R + L = J v 69

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Hey, AppleMartini, what's your horrible opinion on Dany that lojzelote finds so bad? Just asking.

I think she's an incompetent, hypocritical, egotistical, oblivious twit who isn't fit to run an 8th grade bake sale, and I strongly look forward to the day when her plot armor runs out and she goes down in literal or figurative flames.

[Lyse Stark]

I think she's an incompetent, hypocritical, egotistical, oblivious twit who isn't fit to run an 8th grade bake sale, and I strongly look forward to the day when her plot armor runs out and she goes down in literal or figurative flames.

And I think that Dany's entitlement is gonna cost her the Iron Throne, as well as any potential support that she could get from the small folk.

[Whatever]

I think she's an incompetent, hypocritical, egotistical, oblivious twit who isn't fit to run an 8th grade bake sale, and I strongly look forward to the day when her plot armor runs out and she goes down in literal or figurative flames.

:agree: I thought this was kind of a widespread opinion 'round here.

[Schmendrick]

Which is where my favourite blackmailing scenario comes in: "I will return to KL under the condition that the three of you remain here to guard Lyanna" :-)

I like it. It seems plausible and doesn't require any mental gymnastics. It also helps to explain why the three KG would stay at the ToJ even though their king was still in KL (not that more help or explanation was needed). Hightower couldn't force Rhaegar to return, but I think it's fair to say that Rhaegar returning would do more to protect Aerys than having three more KG by his side. Rhaegar returning would provide the troops with a military figurehead/leader. It would also be a positive sign of stability and unity to the lords who are on the fence about their allegiance to Aerys. By accepting Rhaegar's terms, the KG would have been making the choice that protects Aerys the most.

Sorry do you have that quote from Martin? Not that I doubt it I just don't recall it.

I think he's referring to this:

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."

I don't know the original source, but Ran quotes it here. Martin doesn't actually say the KG didn't like the order. In fact, he doesn't expressly say that any order was given. He makes a general statement in response to a specific question and then follows it up with a hypothetical, which strikes me as a classic non-answer answer. I could be wrong, since Martin doesn't seem to have a problem just saying "I'm not telling." But at the same time, he doesn't seem to have any problem giving a direct answer to questions that don't require future book spoilers to answer. And this isn't a direct answer.

[Fred of Ashai]

Eeeem... no.

Aegon was chosen over Aerion's son because Aerion was reportedly nuts (and a kid) while Aegon was older, more experienced (having been on Maekar's council) and most important not crazy.

Also, the KG take their duties seriously. It doesn't matter if there's a whole host guarding the king; there must be a KG as well - the only reason why they weren't with Viserys was because Viserys wasn't king. This 'claimant' thing is crap - it's an absolute monarchy, not the Holy Roman Empire, the throne goes to the king's first son and to the heir's own first son if the heir is dead. I mean, it's not hard, isn't it?

Hey, AppleMartini, what's your horrible opinion on Dany that lojzelote finds so bad? Just asking.

I don't agree. First, in real life, there were systems where the younger son of a king came before the children of the king's elder -- but dead -- son. Like medieval France and, in one instance, medieval England. We don't know what the Targaryen House rules said about this but the only time it ever came up the king's younger son (Egg) got it before the the dead older son's son (Aerion's son). Since we know that only the worst King's guards play the game of thrones, and we think Hightower was an honorable man, he would not try to crown Jon. He would try to get Jon to Dragonstone and then get the succession sorted out.

Second, there does not have to be a King's guard with the king. If you have read the Princess and the Queen you'll know it confirms an obvious fact:

Targaryen monarchs routinely flew off on dragons and left their King's guards behind. I'd say Viserys and Rhaella were as safe on Dragonstone as they would have been on dragon-back

so the argument that one if the King's guard should have gone straight to Viserys is just wrong.

[Whatever]

I don't agree. First, in real life, there were systems where the younger son of a king came before the children of the king's elder -- but dead -- son. Like medieval France and, in one instance, medieval England.

'One istance' isn't good enough. That of Aegon is the only example we have, but it's made pretty clear that it was an exceptional occasion. The law of succession of the Targaryen was exactly the same as in the rest of Westeros, with the exclusion of women inheriting, and in the books is made pretty clear on more than one occasion that a son comes before an uncle (on the top of my head, the Karstarks - Alys complaining that her uncles stole the seat from Harry - though I'm pretty sure there were others).

I simply don't see why you are insisting with this 'claimant' thing - I really don't see the point. There were no loyal lords left, no one to call a council or whatever, and what you're suggesting only complicates things with no apparent reason. Occam's razor, that's all I'm saying.

Second, there does not have to be a King's guard with the king. If you have read the Princess and the Queen you'll know it confirms an obvious fact:.....

Because a child in a castle under siege is obviously as safe as an adult, likely a trained warrior, on dragonback.

[Fred of Ashai]

'One istance' isn't good enough. That of Aegon is the only example we have, but it's made pretty clear that it was an exceptional occasion. The law of succession of the Targaryen was exactly the same as in the rest of Westeros, with the exclusion of women inheriting, and in the books is made pretty clear on more than one occasion that a son comes before an uncle (on the top of my head, the Karstarks - Alys complaining that her uncles stole the seat from Harry - though I'm pretty sure there were others).

I simply don't see why you are insisting with this 'claimant' thing - I really don't see the point. There were no loyal lords left, no one to call a council or whatever, and what you're suggesting only complicates things with no apparent reason. Occam's razor, that's all I'm saying.

Targaryens did not follow the same rules as everyone else. First, Dorne followed different rules than the other Great Houses, so there is no general Westerosi rule. Second, Targaryens always followed their own rules. King Aenys had a true born son but when Aenys died his half-brother Maegor became king. So it is not just one instance.

Because a child in a castle under siege is obviously as safe as an adult, likely a trained warrior, on dragonback.

No, the point is that if the king can be without King's guard if he is well-protected. Viserys and Rhaella were well-protected on Dragonstone, which was not under siege at that time.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

No, the point is that if the king can be without King's guard if he is well-protected. Viserys and Rhaella were well-protected on Dragonstone, which was not under siege at that time.

I must have missed the part where Viserys and Rhaella had dragons on Dragonstone with them. A king riding a dragon without Kingsguard protection is as much about practicality as anything -- a Kingsguard literally can't be with them when they're on dragonback. Still not the same situation as a newborn baby in a tower or a pregnant dowager queen and her young son on Dragonstone.

[Fred of Ashai]

I must have missed the part where Viserys and Rhaella had dragons on Dragonstone with them. A king riding a dragon without Kingsguard protection is as much about practicality as anything -- a Kingsguard literally can't be with them when they're on dragonback. Still not the same situation as a newborn baby in a tower or a pregnant dowager queen and her young son on Dragonstone.

I think you are missing the point. The King's guards need to ensure that the king is protected but they don't need to do that by being with him all the time.. They can leave him with others when they have their meetings. They can leave him alone with his dragon. And they can leave him, temporarily, on a fortified island protected by good and true knights and the Royal Navy while they guard a royal wife or mistress they are sworn to protect.

P.S. I don't think they thought of Rhaella as a pregnant dowager queen. They didn't know she was pregnant but they knew she was the only adult who was in line for the throne.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think you are missing the point. The King's guards need to ensure that the king is protected but they don't need to do that by being with him all the time.. They can leave him with others when they have their meetings. They can leave him alone with his dragon. And they can leave him, temporarily, on a fortified island protected by good and true knights and the Royal Navy while they guard a royal wife or mistress they are sworn to protect.

Willem Darry "is a good man and true, but not of the Kingsguard."

"The Kingsguard does not flee."

"We swore a vow."

This dialogue tells you all you need to know about where their minds were. They did not consider Darry's work to be their work, Kingsguard work. It's all right there in the conversation. Whatever it is Darry is doing, the men at the Tower do not think of it as their duty, which is an odd attitude to take if Viserys really is the heir-apparent.

[Fred of Ashai]

Willem Darry "is a good man and true, but not of the Kingsguard."

"The Kingsguard does not flee."

"We swore a vow."

This dialogue tells you all you need to know about where their minds were. They did not consider Darry's work to be their work, Kingsguard work. It's all right there in the conversation. Whatever it is Darry is doing, the men at the Tower do not think of it as their duty, which is an odd attitude to take if Viserys really is the heir-apparent.

I think you are misinterpreting the dialogue if you think the King's guards weren't planning to flee to Dragonstone as soon as Lyanna was strong enough. If that wasn't their plan then they were just planning to commit suicide. I think Ned was offering them the chance to flee to Dragonstone without Lyanna and they refused.

I also don't think Viserys was the heir apparent. He was the heir presumptive after Rhaegar and maybe Aegon. The question (if they knew Aegon was dead AND if Jon Snow was Rhaegar's son) would be whether Jon had a claim that preempted Viserys' claim. That question is above the pay grade of the King's guards.

Think about it like this. Suppose Jon was born at the Tower of Joy. Then the King's guards found out that the Martells and the Tyrells had retaken King's Landing, killed Robert, Ned, Hoster and Tywin, crowned Viserys, and married Viserys to Arienne Martell.

Would Hightower, Dayne and Whent go to war with the Martells and the Tyrells to press Jon's claim? Of course not.

[Whatever]

P.S. I don't think they thought of Rhaella as a pregnant dowager queen. They didn't know she was pregnant but they knew she was the only adult who was in line for the throne.

Women can't get the throne. If every Targ was dead but her, before the war it would've been a tough choice between her and Robert. After the war, Rhaella had as many possibilities to be seriously considered for the IT as Litte Waldo has to become Lord of the Twins.

[Fred of Ashai]

Women can't get the throne. If every Targ was dead but her, before the war it would've been a tough choice between her and Robert. After the war, Rhaella had as many possibilities to be seriously considered for the IT as Litte Waldo has to become Lord of the Twins.

Deanerys, and her dragons, would disagree. So would Viserys, who named her Princess of Dragonstone.

So would Rhaenyra, who sat the Iron Throne.

The point is that one King said women are last in the line of succession, but that could change. I could see it changing if it was a choice between a mad boy (Viserys), an infant bastard/product of a secret marriage (Jon) and the last child of King Jaeharys, an adult, who might have more children (Rhaella).

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I think you are misinterpreting the dialogue

And I think you are misinterpreting it. We're not finding any common ground here. I think it's painfully obvious that the Kingsguard were still at the Tower because they believed Jon, not Viserys, to be the rightful Targaryen monarch at that point. You disagree and that's your prerogative.

At this point it's just talking in circles and frankly you're boring me.

[Fred of Ashai]

And I think you are misinterpreting it. We're not finding any common ground here. I think it's painfully obvious that the Kingsguard were still at the Tower because they believed Jon, not Viserys, to be the rightful Targaryen monarch at that point. You disagree and that's your prerogative.

At this point it's just talking in circles and frankly you're boring me.

Okay, then, Cheerio, I hope you have a nice afternoon. You had some interesting ideas but you didn't have a response to some of my more important points. Not a big deal.

Responding to something the Black Crow said, I don't think this analysis leads to the conclusion that Jon a Snow is illegitimate. It indicates that the presence of the King's guards tells us very little about what was going on one way or another. If, as I suggest, Lyanna was given King's guard protection, they had to protect her. It doesn't matter if she was married to Rhaegar and it doesn't matter if she had had a child or not -- they had no choice but to stay with her.

None of that means, however, that she wasn't married to Rhaegar or that she didn't have a child. That is all still possible.

[Ser Leftwich]

I think you are misinterpreting the dialogue if you think the King's guards weren't planning to flee to Dragonstone as soon as Lyanna was strong enough. If that wasn't their plan then they were just planning to commit suicide. I think Ned was offering them the chance to flee to Dragonstone without Lyanna and they refused.

I also don't think Viserys was the heir apparent. He was the heir presumptive after Rhaegar and maybe Aegon. The question (if they knew Aegon was dead AND if Jon Snow was Rhaegar's son) would be whether Jon had a claim that preempted Viserys' claim. That question is above the pay grade of the King's guards.

Think about it like this. Suppose Jon was born at the Tower of Joy. Then the King's guards found out that the Martells and the Tyrells had retaken King's Landing, killed Robert, Ned, Hoster and Tywin, crowned Viserys, and married Viserys to Arienne Martell.

Would Hightower, Dayne and Whent go to war with the Martells and the Tyrells to press Jon's claim? Of course not.

The dialogue is that the KG had not already fled to Dragonstone. Who knows what they would do in the future. We do not know what the KG were planning, we only know what they did. Crafting arguments around what the KG might have done is pointless.

There are no real pieces of evidence to this argument, just opinions and "what if"-logic.

[finger]

Don't buy this for a second. Ned came to them, not the other way around. They didn't seek him out. If all they really cared about was killing usurpers, they could have done that without being at the Tower. They were still at the Tower for a reason.

Very so. They sure had a reason, but what?

Some say to obey Rhaegar's or Aerys' orders.

I do think living people's orders trump dead people's order. At least in Westeros, and provided dead people are truly dead, not half-dead, un-dead, or something.

Before Aerys, some were Jaeherys' KG, and I can't remember any of them obeing Jaeherys orders after he was dead.

This implies there was no living people around to take the command. No Queen Regent, for instance.

Some say guarding King Jon. Imagine:

"The king's uncles is approaching."

"What's the king's mother doing?"

"She's sleeping."

"Fine. We can take advantage of it and kill her brother."

"But we must do it quick and quite. She could wake up and order us to stop the fight."

Or they could have decided to oust the king's mother from power because she was a rebel's sister.

I'm affraid it doesn't work. There should be another reason.

Then, what's their reason?

[finger]

And I think you are misinterpreting it. We're not finding any common ground here. I think it's painfully obvious that the Kingsguard were still at the Tower because they believed Jon, not Viserys, to be the rightful Targaryen monarch at that point. You disagree and that's your prerogative.

At this point it's just talking in circles and frankly you're boring me.

Tock, tock.

Are you deaf?

If Jon were their king they had to OBEY LYANNA.

Did she tell the to kill her brother? NUTS.

That's the killer point, but their own behaviour is wrong. They are doing something related to the Targs, and it can't be Jon.

It's you who are going in circles in plain denial. Of course they had vows, and duties to their king. It wasn't Jon.

You can keep refusing to see.

[Ygrain]

If Jon were their king they had to OBEY LYANNA.

Nope.

[Disputatious]

Or perhaps there's no mystery. :laugh:

I think we know too little of Rhaegar to be sure that having sex out of wedlock would be OOC for him. True, Ned thinks he wasn't the type to frequent brothels, but this is a different matter entirely. He needed a third child to save the world (or something along these lines). ... anyhow, here we are getting into a different topic than my question was about.

And Lyanna had nothing to say about?