The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II

[The Wolf Maid]

I have a feeling that the KG's loyalty and vows was meant only for the Targaryens before Robert came to the picture. The KG, I think, was founded after the Targaryen took control of Westeros. Also, they are meant to protect those of the Royal Blood, meaning the blood of the Targaryens. In a sense, Selmy did his duty when he joined Robert's KG, because Robert is of Targaryen descent, even those he was not, strictly, in name. I doubt if Selmy would have kept on being KG had it been a Lannister or Stark who became King. I think Selmy was merely chosing the one he considered best rule among those of the King's blood, so he chose Robert insted of Viserys.

[Guest Other-in-law]

we know from other sources at least about Hightower position and views. He indeed had black and white vision of his duties and his loyalty was absolute.

Yarp. He acted as though Jaime was out of line when he "went away inside" during the utterly disgraceful and sadistic mockery of a trial that Aerys gave Lord Rickard Stark. Preumably Jaime should have been smiling harder at their glorious king. Absolute loyalty, indeed.

My impression is that King's Landing would be a smoldering pile of ashes if it had been Hightower guarding Aerys instead of Jaime. Furthermore, I think his horrid loyalty was why Hightower stayed at the ToJ instead traveling back with Rhaegar.....Rhaegar feared he would oppose the planned coup/changes/whatever he had in mind, and ordered him to stay so that he could act freely as soon as the war was over.

[Piper]

Furthermore, I think his horrid loyalty was why Hightower stayed at the ToJ instead traveling back with Rhaegar.....Rhaegar feared he would oppose the planned coup/changes/whatever he had in mind, and ordered him to stay so that he could act freely as soon as the war was over.

Which explains one out of three. One wonders what Ser Arthur Dayne would have done in the case of the coup. He is one one hand the epitome of an honorable knight, highest in the regards of both Ned Stark and Jaime Lannister. But then again, he is Rhaegar's oldest friend.

Whent is a question mark, we've little information about him. Suffice to say, we really don't have a certainty about why three of the greatest knights in the realm were at that tower. Bah, but we all knew that already, didn't we?

[Mezeh]

My impression is that King's Landing would be a smoldering pile of ashes if it had been Hightower guarding Aerys instead of Jaime. Furthermore, I think his horrid loyalty was why Hightower stayed at the ToJ instead traveling back with Rhaegar.....Rhaegar feared he would oppose the planned coup/changes/whatever he had in mind, and ordered him to stay so that he could act freely as soon as the war was over.

I agree with you on KL part. Most probably Hightower would not oppose his king even in such a mad decision.

On coup part I however disagree. There is no indication that Rhaegar planned any coup. He told Jaime about his plans to call a council but such an action would be perfectly legal. Of course Hightower would be a part of the council and probably would have oppose of removing Aerys from power but he would be only one member no more.

But we still have a question about him at the TOJ. We know that his was absolutely loyal and would do nothing that contradicts to his oath. He was at TOJ by Rhaegar’s order without of almost any doubt. So this order didn’t imply any harm to Aerys from the beginning. But after Rhaegar’s death Hightower duty was to protect Viserys and his mother. Yet he stayed at the TOJ. Apparently he again seen no contradiction with his oath.

[SFDanny]

Yarp. He acted as though Jaime was out of line when he "went away inside" during the utterly disgraceful and sadistic mockery of a trial that Aerys gave Lord Rickard Stark. Preumably Jaime should have been smiling harder at their glorious king. Absolute loyalty, indeed.

My impression is that King's Landing would be a smoldering pile of ashes if it had been Hightower guarding Aerys instead of Jaime. Furthermore, I think his horrid loyalty was why Hightower stayed at the ToJ instead traveling back with Rhaegar.....Rhaegar feared he would oppose the planned coup/changes/whatever he had in mind, and ordered him to stay so that he could act freely as soon as the war was over.

To me this is a major part of Martin's brilliance. He forces us to look at a character like Jaime, who is supposedly a villain, and ask ourselves what would we do in his shoes. It is easy to get caught up in the Westerosi ethics and view the three TOJ members of the Kingsguard as the embodiment of the honorable knight - and I would argue that that is exactly how they are seen in the series by everyone else - but for us it is Jaime who makes the hard choices that seem most moral as a young member of the Kingsguard. In fact, if we look at The Hedge Knight, the example of Ser Duncan the Tall is supposed to tell us the deeper truths of honor, and the one knight who faces similar choices in A Song of Ice and Fire is Jaime. Instead of saving a young woman from a mad Prince, Jaime saves thousands of innocents from a mad king. So for us readers, who is the honorable one? The fact Martin makes his readers think about the question is part of what make the series so great.

[Mezeh]

Well Dunk didn’t faced any choice really. Not in the first story. His actions were impulsive. And if Egg wasn’t a prince as well they would have ended just with him dead. Yet even so the bad prince was shamed but on what price?

Jaime really made a moral choice. We know that when he was given a white cloak he was serious about it and in no may meant to despoil it. Yet he was not a man for blind obedience and no less required from him to remain loyal to the Mad King. His choice was good but he saved a city but didn’t saved Elia and her children. Martin is indeed brilliant - back and white simply doesn’t work in his book.

[The Wolf Maid]

My impression is that King's Landing would be a smoldering pile of ashes if it had been Hightower guarding Aerys instead of Jaime. Furthermore, I think his horrid loyalty was why Hightower stayed at the ToJ instead traveling back with Rhaegar.....Rhaegar feared he would oppose the planned coup/changes/whatever he had in mind, and ordered him to stay so that he could act freely as soon as the war was over.

I'm willing to give Hightower a benefit of a doubt. I think he would have done something. Probably not kill Aerys (maybe Rossart and the pyromancers?) but I don't think he's that horrible a person as to let a whole city burn.

[SFDanny]

Well Dunk didn’t faced any choice really. Not in the first story. His actions were impulsive. And if Egg wasn’t a prince as well they would have ended just with him dead. Yet even so the bad prince was shamed but on what price?

Jaime really made a moral choice. We know that when he was given a white cloak he was serious about it and in no may meant to despoil it. Yet he was not a man for blind obedience and no less required from him to remain loyal to the Mad King. His choice was good but he saved a city but didn’t saved Elia and her children. Martin is indeed brilliant - back and white simply doesn’t work in his book.

I don't want to debate the details of Dunk's choices, at least not in this thread which seems to get derailed very easily, but whatever the circumstances that go into making him do what he did, Dunk fights a royal prince to save an innocent. The person in ASoIF who is in similar circumstances is Jaime. I don't think it is an accident that Martin is trying to show us similar choices for each character - one hero, and one villain. Talk about painting a character in a full palette of colors! We have the incestuous traitor who almost from the first introduction of him to the reader is defined through his action of throwing a eight-year-old boy from a tower, who also almost single-handedly (interesting use to describe Jaime?) saves thousands from the mad plot of a mad king. Try coming up with such a complex character in your own fiction and see how hard it is to pull it off. But Martin does.

[Enguerrand]

There is no indication that Rhaegar planned any coup. He told Jaime about his plans to call a council but such an action would be perfectly legal.

I doubt there are an established process for removing a king from power, have that ever happened peacefully? But calling the Great Council to establish a regime change, would be a close as you could come. (but even here it can’t be a fair process. I mean which lord would dare to vote against Aerys if it wasn’t pretty clear that he was finished?)

He was at TOJ by Rhaegar’s order without of almost any doubt.

I doubt it quite a lot. I believe that they moved there entirely on their own initiative when they discovered the fate of Aerys and Aegon.

I'm willing to give Hightower a benefit of a doubt. I think he would have done something. Probably not kill Aerys (maybe Rossart and the pyromancers?) but I don't think he's that horrible a person as to let a whole city burn.

One would think so. But Hightower didn’t intervene when Aerys makes a mockery of the legal process trial of battle. This is a blatant miscarriage of justice, yet Hightower can reconcile it with his honour as a knight. If he can do that with a peer of the realm, why should he be more concerned about the burgers of King’s Landing?

We have the incestuous traitor who almost from the first introduction of him to the reader is defined through his action of throwing a eight-year-old boy from a tower, who also almost single-handedly (interesting use to describe Jaime?) saves thousands from the mad plot of a mad king.

And conveniently saves his own life in the process.

[SFDanny]

I doubt there are an established process for removing a king from power, have that ever happened peacefully? But calling the Great Council to establish a regime change, would be a close as you could come. (but even here it can’t be a fair process. I mean which lord would dare to vote against Aerys if it wasn’t pretty clear that he was finished?)

It seems almost undemocratic doesn't it?

I doubt it quite a lot. I believe that they moved there entirely on their own initiative when they discovered the fate of Aerys and Aegon.

Why is it named the Tower of Joy? My understanding is that Rhaegar names it that and it is where he has hidden Lyanna all along - with the Kingsguard, at least some of them, there to guard her. A lot of assumptions here, but I don't see much to support the idea they just moved there on their own.

One would think so. But Hightower didn’t intervene when Aerys makes a mockery of the legal process trial of battle. This is a blatant miscarriage of justice, yet Hightower can reconcile it with his honour as a knight. If he can do that with a peer of the realm, why should he be more concerned about the burgers of King’s Landing?

You're right, he is consistent in his view that his vow means to follow his King's orders and protect his life over any other obligation. I don't think he would have done anything to stop Aerys' plot if he had been there. At least it would have been breaking with his character to do so. Hightower seems focused on his vow as the Lord Commander (not surprisingly) and it is partly what makes the question of why he is not in Dragonstone so interesting.

And conveniently saves his own life in the process.

I'm beginning to think you don't believe Jaime is perfect, right? Good point, but it doesn't change the way Martin uses both Jaime and Dunk to make us think about the meaning of honor.

[Enguerrand]

It seems almost undemocratic doesn't it?

Why is it named the Tower of Joy? My understanding is that Rhaegar names it that and it is where he has hidden Lyanna all along - with the Kingsguard, at least some of them, there to guard her. A lot of assumptions here, but I don't see much to support the idea they just moved there on their own.

Well I've already explained it. AFAIK Rhaegar didn't have any kingsguard in his service while Aerys was fighting a civil war and his son was amusing himself. That the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard would be so sidelined on simple guard duty, while the fate of the Targaryen dynasty was being decided is extremly farfetched IMO.

When specifically asked they say that they were "Far Away".

[Mezeh]

I doubt there are an established process for removing a king from power, have that ever happened peacefully? But calling the Great Council to establish a regime change, would be a close as you could come. (but even here it can’t be a fair process. I mean which lord would dare to vote against Aerys if it wasn’t pretty clear that he was finished?)

There were precedents in real history when kings were removed from power because of heir insanity and without of bloodshed. Rhaegar planned to call a council after the war. He was far more popular then his father and if he would return a winner he would have been in a perfect position to perform changes. You are right it would be dangerous to vote against Aerys but Aerys was danger for everyone as long as he remained in power and since his illness progressed he was becoming more and more dangerous in time.

[Enguerrand]

There were precedents in real history when kings were removed from power because of heir insanity and without of bloodshed.

Yes, but you said perfectly legal, which I take to mean Westerosi law, From what I gather there is no formal way to “impeach†the king. In fact it doesn’t seem like the state have a constitution.

Rhaegar planned to call a council after the war. He was far more popular then his father and if he would return a winner he would have been in a perfect position to perform changes.

Sure, a great council would proclaim him king if given the choice in an open and free election. Rhaegar was apparently everything a king was supposed to be, while his father was a unfit and a crazy. The thing is though that such a council would vote on the guy with the power, and just essentially rubberstamp Rhaegar’s takeover, because you don’t want to end up on the likely king’s bad side. I would think the verdict would have been same if both Rhaegar and Aerys would have been stable and mediocre leaders.

[Mezeh]

Yes, but you said perfectly legal, which I take to mean Westerosi law, From what I gather there is no formal way to “impeach†the king.

We know only about one council in Westeros but what we know is enough. The council passed several claimants for various reasons and finally gave the crown to Egg. So it has the power to pass the crown from one member of royal family to another. True neither of claimants was crowned yet but in the case like in real history cases there would be no necessary to take crown from Aerys or dethrone him. The council could call him unable to rule due to his illness and set Rhaegar as regent. This would be in power of the council and thus indeed perfectly legal. No one would call this a coup.

[Enguerrand]

The council passed several claimants for various reasons and finally gave the crown to Egg. So it has the power to pass the crown from one member of royal family to another.

Determining the succession order is not the same thing as a stripping a king of his power. Even so, my point is that there most likely isn’t a charter that delineates the great councils limits. In the case of Egg someone had to make a decision and by tradition it seems like the Great council is expected to do it, at least if there is no king able to. Contesting it, likely wouldn’t violate any written law, just be practically impossible.

[Guest Other-in-law]

We know only about one council in Westeros but what we know is enough.

Oh no it isn't! The two situations are very very different; one is called in order to fill a vacant throne during a brief interregnum, the other is in order to overthrow a sitting monarch. Entirely different.

The Great Council that chose Aegon V seems to be an extraordinary event in every way, and of dubious legality. By rights, Aerion the Monstrous' infant son should have inherited, but his rights were ignored because: A. Nobody was able to stop them, certainly not the infant in question, and 2. An adult monarch is preferable in times of unrest (Maekar died fighting rebels), and a monarch whose sanity is established is preferable over one whose sanity is suspect. The entire thing was a triumph of pragmatism over scrupulous law-reading, and very different from the White Bull's evident approach. In fact, the unorthodox Duncan the Tall may have been a mover and shaker behind the Great Council, he may have even been LC of the KG at the time (or not).

Who exactly would do the calling, officially? Rhaegar? The Small Council? Certainly not the King, who would oppose it. And that's where keeping Hightower out of the way comes in, this is a man who takes his oath to obey the king very seriously, and would arrest the Prince if ordered to do so. Rhaegar wouldn't be in a very strong position to make changes from a cell in the Red Keep's dungeons.

And something from RL history that is worth considering is the life-expectancy of those dethroned kings you mentioned....usually very short (ask Edward II or Richard II of England). Alive they pose a constant threat to the current regime and must be imprisoned under the strictest security. In Westeros do we have any Targaryen abdications? Nope. It's not really tenable to be a former king.

[Sarella]

Martin tells us the oaths of the Kingsguard didn’t anticipate a successful rebellion. That does not mean the oath does not continue to bind the Kingsguard to guard their King, his heir, and his family - in that order. It only means that once Robert has effectively won the war and sits on the Iron Throne as the de facto King of Westeros the Kingsguard is in unforeseen territory.

Firstly, we don't know that for sure, and secondly, if it is true, it means that the KG were in that unforseen territory when they were at the TOJ. Unforseen territory=ambiguity.

For Hightower, Dayne, and Whent we are told how they react to each of the set backs to Targaryen fortunes. It changes nothing for them in terms of their commitment to their oaths. They are very, very clear what they see as their duty, and it has nothing to do with possibly serving “the usurper.†If it had been possible for them to change sides, why would they fight against better than two to one odds against a foe who would surely have allowed them to bend the knee to Robert?

I have never said they decided to serve Robert. I agree that serving Robert was not what they decided to do in the end. I agree that we are told how they reacted to the set backs to Targaryen fortunes. We know for certain that they stayed at the TOJ. But what we don't know is WHY.

You seem absolutely certain that the only reason they could possibly stay there is if their king is there. I am saying that there is some doubt over that. I am not saying there is no way their king was there. I am willing to entertain the fact that he could have been. All I am saying is that we can't be sure why they were there. Do you really disagree? Are you 100% certain that the only reason they could possibly be there is if their king is there?

With Jaime, he foreswore his vows when he killed his king. The “new situation†doesn’t effect him. He is already a kingslayer when Robert finally sits the throne.

Agreed.

Only, Ser Barristan “adapts†his oath to allow him to guard a new king who has come to the throne through rebellion. As Enguerrand and OIL show, and I’ve tried to show as well, he regrets this decision and is shamed by it. Selmy is a wonderful character for the reader because he shows us the problems of the gray area in all choices, unlike the other surviving white cloaks who see it as black and white. It makes no sense to use Selmy’s choices to say that the others have the same ambiguous view of what to do. They obviously and demonstrably don’t.

Once again, how can you be so sure that there was no ambiguity in what they should do? I agree that they made a decision and stuck by it to the point of their deaths, but there is no way we can be sure they came to that decision instantly or that it was a clear and easy decision. In fact I think common sense dictates that the decision would not have been easy in this situation that has never occured before and which their vows did not envision. Why then did they seem so sure? Well, they are hardly going to show any weakness or indecision to Ned and co, are they? And they had already made the decision by that point and were determined to stick by it. That doesn't mean reaching the decision was clear-cut.

More than one of the Kingsguard is in conflict with his Kingsguard oath. Both Jaime and Ser Barristan are, for very different reasons. Jaime abandons his oath to his king when he sees the plot to burn King’s Landing to the ground, and when he is told he must kill his father. While many would agree with his actions, including me, it is very “clear-cut†that his actions are in opposition to his vow.

Agreed.

Selmy, instead of choosing to abandon his vow, chooses to "accommodate" it to the new situation. The other Kingsguard see no conflict and take no action that shows they consider either Jaime or Selmy’s roads. Far from it, the only road that we would expect these three men to take is to stay loyal to House Targaryen and to their oaths.

So the only thing that is clear-cut is that you can’t do as you do and take one of the three approaches and say it applies to the others.

All I am saying is that there was ambiguity in their oaths. What evidence is there that there was ambiguity? (1) that GRRM said their oaths didn't envision this situation, and (2) one member of the KG was able to "accommodate" them to the new situation.

These are two very good reasons, I think, to doubt that the KG's oaths in this situation were clear-cut. But no, you are 100% certain there was no ambiguity in their oaths, and you keep saying so. I am yet to understand why. Your only reason seems to be that three KG appeared sure in their decision in Ned's fever dream. From this you deduce that they must have come to that decision straight away and considered no alternatives. There is no evidence of that.

I am not saying that they definitely didn't come to a decision straight away. I am just saying we can't be sure that they did.

Martin never says that it is unclear in the minds of the trio at the Tower of Joy what they should do in order to fulfill their oaths. He only speaks of the new reality of a successful rebellion not being anticipated.

Agreed. That is all I am saying; if their oaths did not envision the situation, how can you say with certainty that it was clear in their minds what their oaths bound them to do?

If you could show where Martin calls into question the certainty the three men show in carrying out their duty, then perhaps you might have a case.

I have given reasons why they may have appeared certain in their duty ((1) in order to show no weakness, and (2) because by that time they had aleady made their decision), and cautioned that it was in a fever dream. I am raising the possibility that coming to their decision was not clear, based on what GRRM has said, and evidence in the text of a KG member who was able to adapt his oaths to go either way. I cannot understand how you can be so sure that the KG duty was clear when GRRM has said their oaths did not cover this situation, and has put in the text a character whose duty was not clear. Does this really raise no doubt for you at all? Are you 100% certain the KG duty was completely clear and that all three at the TOJ agreed instantly on what it was?

In summary, I guess I am not really arguing that there was no king in the TOJ. I am arguing that there is doubt over whether or not there was a king in the TOJ.

[Enguerrand]

Unforseen territory=ambiguity

The trouble is that you see the kingsguard vow and ambigiguty as a legal contract, That what it could be interpreted as has any meaning for how it’s perceived. Several people have suggested that the kingsguard asked to be sent to TOJ because they couldn’t bear to fight for Aerys anymore. That Rhaegar obliged them getting them off the hook for guarding the king. This might very well work, but it’s also irrelevant for a man of honour. For a man of honour it’s the spirit of the vow that matters, he would never try to look for loopholes in the contract like a corporate lawyer.

It’s abundantly clear that continued support for your liege even against overwhelming odds is what is expected to of a true knight. As Jaime said “That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree.".

You didn’t address my post why is Jaime so reviled? Why doesn’t he get your “get out of jail free card†Why does Barristan’s decision to support Robert fill him with guilt and shame? Why does Stannis agonize over chosing his brother over his king, blood over honour, despite him being the beneficiary of this ambiguity? because to a man that believes in honour technicalities doesn’t matter.

In fact I think common sense dictates that the decision would not have been easy in this situation that has never occured before and which their vows did not envision.

I used the common sense argument before. It went like this: who feels compelled by honour to serve the lord that murdered his liege?

All I am saying is that we can't be sure why they were there. Do you really disagree? Are you 100% certain that the only reason they could possibly be there is if their king is there?

No, but I have never seen another explanation that even remotely make sense. They claim to be Targ loyalists, to be true knights of the kingsguard, Their supposed king is unprotected and in mortal danger, what else could they be doing and be true to their vows? Carrying out an obsolete pointless order from the former crown prince just doesn’t cut it.

[SFDanny]

Sarella, I don't believe in absolutes or in "100%" certainties. Not in real life, and especially not in a fantasy world in which anything is possible if the author wants it to be. That shouldn't be interpreted to mean that all possibilities are equal. In Martin's world, one can come up with fantastical scenarios that don't fit the story, the characters, or the author's style, but remain possible. One can even endorse scenarios that are blatantly contradicted in the text, if logic isn't a barrier (as some have done in these pages - see the magic wire theory of Renly's death for an example.) What I have tried to argue isn't that there are no other possibilities to explain the presence of the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy, but rather that some of the suggested possibilities make no sense and others are highly unlikely. For me, that means the most obvious and straightforward explanation for why the Kingsguard was at the Tower of Joy was to guard the heir to the throne. Not the only reason, but the most obvious and straightforward - the one that makes the most sense in the context of the story, the expectations of the characters involved, and for what we expect from Martin.

Now to your points about the ambiguities of the Kingsguard. My view is based on what we are told of the actions of these men, and what we are told of their character in the rest of the series. I'm not going to argue that it is impossible for the trio at the Tower of Joy to ever have had any doubts, but what I will argue is that we have no reason, in the text or from Martin's statements, to have expected them to have acted in anyway different than they did. These three are presented as Targaryen loyalists to the core. The are also presented as the epitome of what it means to be a member of the Kingsguard. Given that, their response to Ned's questions and their determination to fight to the death make sense. If they were looking for a way to serve Robert in the new "ambiguous" situation, they didn't show it anyway, or in any context we see them in. As we both agree, Jaime and Ser Barristan are different cases.

To the possibilities of what their presence could have meant, let me list again what I think they are.

(1) - They are at the Tower of Joy to protect Lyanna and the child(ren) there. This could mean various things. It could mean the baby Aegon was secreted there. We have absolutely nothing to indicate this is the case, but it would explain the mens' presence. They could be there to guard a bastard child. This makes little sense as there is no indication that the Kingsguard view bastard children (or their mistress mothers) as part of their charge - especially if there is a rightful heir who needs them elsewhere. It could also mean that the child born at the Tower of Joy is the rightful heir and as such would expect to have these three men do everything in their power to defend them. The last is obviously the one that makes most sense to me, and fits in with the tale as we know it.

(2) - The three men could have been unable to leave the Tower of Joy. Here is the most logical second choice as I see it. The three Kingsguard could have been unable to travel to Dragonstone because of the war, climate, conditions of their members, etc. The problem is that while this works in the real world, it has little to do with the needs of the story, and there is nothing we know of in the story to support it. It relies on rank speculation. Not that interesting theories can't be created to explain things from this perspective. I'd put Enguerrand's theory of the Kingsguard traveling on a secret mission "far away" into this category. It's one of the best I've seen, but it still has too little support in the text for me to buy it. And before, Enguerrrand complains too much, let me say I know it is not purely in this category. His idea works both the recent arrival of the Kingsguard and the needs of scenario one. I still think it needs more support.

(3) - The "just following orders" scenario. The most common variant of this idea is simply stupid in my eyes. Or rather it transforms the Kingsguard into stupid idiots. As events unfold, these men must evaluate the new world they find themselves in and determine their actions accordingly. To suggest they don't, but rather stay at the Tower of Joy simply because that was their last order makes them into comical figures who are unable to think what their oaths would tell them to do in a new situation. Your variant on this scenario that has them committed to Rhaegar's view of the prophecy and therefore staying to carry out his plan, makes much mores sense, but doesn't explain why they would think Rhaegar's view is correct after the deaths of his children at King's Landing.

Now, I've never said I'm "100%" certain of any of this, I've only said what seems logical and what seems nonsensical to me, as well as tried to weigh the possibilities for which is the most likely. Obviously, I've come to the conclusion that the most likely scenario is that Jon is born to Lyanna at the Tower of Joy and that he is the rightful heir to Rhaegar Targaryen. That would certainly explain Hightower, Whent, and Dayne's words and actions, wouldn't it?

[Enguerrand]

His idea works both the recent arrival of the Kingsguard and the needs of scenario one. I still think it needs more support.

Why does it need more support then the conjecture that senior part of the kingsguard stayed at the TOJ at Rhaegar’s order? They both explain why the Kingsguard is at the TOJ.