Why did the Kings guard at the ToJ try keep Eddard away from Lyanna?

[King of Winters]

They didn't get a lot of info about Ned given he was Rickard's second son. All they knew was that he is Robert's BF since childhood, was fostered by Jon Arryn, the mastermind behind Robert's Rebellion and he was charged with taking KL. They didn't know if Ned would have delivered Jon to Robert.

:agree: Ned was one of the top commanders of the rebellion that overthrew their [former] King. Why would they just give up to him and his other companions who were also part of the war?

[Jory Cassel]

Which would have ensured his death. IMO, a man like Ned would not consider himself innocent of kinslaying just because he didn't literally get Jon's blood on his own hands. He knew very well what King Bob thought of 'dragonspawn', knew that if he handed over his nephew to Bob, the kid would be soon be dead and Bob would knight whoever did it. IMO, you don't get to be innocent of kinslaying just because an intermediary actually takes care of the messy parts.

And you are referring to Ned's subjective opinion on the matter, which could not be more irrelevant when assessing Lyanna's/the KG decision(s).

So, what, three Kingsguard versus seven fighting men who've been trained by a REAL war is a sure win for the KG?

Did I say that anywhere?

I really don't know what you mean by this. That Jon is king in his dinky little tower and if he flees the country he won't be king anymore? What?

You really don't understand why the Kingsguard would consider handing Jon over to someone who is loyal to the ( in their opinion) non-rightful King a breach of their duty and forsaking Jon, whose Kingship they don't have disposal of?

[Lord Thornhart]

It's pretty simple. Eddard came to claim the tower for his king, and the Kingsguard were defending their king inside it. Those three were obviously fully committed to the duty of a kingsguard seeing as how the war was already lost for them. Ned isn't someone to question honor, so he didn't.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

What were they 'protecting' him from?

From what, in fact, Ned did with Jon: raised him under name of Jon Snow, with no knowledge of his true parentage (nor, obviously, of his claim to the throne). Their plan was, I guess, to flee with the newborn king somewhere far, far away, and try at Targaryen restoration some twenty years into the future.

They didn't simply guard Jon the newborn boy, they guarded Jon the scion of House Targaryen. Ned most likely wouldn't harm the former, but also sure as hell wouldn't let the latter overthrow House Baratheon.

[mambru]

You really don't understand why the Kingsguard would consider handing Jon over to someone who is loyal to the ( in their opinion) non-rightful King a breach of their duty and forsaking Jon, whose Kingship they don't have disposal of?

Did I say anything, anywhere, about handing him over? I said something about negotiating with Ned about letting the KG leave the country with Jon after Lyanna getting Ned to vow he won't harm the kid and won't give his existence away to Robert...and maybe getting Ned to accompany them to the port as insurance for the good behavior of Ned's friends.

Did I say that anywhere?

You kind of did, actually. You said: "Can't you see that, if even Lyanna isn't certain how her brother is going to react, the KG - who dedicated their life to protecting the King - won't take that chance?" (italics mine). You think that negotiating with Ned about a possible escape for Jon is "taking a chance." But fighting with Ned without trying to negotiate is ALSO taking a chance that they will win...unless you believe that 3 KG who've been twiddling their thumbs for months in a tower are sure to win against seven men who've spent those months fighting in an ACTUAL WAR.

And you are referring to Ned's subjective opinion on the matter, which could not be more irrelevant when assessing Lyanna's/the KG decision(s).

Subjective opinions on what actual human beings that you have to deal with will do are ABSOLUTELY relevant when you're trying to decide what your opponent will do, whether you're at the bargaining table or on a battlefield. If they have an advantage like Ned's love for his sister, it would be ridiculous to throw it away unused - unless they didn't really care about helping Jon escape, only about the heroic battle they wanted.

[Masha's apron]

I don't think they did -- because I don't think Lyanna was there.

*Ducks flying tankards*

I am a newbie, so I don't know what the form is here yet ... would it be appropriate to post *why* I think Lyanna was not at the ToJ during the battle between Ned's seven and the three KG?

It's nothing to do with timelines or anything, but about the two key passages from Ned's PoV that concern the ToJ incident and Lyanna's death, and what Ned actually says to Dayne, Whent and Hightower, and how they respond.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I don't think they did -- because I don't think Lyanna was there.

*Ducks flying tankards*

I am a newbie, so I don't know what the form is here yet ... would it be appropriate to post *why* I think Lyanna was not at the ToJ during the battle between Ned's seven and the three KG?

It's nothing to do with timelines or anything, but about the two key passages from Ned's PoV that concern the ToJ incident and Lyanna's death, and what Ned actually says to Dayne, Whent and Hightower, and how they respond.

First things first; Welcome :cheers:

Second; could you please explained it more?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I don't think they did -- because I don't think Lyanna was there.

*Ducks flying tankards*

I am a newbie, so I don't know what the form is here yet ... would it be appropriate to post *why* I think Lyanna was not at the ToJ during the battle between Ned's seven and the three KG?

Why would you even mention it otherwise?

[Ygrain]

Polygamy isn't an issue because Rhaegar wouldn't be the first Targ to have multiple wives. Aegon the Conqueror had two wives, both of them his sisters and nobody disputes the legitimacy of THOSE marriges. Why is it okay for him but its not okay when Rhaegar supposedly does it? I think arguing against the legitimacy of the marriage is a false argument. If you argue they didn't get married at all it would make more sense.

I'd add one word:nobody EVER disputes the legitimacy of those marriage, even though there have been opportunities aplenty, whereas comments about incest being acceptable solely for the Targs turn up multiple times. Yet, for some reason , polygamy is supposed to be a no go :dunno:

[FittleLinger]

I'd add one word:nobody EVER disputes the legitimacy of those marriage, even though there have been opportunities aplenty, whereas comments about incest being acceptable solely for the Targs turn up multiple times. Yet, for some reason , polygamy is supposed to be a no go :dunno:

I agree with you, and I will propose a very logical political reasoning for why that's the case. Nobody cares whether the ruling Targ has 4 (let's say) children from the same wife, or two from one and two from another - the inheritance line is still the same - order of birth and gender. Whereas incest as such being legitimate robs other great houses from the opportunity to get mixed with the royal line.

[Fred of Ashai]

Its not a question of polygamy because Viserys doesn't at first come into the line of succession.

The way these things work is that the elder son of the King inherits and siblings come nowhere.

That isn'st necessarily true. In some systems (Saudi Arabia today) brothers come before sons. In others (medieval France) a younger son of a king came before his older brother's son if the older brother died without ever becoming king -- which is exactly what happened when the Great Council skipped Aerion Brightflame's son and gave it to Aerion's younger brother, Aegon.

What we do know about the Targaryen rules of succession is that they were malleable depending on the circumstances. That is why there was a Dance of the Dragons.

We also know that the Targaryens did not follow the same rules of succession as other houses. They obviously don't follow the same rules as the Martells, since in Dorne a woman can inherit before her younger brothers and that is not the way the Targaryens operated. They equally obviously don't follow the same rules as the Starks or the Freys, since a Stark or Frey daughter can inherit before her father's younger brother while post Dance of the Dragons, a Targaryen daughter would be passed over in those circumstances.

What this all means is that if the Kings guards were guarding Jon Snow at the Tower of Joy, they were guarding a potential heir, not a king. That is true whether Rhaegar and Lyanna were married or not. It would be above the Kings guards' pay grade to make their own decision as between the claims of Jon and Viserys.

Finally, it is worth taking a look at the list of Targaryen kings at the back of A Game of Thrones. It has Maekar (father of Aerion Brightflame and Aegon V) being succeeded by Aegon V. That means that, during all the time it took to convene and complete the Great Council after Maekar died, there was no king. In other words, after Aerys died, there was no Targaryen king. There were only potential claimants. Right up until the moment Rhaella proclaimed Viserys the new king on Dragonstone.

[FittleLinger]

snip

Ehhh, not exactly. There were rules and you cannot use the exceptions to claim that such rules don't exist. For example if one KG has to choose between protecting the male heir or his sister, he will protect the male one because he cannot decide that matters are iffy and a civil war or a great council might make the girl queen and not the boy king.

[Jory Cassel]

Did I say anything, anywhere, about handing him over? I said something about negotiating with Ned about letting the KG leave the country with Jon after Lyanna getting Ned to vow he won't harm the kid and won't give his existence away to Robert...and maybe getting Ned to accompany them to the port as insurance for the good behavior of Ned's friends.

The poster you initially responded to did, and you picked it up:

Which would have ensured his death. IMO, a man like Ned would not consider himself innocent of kinslaying just because he didn't literally get Jon's blood on his own hands. He knew very well what King Bob thought of 'dragonspawn', knew that if he handed over his nephew to Bob, the kid would be soon be dead and Bob would knight whoever did it. IMO, you don't get to be innocent of kinslaying just because an intermediary actually takes care of the messy parts.

You kind of did, actually. You said: "Can't you see that, if even Lyanna isn't certain how her brother is going to react, the KG - who dedicated their life to protecting the King - won't take that chance?" (italics mine). You think that negotiating with Ned about a possible escape for Jon is "taking a chance." But fighting with Ned without trying to negotiate is ALSO taking a chance that they will win...unless you believe that 3 KG who've been twiddling their thumbs for months in a tower are sure to win against seven men who've spent those months fighting in an ACTUAL WAR.

"Can't you see that, if even Lyanna isn't certain how her brother is going to react, the KG - who dedicated their life to protecting the King - won't take that chance?"

So, what, three Kingsguard versus seven fighting men who've been trained by a REAL war is a sure win for the KG?

Are you kidding? I did absolutely not "kind of say that", "not taking a chance" (=the chance of Ned putting his friendship and loyalty to Robert above Lyanna) is evidently different from considering the fight "a sure win".

btw, care to back up the claim that Ned and his six were involved in any hand-to-hand combat?

Subjective opinions on what actual human beings that you have to deal with will do are ABSOLUTELY relevant when you're trying to decide what your opponent will do, whether you're at the bargaining table or on a battlefield. If they have an advantage like Ned's love for his sister, it would be ridiculous to throw it away unused - unless they didn't really care about helping Jon escape, only about the heroic battle they wanted.

no shit. But what you presented was not an assessment from their perspective, but one from Ned's:

Which would have ensured his death. IMO, a man like Ned would not consider himself innocent of kinslaying just because he didn't literally get Jon's blood on his own hands. He knew very well what King Bob thought of 'dragonspawn', knew that if he handed over his nephew to Bob, the kid would be soon be dead and Bob would knight whoever did it. IMO, you don't get to be innocent of kinslaying just because an intermediary actually takes care of the messy parts.

How would either Lyanna or the KG know any of this?

What is known to them (and undoubtedly played into their cause of action) is that Ned is extremely devoted to Robert, is his first lieutnant, accepts him as King and that Robert condoned the murder of Jon's siblings. How would they know that Ned (1) condemned Roberts condoning and him naming the children "dragonspawn" or (2) what opinions "a man like Ned" would hold?

[Fred of Ashai]

Ehhh, not exactly. There were rules and you cannot use the exceptions to claim that such rules don't exist. For example if one KG has to choose between protecting the male heir or his sister, he will protect the male one because he cannot decide that matters are iffy and a civil war or a great council might make the girl queen and not the boy king.

The Targaryens don't have a rule that covers the situation where the king's older son dies before the king does. It has only happened once in the Targaryen's history, and that time, the older son's son was passed over in favor of the king's younger son.

Imagine this scenario. After Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are killed, the Tyrells the Martells recapture King's Landing and defeat the rebels. Hightower shows up with Jon at the same time as Rhaella shows up with Viserys and Daenerys. Who is going to be the new king or queen? It isn't going to be up to Hightower, Dayne and Whent. It's going to be a council made up of Tyrell, Martell, Queen Rhaella and others. Hightower might have a voice on that council but it isn't going to be a decision for the Kings guards to make on their own.

[Ygrain]

snip

The Targaryen succession is quite clearly defined, and instances of squabble do not invalidate the basic rules.

I agree with you, and I will propose a very logical political reasoning for why that's the case. Nobody cares whether the ruling Targ has 4 (let's say) children from the same wife, or two from one and two from another - the inheritance line is still the same - order of birth and gender. Whereas incest as such being legitimate robs other great houses from the opportunity to get mixed with the royal line.

Exactly - it doesn't really matter whether the marriages are simultaneous or sequential, and actually, polygamy gives the other houses a chance to enter the succession line thanks to incest.

[Reek Da Villain]

They had to buy enough time for either Jon or Jon's twin to be taken out of the back.

[Jory Cassel]

The Targaryens don't have a rule that covers the situation where the king's older son dies before the king does. It has only happened once in the Targaryen's history, and that time, the older son's son was passed over in favor of the king's younger son.

Imagine this scenario. After Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are killed, the Tyrells the Martells recapture King's Landing and defeat the rebels. Hightower shows up with Jon at the same time as Rhaella shows up with Viserys and Daenerys. Who is going to be the new king or queen? It isn't going to be up to Hightower, Dayne and Whent. It's going to be a council made up of Tyrell, Martell, Queen Rhaella and others. Hightower might have a voice on that council but it isn't going to be a decision for the Kings guards to make on their own.

The Targaryen succession is quite clearly defined, and instances of squabble do not invalidate the basic rules.

(...)

Word, every rule can be disregarded when the circumstances impede or prevent its application.

[Fred of Ashai]

The Targaryen succession is quite clearly defined, and instances of squabble do not invalidate the basic rules.

Targaryen succession is not clearly defined. Aegon I was succeeded by his son Aenys. But Aenys' son was passed over for Aenys' brother, Maegor. That's not what would have happened under Andal law.

Viserys I's will said his oldest child, a daughter, would inherit. Half the realm disagreed.

Aegon IV was succeeded by his oldest legitimate son. Half the realm rebelled in the belief that Aegon wanted to give the crown to a legitimized bastard.

There is nothing in the texts that says how the Targaryens would handle the situation where Rhaegar died before Aerys. We also don't know how that would be handled under Dornish law or in the North. We only know how that would be handled under Andal law (the Freys) and there is no reason to think that the Targaryens would ignore Andal law in other areas but follow it in this area -- especially since the only time it ever came up in the past, the Targaryens did something different.

[Ygrain]

Targaryen succession is not clearly defined. Aegon I was succeeded by his son Aenys. But Aenys' son was passed over for Aenys' brother, Maegor. That's not what would have happened under Andal law.

Viserys I's will said his oldest child, a daughter, would inherit. Half the realm disagreed.

Aegon IV was succeeded by his oldest legitimate son. Half the realm rebelled in the belief that Aegon wanted to give the crown to a legitimized bastard.

There is nothing in the texts that says how the Targaryens would handle the situation where Rhaegar died before Aerys. We also don't know how that would be handled under Dornish law or in the North. We only know how that would be handled under Andal law (the Freys) and there is no reason to think that the Targaryens would ignore Andal law in other areas but follow it in this area -- especially since the only time it ever came up in the past, the Targaryens did something different.

Apples and pears. Once again, exceptions, usurpations and clearly stated changes of succession do not invalidate the basic principle. While Dorne has its own rules, applicable solely to Dorne, North via Bran's PoV apparently does not dispute the Frey succession, and everyone who believes Joffrey to be Robert's son, accepts him as Robert's heir, not Stannis. The same for Tommen being Joffrey's heir, again before Stannis. Ever since DoD, the Targaryens follow the same rule as everyone else, with the exception of excluding the female claimants. IIRC, there is a SSM about this somewhere.

[finger]

They were protecting their true king

:agree: Aegon