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

[David Selig]

Because they were fools whose minds had deteriorated due to their obsession with honour.

[mambru]

That is how Tywin and Stannis conduct war.

It ISN'T how Robert (as you mentioned) conducted war, and I can hardly imagine his BFF Ned saying to Robert: "Okay, I'll stay here safe in this tent and you go out and fight with this marvelous strategy I've worked out with pins on a map." As for the rest of the Ned's seven, they were all his bannermen, IIRC. Bannermen go where their lord goes, so if he fought, they fought too. Men who hang back from battle while their peers and superiors fight are called craven.

Several potential reasons come to mind, secrecy for instance: they could've manage to defeat the seven (almost did) and in that case, who else would know of the tower?

"Almost" only counts in horseshoes. They didn't win, and must've known they might not (2 KG were dead when Arthur Dayne was on the point of 'winning'). To fight is a big risk for Jon, bigger, IMO, than trying to negotiate. Consider: If the KG had managed to kill Ned first but then fell defeated by some of his bannermen, Jon would be dead now, because the bannermen had no kinship to Jon to prevent them from handing him over to Robert. Jon was incredibly lucky that Ned survived the KG's attempt to 'protect' Jon.

And if Dayne did 'win' and killed Ned AND kept Howland Reed from fleeing to give the alarm, he'd still have the same problem he did before - he's in the middle of a hostile country that's enemy territory to the baby he's supposed to 'protect'. Except now, his two friends who were helping him 'protect' are dead, he just killed a Lord Paramount who was the baby's only potential ally in that hostile territory, AND it's likely that more hostile soldiers will soon be showing up to find their Lord Paramount that Dayne just slew.

As for secrecy - if they take Ned in to negotiate, then decide not to deal and to fight and kill him, the secret dies with Ned - no harm done. But if they fight without negotiating and Ned wins the fight and steps over their bodies to get to the tower, he's learned their secrets anyway. Again, nothing to lose by negotiating.

Also, what secret are we talking about here? The existence of the baby? Okay, it's Rhaegar and Lyanna's bastard, no threat to Robert. Robert had at least three living bastards left by ADWD, and nobody rallied around any of THEM as a candidate for the throne. And if the KG know that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married, why in the world would they OR Lyanna tell Ned that? (If Rhaegar HAD married Lyanna, I think it was idiotic of him to tell the KG that at all, just BTW).

[Ygrain]

Doesn't this logic apply equally to a newborn Jon Snow?

I could see your point if Aerion Brightflame's son had been proclaimed king immediately upon Maekar's death, and then the Great Council ousted him in favor of Aegon V. That is not what happened. There was a period of time after Maekar died when there was no king. Then the Council decided to give it to Aegon V. Similarly here, when Aerys died, there would have to be a period of time when there was no king but there were two candidates. The Kings guards don't have the right to make their own decision as between those two candidates.

Where do you get the idea that Jon would automatically come before Viserys in the line of succession? It isn't stated anywhere in the texts. The Targaryens set up new rules when they needed to, and the only time this issue came up before Aerys died, a Great Council had to be called to sort it out.

The fact is, as far as the Kings guards were concerned, there were two potential claimants. They would have been remiss if they had abandoned one of those claimants to go guard the other one, since they aren't supposed to play the Game of Thrones.

The proper solution for Viserys being without Kings guards at that point would be to appoint some new Kings guards. There were several vacancies after the Trident (with Martell and Darry dead, for example) and it would have been easy to fill those spots with loyal knights on Dragonstone.

Once again: you do not need specifics for Targaryen succession because it has been stated that they follow the general rule, with the exception of the position of female claimants, and that general rule is as clear as it gets. First son's children inherit, eventhough he never was a lord in his own.

The Great Council you keep referring to decided to skip an infant, who by all rights should have become king, in favour of an adult relative, whose claim was lesser but he was a more convenient candidate. In other words, the GC overrode the natural succession, for the good of the realm. At the end of the rebellion, no such authority passed such a judgement, and Viserys was still a child, not an adult, anyway, so the succession line holds.

Appointing new KG would have been nice but, for some reason, it never happened, and even if it did, there was no way the three KG could be sure. It was still their job, and they were not doing it by relying that someone might do it for them.

[Stannis Iron Baratheon]

Eddard was a traitor to the realm and a rebel, it was there duty to kill him regardless of whoever they were protecting.

[Jory Cassel]

It ISN'T how Robert (as you mentioned) conducted war, and I can hardly imagine his BFF Ned saying to Robert: "Okay, I'll stay here safe in this tent and you go out and fight with this marvelous strategy I've worked out with pins on a map." As for the rest of the Ned's seven, they were all his bannermen, IIRC. Bannermen go where their lord goes, so if he fought, they fought too. Men who hang back from battle while their peers and superiors fight are called craven.

What? We know that Ned, as opposed to Robert, does not enjoy fighting, and if you want to make the case that he was pressured into fighting due to Robert doing it, you have to make a better case for it than bringing up what you can or can't imagine.

And if Dayne did 'win' and killed Ned AND kept Howland Reed from fleeing to give the alarm, he'd still have the same problem he did before - he's in the middle of a hostile country that's enemy territory to the baby he's supposed to 'protect'. Except now, his two friends who were helping him 'protect' are dead, he just killed a Lord Paramount who was the baby's only potential ally in that hostile territory, AND it's likely that more hostile soldiers will soon be showing up to find their Lord Paramount that Dayne just slew.

Not sure where you take this stuff from - I suggest looking at the map in aDwD, the Tower of Joy is situated in Dorne, in relative proximity to Starfall.

As for secrecy - if they take Ned in to negotiate, then decide not to deal and to fight and kill him, the secret dies with Ned - no harm done. But if they fight without negotiating and Ned wins the fight and steps over their bodies to get to the tower, he's learned their secrets anyway. Again, nothing to lose by negotiating.

Only any bargain whatsoever involves the possibility of Ned (or anyone from his entourage) divulging their location/Jon's existence.

[finger]

Honorable Death.

They are the King's Guard, they are suppose to die defending their king, and on their watch the King, the Crown Prince, the Crown Prince's firstborn son, and the Crown Prince's daughter were all killed. The Queen dies in childbirth, leaving two children to run in exile. For their part, they stood around a Tower keeping the Crown Prince's mistress safe.

My goodness, for knights whose entire identity is protecting the King and his family, they failed miserably.

When an enemy general shows up, they were probably grateful for a chance to die in the war they weren't around to fight in.

You'd be right, if only they were entitled to it.

While there's a king alive, their duty comes before an honourable death.

And, if there was no king, why should they stick in the middle of two siblings?

Otoh, I like your reasoning, I think it takes us closer to the true solution.

[mambru]

What? We know that Ned, as opposed to Robert, does not enjoy fighting, and if you want to make the case that he was pressured into fighting due to Robert doing it, you have to make a better case for it than bringing up what you can or can't imagine.

Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. Ned does his duty always, and he doesn't NEED to be pressured into it. If Robert fights, Ned wouldn't be sitting behind the lines watching through a spy-glass - he'd be helping Robert fight. I think this is the usual procedure, especially in the North. Robb (Ned's own son) fought in the van, and his bannermen fought with him. Can't see why Ned would be an exception.

Not sure where you take this stuff from - I suggest looking at the map in aDwD, the Tower of Joy is situated in Dorne, in relative proximity to Starfall.

I'm pretty sure that by the time of the showdown at the ToJ, the war was all but over. And if Dorne was such a friendly place to Lyanna, the woman Rhaegar insulted and abandoned Dornish Elia for, why wasn't Lyanna at Starfall from the beginning, with its luxuries and its handy rookery with easy communication all over Westeros, and its garrison to protect her, instead of being in a tower in the middle of noplace?

Only any bargain whatsoever involves the possibility of Ned (or anyone from his entourage) divulging their location/Jon's existence.

So? At what point does secrecy become more important than survival for Jon? The war is lost for the Targaryen cause on the Westerosi continent. The appearance of Ned at their front door shows their location has ALREADY been blown...if Ned followed their trail and found them, so will others. They HAVE to leave. And if they HAVE to leave, wouldn't it be better for all three of them to leave alive and unwounded to protect baby Jon, having gotten the help of Jon's uncle, instead of fighting Jon's uncle unnecessarily and two of them getting killed?

And yes, there's always the possibility that Ned or his entourage could eventually blab about a baby. But there's ways to make that safer. If Ned vows to help them get Jon out of the country, and does so, then HE has an incentive to keep silent, because he wouldn't want Robert to know he'd committed what Robert would consider a betrayal. As for Ned's friends, they're his bannermen and owe him fealty. If the KG don't trust that, they can also negotiate that Ned will order them to stay in the tower until he returns, and take their horses with him to make sure they do. The KG could negotiate that Ned come with them and the baby to the port as a guarantee for his men's good behavior in his absence.

And yes, once the KG is out on the ship and away, maybe Ned will have a change of heart and confess his misdeed to Robert. What would it matter by then? "Yes, Rob, I helped Lyanna's bastard by Rhaegar escape with the KG, and I'll accept whatever punishment you deem fit. But what harm did I do? The poor baseborn waif has no claim, he'll never be a threat to you. No, I don't know where they went."

Why is this a LESS desirable outcome than Arthur Dayne alone and probably wounded at the ToJ, his friends dead, Ned dead and another wave of attackers coming over the horizon very soon to see what's happened to Lord Paramount Eddard?

Honorable Death.

They are the King's Guard, they are suppose to die defending their king, and on their watch the King, the Crown Prince, the Crown Prince's firstborn son, and the Crown Prince's daughter were all killed. The Queen dies in childbirth, leaving two children to run in exile. For their part, they stood around a Tower keeping the Crown Prince's mistress safe.

My goodness, for knights whose entire identity is protecting the King and his family, they failed miserably.

When an enemy general shows up, they were probably grateful for a chance to die in the war they weren't around to fight in.

I agree. To me, the only reason the ToJ 3 refused to negotiate with Ned was that at that point they were not interested in survival - not their own, not Jon's.

[finger]

If a QR had already been established by this time (not a given, but ok...) Rhaella, as the wife of the last king, grandmother of the current king, and a Targ herself, would have been a much better option than a feverish teenage girl with family ties to the rebels.

First of all, that's probably Vayon Poole seeping into the dream. But even then... a watchtower is unlikely to be "hundreds of yards" high, and it sounds like they fought at the foot of said tower. Taken together, I'd guess they were no more than one hundred feet away from Lyanna, and possibly much less.

Wait what? In one case they had a duty, in the other - someone must've ordered them?

I really, really don't get the ordering part. No, there is noone running the show. Their vow is running the show, as much as they admit.

If a janitor is at work and sees a spilled soda, does he clean it because someone ordered him, or because it's his job?

And if later you ask him why he did it, and he says, "Because it's my job", and you still wonder who gave him the order, then there's something convulted in your world perceptions.

Didn't the wildlings hear Hodor hodoring in a similar tower while they were outside? Or was it just the show (I think the books had it as well?).

Not to mention that Rhaegar was never king, so Lyanna is not a queen.

To take your analogy a bit further: if the spilled soda is on the tenth floor and the janitor doesn't go there because he is currently sweeping the ground floor, the lift is out of order and there is a secretary on the tenth floor who can clean it away for him, is he doing his job?

Well, if you found your reasoning on stating that the king's mother has no command on the KG, I'm afraid I can't convince you. I can disagree, at least.

There's a point on Rhaella, but she was too far away to rule. Come the mother before the grandmother, or else, if Jon was king, Lyanna ruled at ToJ.

And I'd like to remind you the kind of people those KG were. They were the same who had scolded Jaime for judging the king when Aerys roasted the Starks, or raped Rhaella. Those people allow themselves to think only if and when they have no order to obey. Even though Lyanna were too feeble to rule, I doubt they'd act against her obvious will, should she be the king's mother. In sum, if Jon was king, I can't see why the KG prevented a parley between siblings.

Accordingly, the KG were men on honour, and served their king, who was not Jon. Moreover, their king's service demanded

a ) preventing the parley

b ) their own death

c ) both

You've got some food for thought.

[Petyr Patter]

You'd be right, if only they were entitled to it.

While there's a king alive, their duty comes before an honourable death.

And, if there was no king, why should they stick in the middle of two siblings?

Otoh, I like your reasoning, I think it takes us closer to the true solution.

I think a lot of posters don't appreciate how duty and honor can be grey concepts, especially when taken together.

Jaime Lannister lost his honor when he killed Aerys... and yet I agree it was his finest act.

For anyone who would say honor and duty would compel the King's Guard to defend Viserys UNLESS Jon was a trueborn son of Rhaeghar, I can disprove this with a single name... Barristan Selmy. They man is widely recognized for his honor as a knight, and still took Robert's pardon and served him for the rest of his life. He knew Viserys was still alive, but didn't go seek himout.

Arys Oakheart also decided to serve Myrcella instead of Tommen, despite the clear abuse of law happening. The men of the King's Guard are men. Their commitment to their oaths doesn't always leave them with a clear way to behave in every situation, and even if it does they can still fail to do so for reasons of various sympathy.

[FittleLinger]

Well, if you found your reasoning on stating that the king's mother has no command on the KG, I'm afraid I can't convince you. I can disagree, at least.

There's a point on Rhaella, but she was too far away to rule. Come the mother before the grandmother, or else, if Jon was king, Lyanna ruled at ToJ.

And I'd like to remind you the kind of people those KG were. They were the same who had scolded Jaime for judging the king when Aerys roasted the Starks, or raped Rhaella. Those people allow themselves to think only if and when they have no order to obey. Even though Lyanna were too feeble to rule, I doubt they'd act against her obvious will, should she be the king's mother. In sum, if Jon was king, I can't see why the KG prevented a parley between siblings.

Accordingly, the KG were men on honour, and served their king, who was not Jon. Moreover, their king's service demanded

a ) preventing the parley

b ) their own death

c ) both

You've got some food for thought.

Again, they specifically state that they "swore a vow". You are desperately trying to get some conclusion that does not involve them protecting king Jon, while all the evidence and logical, easy and deductive (and not inductive) conclusions is that they were doing exactly that. I mean, yes, you can say that king Aerys ordered them to go get him some of his favourite dornish hot peppers, and they happened to find them at the TOJ, where coincidentally Lyanna was dying in a bed of blood, but I don't know what such assumptions can give us.

[Nymeria's pup]

Please excuse me if this has been discussed, but I would like to know what others think about these ideas.

I always wondered why they kept him away too and assumed it was because they were unsure how Ned would react. Was he Robert's man and would he tell the truth of Jon's parentage? We know the Ned of the present to be an honorable, loyal man, who puts his family above all and always tries to do right. However did Ned already have that reputation back then? If not, then it is reasonable that they might not trust him not to harm his sister and the baby.

Also, how reliable are Ned's memories? We find out most of the TOJ story while he is having fever dreams. The basic gist is probably there, but the exact details may be unreliable due to his mental state. Just a thought...

[Jory Cassel]

Enjoyment has nothing to do with it. Ned does his duty always, and he doesn't NEED to be pressured into it. If Robert fights, Ned wouldn't be sitting behind the lines watching through a spy-glass - he'd be helping Robert fight. I think this is the usual procedure, especially in the North. Robb (Ned's own son) fought in the van, and his bannermen fought with him. Can't see why Ned would be an exception.

If you want to argue that Ned bowed to a general obligation to fight ("usual procedure, especially in the North"), you'd first need to establish that one exists.

I'm pretty sure that by the time of the showdown at the ToJ, the war was all but over. And if Dorne was such a friendly place to Lyanna, the woman Rhaegar insulted and abandoned Dornish Elia for, why wasn't Lyanna at Starfall from the beginning, with its luxuries and its handy rookery with easy communication all over Westeros, and its garrison to protect her, instead of being in a tower in the middle of noplace?

How about not shifting goalposts for once? You claimed:

And if Dayne did 'win' and killed Ned AND kept Howland Reed from fleeing to give the alarm, he'd still have the same problem he did before - he's in the middle of a hostile country that's enemy territory to the baby he's supposed to 'protect'. Except now, his two friends who were helping him 'protect' are dead, he just killed a Lord Paramount who was the baby's only potential ally in that hostile territory, AND it's likely that more hostile soldiers will soon be showing up to find their Lord Paramount that Dayne just slew.

Which is plainly untrue, the seat of House Dayne is not too far off, and Dorne is hardly 'pacified' or even in the hands of the rebels considering how Oberyn was trying to raise men for Viserys and it was only Jon Arryn's visit later on that included Dorne into the 7K once more.

Why Starfalls wasn't their residence is fairly obvious when considering the secrecy-aspect of the elopement.

So? At what point does secrecy become more important than survival for Jon? The war is lost for the Targaryen cause on the Westerosi continent. The appearance of Ned at their front door shows their location has ALREADY been blown...if Ned followed their trail and found them, so will others. They HAVE to leave. And if they HAVE to leave, wouldn't it be better for all three of them to leave alive and unwounded to protect baby Jon, having gotten the help of Jon's uncle, instead of fighting Jon's uncle unnecessarily and two of them getting killed?

And yes, there's always the possibility that Ned or his entourage could eventually blab about a baby. But there's ways to make that safer. If Ned vows to help them get Jon out of the country, and does so, then HE has an incentive to keep silent, because he wouldn't want Robert to know he'd committed what Robert would consider a betrayal. As for Ned's friends, they're his bannermen and owe him fealty. If the KG don't trust that, they can also negotiate that Ned will order them to stay in the tower until he returns, and take their horses with him to make sure they do. The KG could negotiate that Ned come with them and the baby to the port as a guarantee for his men's good behavior in his absence.

And yes, once the KG is out on the ship and away, maybe Ned will have a change of heart and confess his misdeed to Robert. What would it matter by then? "Yes, Rob, I helped Lyanna's bastard by Rhaegar escape with the KG, and I'll accept whatever punishment you deem fit. But what harm did I do? The poor baseborn waif has no claim, he'll never be a threat to you. No, I don't know where they went."

Why is this a LESS desirable outcome than Arthur Dayne alone and probably wounded at the ToJ, his friends dead, Ned dead and another wave of attackers coming over the horizon very soon to see what's happened to Lord Paramount Eddard?

If you compare a hypothetically successful extraction (supposing all these conditions you layed out were fulfilled) to the failed fight, then naturally a successful extraction seems preferable, but what was the probability from an ex ante view?

Also, why do you now argue unconditional loyalty and obedience of Ned's companions when you previously claimed they would've handed over their lieges nephew to Robert in case of Ned dying at the hands of KG?

eta:

I always wondered why they kept him away too and assumed it was because they were unsure how Ned would react. Was he Robert's man and would he tell the truth of Jon's parentage? We know the Ned of the present to be an honorable, loyal man, who puts his family above all and always tries to do right. However did Ned already have that reputation back then? If not, then it is reasonable that they might not trust him not to harm his sister and the baby.

Nothing to suggest that, plus he was the devoted second-in-command to the guy who'd condoned the murder of Jon's brother and sister.

Also, how reliable are Ned's memories? We find out most of the TOJ story while he is having fever dreams. The basic gist is probably there, but the exact details may be unreliable due to his mental state. Just a thought...

It is an "old dream" though, it does not just occur during Ned's fever.

[Rhaegar I Targaryen]

There are parts of this story that haven't been told. :idea:

[Nymeria's pup]

It is an "old dream" though, it does not just occur during Ned's fever.

I had forgotten about the "old dream" part, so that does make it possible that he is dreaming it the same as he always does. Still even dreams can be imperfect recollections. Or the dream might magnify something that the dreamer otherwise missed when initially experiencing the event.

Poor Ned...if R+L=J then methinks that Ned kept that secret a bit too well!

[mambru]

If you want to argue that Ned bowed to a general obligation to fight ("usual procedure, especially in the North"), you'd first need to establish that one exists.

If it comforts you to imagine Ned and his bannerman cravenly sat out all the battles Robert fought in, by all means do so. It only makes their achievement in killing all 3 KG more spectacular.

Also, why do you now argue unconditional loyalty and obedience of Ned's companions when you previously claimed they would've handed over their lieges nephew to Robert in case of Ned dying at the hands of KG?

If Ned dies at the hands of the KG, then their duty as his bannermen is to avenge his death. If they then kill the KG and find the baby - well, according to your viewpoint, the KG never let Ned in to talk to Lyanna, who would have made him promise to save the baby. Ned dies and his bannermen find the baby the KG killed him for. Ned never promised Lyanna to save the baby, therefore he certainly never made his BANNERMEN promise such a thing. The bannermen are not related to the baby, so they have no taboo against kinslaying preventing them from handing the baby over to Robert and telling everything about how their poor lord died because of the infant brat.

Which is plainly untrue, the seat of House Dayne is not too far off, and Dorne is hardly 'pacified' or even in the hands of the rebels considering how Oberyn was trying to raise men for Viserys and it was only Jon Arryn's visit later on that included Dorne into the 7K once more....Why Starfalls wasn't their residence is fairly obvious when considering the secrecy-aspect of the elopement.

Arthur Dayne was not in charge of Starfall...he gave that up when he became a Kingsguard. If he were, why not take a few of his trusted soldiers with him to help protect Lyanna? The KG could keep an eye on them, and their presence would have made all the difference in the fight with Ned. You have no reason to suppose that whoever the actual lord of Starfall was was friendly to the cause of Rhaegar's son by Lyanna, the woman he insulted and abandoned his Dornish wife for. The need for secrecy, in fact, suggests they were NOT friendly - implying that if anyone knew they were there in Dornish territory, something bad would probably happen to them by the Dornish themselves.

And IMO, the war WAS over in Dorne by the fall of KL. Of the two battles left - Storm's End and Dragonstone - neither took place on Dornish soil, nor with their participation of the Dorne, which means they'd stopped fighting.

[Jory Cassel]

If it comforts you to imagine Ned and his bannerman cravenly sat out all the battles Robert fought in, by all means do so. It only makes their achievement in killing all 3 KG more spectacular.

I'd appreciate it if you did not try to cover up your failure to back up your claim by attempting to bring personal preference into it.

If Ned dies at the hands of the KG, then their duty as his bannermen is to avenge his death. If they then kill the KG and find the baby - well, according to your viewpoint, the KG never let Ned in to talk to Lyanna, who would have made him promise to save the baby. Ned dies and his bannermen find the baby the KG killed him for. Ned never promised Lyanna to save the baby, therefore he certainly never made his BANNERMEN promise such a thing. The bannermen are not related to the baby, so they have no taboo against kinslaying preventing them from handing the baby over to Robert and telling everything about how their poor lord died because of the infant brat.

Firstly, upon Ned's death, Benjen becomes their liege and Jon is Benjen's nephew - while they might not have a close blood bond to Jon, they still have reason not to hand him over.

Secondly: "Ned never promised Lyanna to save the baby, therefore he certainly never made his BANNERMEN promise such a thing."

This reasoning is invalid as it excludes the possibility of Ned considering the option of Lyanna having a child before arriving and therefore picking them/ a possible assurance by them.

Arthur Dayne was not in charge of Starfall...he gave that up when he became a Kingsguard. If he were, why not take a few of his trusted soldiers with him to help protect Lyanna? The KG could keep an eye on them, and their presence would have made all the difference in the fight with Ned. You have no reason to suppose that whoever the actual lord of Starfall was was friendly to the cause of Rhaegar's son by Lyanna, the woman he insulted and abandoned his Dornish wife for. The need for secrecy, in fact, suggests they were NOT friendly - implying that if anyone knew they were there, something bad would probably happen to them.

But I have reason to suppose that he would be friendly to Arthur Dayne.

And IMO, the war WAS over in Dorne by the fall of KL. Of the two battles left - Storm's End and Dragonstone - neither took place on Dornish soil, nor with their participation of the Dorne, which means they'd stopped fighting.

No. Ned went off to fight the "last battles in the south", and Storms End was not a battle as the Tyrells surrendered immediately and Ned was not involved with Dragonstone. Regardless, Dorne as Targ-loyalists was not "hostile territory".

[Ygrain]

I had forgotten about the "old dream" part, so that does make it possible that he is dreaming it the same as he always does. Still even dreams can be imperfect recollections. Or the dream might magnify something that the dreamer otherwise missed when initially experiencing the event.

Poor Ned...if R+L=J then methinks that Ned kept that secret a bit too well!

It is also stated at the beginning of the dream, twice, that things were as they had been in life.

[finger]

Please excuse me if this has been discussed, but I would like to know what others think about these ideas.

I always wondered why they kept him away too and assumed it was because they were unsure how Ned would react. Was he Robert's man and would he tell the truth of Jon's parentage? We know the Ned of the present to be an honorable, loyal man, who puts his family above all and always tries to do right. However did Ned already have that reputation back then? If not, then it is reasonable that they might not trust him not to harm his sister and the baby.

Also, how reliable are Ned's memories? We find out most of the TOJ story while he is having fever dreams. The basic gist is probably there, but the exact details may be unreliable due to his mental state. Just a thought...

People like to forget that Lyanna was at ToJ. Ned was her brother, she knew him. She knew Ned wouldn't be a kinslayer.

And if you like to wonder, what about the KG trying to kill the king's uncle, utterly neglecting the king's mother?

Were they protecting Jon? Let me doubt it.

[FittleLinger]

People like to forget that Lyanna was at ToJ. Ned was her brother, she knew him. She knew Ned wouldn't be a kinslayer.

And if you like to wonder, what about the KG trying to kill the king's uncle, utterly neglecting the king's mother?

Were they protecting Jon? Let me doubt it.

And I keep repeating, family ties are irrelevant. Was Ned a leutenant of the usurpers army? Were there wars in history that made brothers fight against brothers? Is Jaime's greatest dishonour in the eyes of the realm the one that he put his family infront of his King? Was there doubt and fear in Lyanna up untill Ned promised? If the answers to those are all "yes", then there's your answer.

And I see that your doubts are pointed to some end, but I fail to see to what. Could you please elaborate on what they were doing, if not protecting the king?

[mambru]

It does seem a little weird that Lyanna was apparently screaming so loudly for her brother that he could hear her from hundreds of yards outside the tower, calling for him desperately despite being seriously ill, and the King's Guard were still trying to kill him. What the Hell guys?

IIRC, this fight took place right outside the tower. And Lyanna was probably on the first or second floor at best - a nine-months' pregnant woman would not be walking up and down all those stairs.

That is incorrect in two respects. First, unborn children are not removed from the succession line - we have RL examples of interregnum (vacant throne) while the queen of a deceased king was pregnant and everyone waited for the birth to establish the gender of the child.

IRL, did this ever happen when the king in question had lost a throne? I'm guessing it happened in stable kingdoms in which it would not matter a great deal if there WAS no king for a bit, and in which anyone who would insist on his own claim to that empty throne over a fetus would have to abide by the government overseeing the succession. I really doubt that ANY rules assign the role of "government" in deciding who's the legitimate king (Viserys now or fetus later) to three of the king's bodyguards all alone in a tower far away from the last official Targaryen seat of real government (Dragonstone).

If a QR had already been established by this time (not a given, but ok...) Rhaella, as the wife of the last king, grandmother of the current king, and a Targ herself, would have been a much better option than a feverish teenage girl with family ties to the rebels.

To officially decide whether baby Jon or Viserys is the proper heir to a lost Iron Throne? Yes, Rhaella is probably the best candidate they can get. She is in possession of the only bit of land left that can be said to be Targaryen-ruled.

But to use Rhaella as an excuse not to obey the mother of the child they think is probably king?

"You're not worthy of obedience, because you're a treacherous Northern child - and also, you have a temperature of 102, which disqualifies you completely, even though you're perfectly capable of understanding the situation. WE'VE decided we're only going to obey Rhaella - and since she's a thousand miles away, we've basically decided to do what we like, which is go down and kill your brother without letting you talk to him and try to get him on our side because WE think that's foolish."

The KG is supposed to obey and not to judge - and they obeyed Rhaegar that way, even though he was NOT the king. They obeyed Rhaegar and didn't judge him when he ran away with Lyanna and helped start a war. They obeyed Rhaegar and did not judge him by standing idly at the Tower of Joy during his honeymoon, while that war raged around the country. They obeyed Rhaegar and did not judge him when their commander came to the tower to get Rhaegar back to help deal with the war he'd been ignoring, and they ALL got ordered to wait in the tower out of reach of the King's orders and unable to help the King if he needed it.

If their role was to obey and not to judge, then the KG had no right to judge Rhaegar for choosing a bride THEY felt was unworthy. If Rhaegar DID marry Lyanna in a ceremony the KG thought was legitimate, then Lyanna WAS due all the respect of being the mother of the heir, regardless of their private opinions about her Northerness and teenhood. And if they DID think Jon was the king once he was born, they had no right to judge Lyanna as unworthy, and disrespect and disobey the mother of the king to the extent of denying her dying wish to speak to her brother.

That's the way you treat a prisoner, not the mother of your king. Which leads me again to believe that they didn't think Jon was the king, and they were just looking for a reason to die in battle in a way they viewed as Honorable, as Petyr Patter said.