. Do you? GRRM says "if" Rhaegar gave them an order, they would have to follow it and they could not decide for themselves to do something else. And I think everyone agrees that Rhaegar ordered them to stand guard at the TOJ, right?

Yes, that is certainly a qualified response.

Its not:

Q. Why did X happen?

A. Because of Y

(which would be unambiguous, and how you framed the conversation earlier)

Its:

Q. Why did X happen?

A. Well, if A did this then it would mean B

Its an answer that looks like one, but doesn't have to be. This is his MO. On any subject that could have implications for the future he always answers in a way that can mean many things or nothing.

So yes, its quailfied in that instead of a direct and simple answer, he introduces another subject and talks about that, which may or may not have anything to do with the question, but looks like it might under certain circumstances. Its classic evasion technique.

[Ser Creighton]

I stopped you because three errors was more than enough. I don't want to read a post that continues to make errors, false assumptions, and repeats itself several times and respond to each line. Haven't we all had enough of those efforts? You say the same thing over and over, and I can reply the same way over and over, but you never bother to stop and think about what I am writing, so why should I bother? It is a wasted effort on my part. So, if I don't respond, you will eventually go away, since you apparently don't want to learn.

You know all you have to say is let's end it.

[dragontamer]

"Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

So yes, its quailfied in that instead of a direct and simple answer, he introduces another subject and talks about that, which may or may not have anything to do with the question, but looks like it might under certain circumstances. Its classic evasion technique.

I don’t think the response is ambiguous and irrelevant. Of course he doesn’t offer a simple and straightforward answer but that doesn’t mean that he changes the subject entirely.

The interviewer puzzles over the reason why they are not with the royal family and he answers that they might have been following an order from Rhaegar. If indeed Rhaegar had given them an order they had to stay there and follow it. But did he? Maybe there is no order at all but if there was, that’s what they should have been doing. Then it’s left to the interviewer and the rest of us to ponder on this. Was there an order and that order kept them there or they were doing their duty as KG by protecting the king?

[Ser Creighton]

We already know that Barristan and Jaime did not follow their vows to the letter. Jaime is known as the Kingslayer, ffs. Barristan regrets his decision to kneel and he has a watery spine. There are also several other historical KG who's legacy is marred because they did not did not follow their vows to the letter. It would be unreasonable to assume that no KG ever stumbled. Just look at Arys Oakheart for another example. This isn't to say that the KG vows are honorable or those who take them are honorable. Obviously, KG vows conflict with knightly vows. Case in point, Merwyn Trant.

How is it not about dynasty? The KG are not like the bloodriders. The bloodriders live and die with their khal, and only outlive their khal long enough to avenge them. The KG are also not the Swords of Braavos who serve for a finite term. The KG, on the other hand, serve for life. "We swore a vow" is absolutely equal to "The king is dead, long live the king." The transfer of power to the heir of the dynasty occurs immediately when one discovers the king has died.

Well I am talking about them having to die for the King as part of what they do which they didn't do, they blew it, the King was killed and they did not stop it so they are probably not feeling all that great about the job they have done and could be choosing to go down with the king who just died.

Not all dynasties transfer power that way. Some go through coronations as the official transfer of power and the Heir apparent rules as the prince until that time or a regent which would probably be the case with Jon as he is a baby. The king is dead long live the king is not a vow. It's a proclamation about the transfer of sovereignty. A vow is nothing more than a promise. The KG vow has nothing to do with the transfer of power which would under whatever laws of succession they follow in Westeros.

While stating we swore a vow is a proclamation it is only a proclamation about said vow which is... Ahhhhhhh fuck me, that it isn't it? Are you shitting me? That's embarrassing. I can't believe I didn't see that, how the fuck did I not see that? "We swore a vow." Oh god thats so bad. that's just so bad. This is humiliating, we swore a fucking vow. He's proclaiming it. We promised to guard the King. Blind, fucking blind. I just shot POTUS, I shot fucking POTUS. I need a second, I gotta walk around. Just need a second.

[corbon]

I don’t think the response is ambiguous and irrelevant. Of course he doesn’t offer a simple and straightforward answer but that doesn’t mean that he changes the subject entirely.

The interviewer puzzles over the reason why they are not with the royal family and he answers that they might have been following an order from Rhaegar. If indeed Rhaegar had given them an order they had to stay there and follow it. But did he? Maybe there is no order at all but if there was, that’s what they should have been doing. Then it’s left to the interviewer and the rest of us to ponder on this. Was there an order and that order kept them there or they were doing their duty as KG by protecting the king?

I didn't say it was irrelevant, just not necessarily directly relevant. But its close enough to fool some people into thinking its an answer. Its a classic sidestep answer, possibly (IMO, definitely). He does not say, "the reason they were at the tower was X". He talks around it, and the way he talks leaves doubt as to what he actually answered, which I'm sure was his intention. After all, he's not going to say "because Jon Snow, who was the rightful Targaryen King after the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon, was at the tower and they were guarding their king" is he?

While stating we swore a vow is a proclamation it is only a proclamation about said vow which is... Ahhhhhhh fuck me, that it isn't it? Are you shitting me? That's embarrassing. I can't believe I didn't see that, how the fuck did I not see that? "We swore a vow." Oh god thats so bad. that's just so bad. This is humiliating, we swore a fucking vow. He's proclaiming it. We promised to guard the King. Blind, fucking blind. I just shot POTUS, I shot fucking POTUS. I need a second, I gotta walk around. Just need a second.

I never can tell when you are being sarcastic or not. :dunno:

On past record, I would guess this is sarcasm, but it really could be a lightbulb moment?

[Ser Creighton]

Oh god, really? How could I NOT SEE THAT? That's just, I mean it's right there. Obey? Oh god they were never under the Kings orders its not even part of it. Vow had nothing to do with obey. You can't obey what your not given, They obeyed Rhaegar he dies the King dies, Aegon dies, primary order applies. And only one person for them to guard with that order. Then and now, it's the present, now. Oh thats so bad. WTF was I thinking. It's like one of those painting you have to un focus your eyes with but you can't do it and everyone else can see it then one day bam flying saucer.

Oh I got to go stick my head in the ground. Yep, yep that's it. Oh I mean wow, how did I miss that? I can't even? I mean wtf.

I mean sure it could be a suicide dive but that's so thin.

But why fight Ned if you don't have too?

Does Ned know? He can't, can he? I mean his recollection of Rhaegar and bastards makes no sense if he knows. Bran would know, but how would this help Jon? Even if Reed knows how does this help Jon?

Unless they are stuck there Jon has to be the King. But why do everything so half assed? Alright I got to go do a new timeline and rethink this whole thing. I'll type it up while I am sitting in the corner with my fucking dunce cap on my fucking head which houses my fucking pea brain.

[Ser Creighton]

I didn't say it was irrelevant, just not necessarily directly relevant. But its close enough to fool some people into thinking its an answer. Its a classic sidestep answer, possibly (IMO, definitely). He does not say, "the reason they were at the tower was X". He talks around it, and the way he talks leaves doubt as to what he actually answered, which I'm sure was his intention. After all, he's not going to say "because Jon Snow, who was the rightful Targaryen King after the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon, was at the tower and they were guarding their king" is he?

I never can tell when you are being sarcastic or not. :dunno:

On past record, I would guess this is sarcasm, but it really could be a lightbulb moment?

Thats not sarcasm, that's pain.