R+L=J v 75

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Agreed, Jamie was right to kill Aerys. That means making his vow to him was wrong. Jamie can't be right on both.

Let's put it into modern terms. You need a car so you can work and make money. You need money to get the car. So you sign a contract to make monthly payments for a car. If you are clever you make sure the car has a warranty. If you are not clever and do not get a warranty and the car is defective, you still owe the monthly payments.

Jamie bought a car without a warranty on a contract. The car turned out to be defective and Jamie still owed the payments. Jamie decided he did not have to pay. It is understandable and justifiable. It may even be the right thing to do. But if it was the right thing to do then Jamie was wrong to sign the contract. One could argue that the contract was not fair. But unless the other side broke it, Jamie was bound to it.

Jon is in the same boat that Jamie was. He made an unqualified promise. He did not vow to serve so long as the Night's Watch maintained a minimum garrison, maintained standards of discipline, or maintained its structural integrity. In fact as the Lord Commander, Jon was responsible for the last two. The lack of Jon's ability to maintain discipline and structure would be ample cause for him to step down as Lord Commander. It doesn't release him from his vow. It is quite understandable for rats to flee a sinking ship. Jon can hardly claim to be captain while acting like one of the rats.

It does make sense. It is absolutely practical and like in the case of the Declaration of Independence, it may actually work. Let us look at the Declaration of Independence...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these areLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- Notably all colonies at that time practiced slavery. One need not look far to find the contradictions in the statements made by those that choose to discard their obligations to do the "right" thing.

You did touch on an interesting idea there. The play "Antigone" covers the subject pretty well and does not include the ability of the individual to forsake his or her obligations. Antigone chooses to follow the laws of god rather than the laws of men. Unlike Jamie or Jon, she never swore to obey the laws of men.

In Jon's case, how could he expect an oath to bind the men of the 7K to him after forsaking his own. If Jon is free to make his own moral judgments after swearing a vow what right does he have to expect anybody to give up that same freedom?

Yes you see it as I did. but I am not going as far as to say he will be king or anything. My point is basically just that the NW has fallen apart and Jon has been stabbed by his own men, they basically kicked him off the Wall and out of the NW. So there is his 1st out, his 2nd out is what I was saying earlier, the NW is barely even happening anymore and it has fallen into ruin and therefore the oaths that were taken to uphold it are diminishing. The 3rd thing is that, at what point do the vows conflict with what is right thing to do? If the Wall falls or the WW's invade Westeros and utter chaos is reigning, then IMO, it would be acceptable for those of the NW who are still alive to go and fight the WW in the best way they see fit, even if that means getting involved with the 7k and not turning a blind eye to everything that is happening simply because you took a vow to not get involved.

But yes if Jon leaves the wall, then he tries to become king, I think some people might question his loyalty to the vows he has sworn. But everything is so up in the air in Westeros right now anyway that detail might be something that just gets swept under the rug, when he is declared the true born son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. I would even make the argument that he should be released from his NW vows given his heritage and that he went into the NW not knowing who he was. There must be some precedent for royalty being pardoned or something. And even if there is no precedent and nothing like this has ever happened before then I think a new rule should be written.

[Khal Pod]

Sure, and blood is blue in Westeros, neh? Roses have daisy petals instead of curled flat petals? When we are discussing something that relies on interpretation of the written word, the author has no choice but to use the proper definitions, or to redefine the words and teach us the new definitions. I grok what GRRM has written because he uses words as they are defined. He did teach us what a "bed of blood" meant, though.

Agreed, he uses the term gunwale (davos ch.42 ACOK), the upper edge of a ship's or boat's side, which is called a gunwale because that's where ships had their canons or guns. As far as I know guns don't exist in asoiaf, yet he uses the term because it sounds better than saying "Melisandre leaned under the swinging yard, one hand on the upper edge of the boat's side gunwale, calm as ever."

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Agreed, he uses the term gunwale (davos ch.42 ACOK), the upper edge of a ship's or boat's side, which is called a gunwale because that's where ships had their canons or guns. As far as I know guns don't exist in asoiaf, yet he uses the term because it sounds better than saying "Melisandre leaned under the swinging yard, one hand on the upper edge of the boat's side gunwale, calm as ever."

the term gunwale is used in all watercraft. The edges of my canoe are still called gunwales, even though no canoe ever had a gun. You are right, this term would have never come to fruition in Westeros, Author mistake.

[Khal Pod]

Yes you see it as I did. but I am not going as far as to say he will be king or anything. My point is basically just that the NW has fallen apart and Jon has been stabbed by his own men, they basically kicked him off the Wall and out of the NW. So there is his 1st out, his 2nd out is what I was saying earlier, the NW is barely even happening anymore and it has fallen into ruin and therefore the oaths that were taken to uphold it are diminishing. The 3rd thing is that, at what point do the vows conflict with what is right thing to do? If the Wall falls or the WW's invade Westeros and utter chaos is reigning, then IMO, it would be acceptable for those of the NW who are still alive to go and fight the WW in the best way they see fit, even if that means getting involved with the 7k and not turning a blind eye to everything that is happening simply because you took a vow to not get involved.

But yes if Jon leaves the wall, then he tries to become king, I think some people might question his loyalty to the vows he has sworn. But everything is so up in the air in Westeros right now anyway that detail might be something that just gets swept under the rug, when he is declared the true born son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. I would even make the argument that he should be released from his NW vows given his heritage and that he went into the NW not knowing who he was. There must be some precedent for royalty being pardoned or something. And even if there is no precedent and nothing like this has ever happened before then I think a new rule should be written.

I can imagine a situation where the brothers of the watch sadly say over Jon's seemingly lifeless body, "And now his watch has ended." Thus relieving Jon of his oath. So when he returns to his body, after a short (hopefully) stint as Ghost, he is free of his vow.

[Sasha Steelsong]

I have always loved this analysis. I would also add that Ned refers to Viserys as a prince and the KG do not correct him. If he was king, I'm sure they would point it out.

I've always felt that way but also that Ned using the word prince, on top of bringing only six other close and trusted friends with him to the TOJ was also an indication that Ned suspected what he might find in the tower. When he went off to search for Lyanna after Storm's End, he seems to have taken steps to make sure that only trusted individuals would know what he found.

[stateofdissipation]

We need it on this thread:

"I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.

Ned expected the majority of the Kingsguard to be present at the major battle. We know that three of them were present, and only Ser Barristan (barely) survived.

“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.

Ser Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent are with Rhaegar when Lyanna enters the company of the prince. The Lord Commander of the Kingsguard answers this, 1)so none of previous comment can be directed at Arthur or Oswell directly, and Gerold is accepting responsibility for their actions. There is no surprise about events on the Trident expressed by Gerold or Oswell in the next line.

“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.

This states that Robert is considered a usurper by these Kingsguard, or at least by Oswell. He does use the term "we" and implies that Robert could not have won the battle at the Trident if these three had been 2) allowed to enter into it. Ned does not need to tell them that Robert has been crowned and taken the throne as an usurper. They already know.

“When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were.”

Ned relays that King's Landing has fallen and Aerys is dead. Again, Ned expresses his surprise to not see these 3) three Kingsguard doing their duty of protecting and defending the king.

“Far away,” Ser Gerold said, “or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells.”

4)The Lord Commander says that their duties were elsewhere, too far away to do anything about the events Ned is relating. He condemns Jaime as a Oathbreaker, and implies that he or one of these others would certainly kill Jaime rather than let him slay the king. This 4 a.)reaffirms their loyalty to the Targaryen dynasty, even to the mad king; himself.

“I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

Ned tells them that all remaining forces surrendered to him, and pledged fealty to Robert and Ned. He expected to find the last of the Kingsguard with these forces, but again was surprised to note that they were not. This is an invitation for these Kingsguard to surrender to him.

“Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Arthur speaks for the group, and says that they will not surrender.

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

This being placed here is important because Ned is now changing his offer. He sees that they will not surrender, but he does not want to fight them, he holds these knights in high regard, even years later. He offers them a chance to 5) leave peacefully and 5 a,) do their duty by guarding the heir to the Targaryen dynasty, or so he thinks.

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

Ser Willem is a brother to Ser Jonothor Darry of the Kingsguard, and known well to these members of the Kingsguard.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

6) The Lord Commander correctly states that Viserys does not have a Kingsguard with him. He also says that the Kingsguard would not flee 6 a.)from their duty, to guard the king. On the night that news of the Trident arrived at King's Landing Aerys ordered that Rhaella and Viserys be taken to Dragonstone for their safety, as it appeared that King's Landing would be under siege shortly. Jaime was the only Kingsguard, 6 b.) and his duty was with the king, so Willem was drafted to protect the royal family members. If the Red Keep falls, and Aerys dies then Viserys was safe as long as he could stay alive on Dragonstone. The majority of the fighting men had gone with Rhaegar, and mustering enough men to defend the city or just the Red Keep may be difficult. The Kingsguard are stating that they would not flee 6 c.) King's Landing, as their duty was to protect and defend the king, and they would stay 6 d.) to fulfill their vow.

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

Arthur reiterates that the Kingsguard 7) would not have chosen to leave King's Landing 7 a.) to protect the royal family, 7 b. )over doing their duty to protect and defend King Aerys (then). This lends some credance 7 c.) to the curse aimed at Jaime, earlier. But, the meaning of now has a great deal more weight to it. 7 d.) Not only do they point out their vow, later, 7 e.) but this line also says that they are guarding a king at this location, and they are unwilling to take Ned's offer to leave 7 f.) this king and flee to Dragonstone in relative safety to guard another heir.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

8.) Now, we should be certain that there is a king present, 8 a), the Lord Commander has decided that all three would remain to protect the king. Several things contribute to this conclusion:

• The White Bull, as Ser Gerold is known, is quite the stickler when it comes to the comport of Kingsguard duties.

• Ser Gerold does not have a friendship with Rhaegar that would favor this decision.

• Ser Gerold has already stated that he would slay Jaime to protect Aerys.

8 b.)• Ser Gerold still has a responsibility to see to the safety of the king, and keeping Arthur and Oswell with him only protects the king if the king is present at the tower.

Ned’s wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

The final, or most important battle of the Targaryen dynasty. The mindset of the Kingsguard is that they will win the battle, and keep the secret at the tower safe until they can move to safety. 9) Arthur is confident in the outcome.

“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.”

Ned knows the outcome, and he regrets that he had to kill the three finest knights in the kingdom. 10) There is no blame for participating in taking Lyanna, which argues that Lyanna was never dishonored, but more likely freely participated.

1) Four words amounting to a sarcastic statement of the obvious probably should not be colored to include a statement of responsibility. Unless one of the words is responsibility. One should also not expect to detect surprise in a sarcastic statement of the obvious.

2) The statement ended "if we were," Before that it really was not related to "why they were not"

3) How many times we can mention "duty" and or "duty to protect the king" tacked to the end of an unrelated statement. 8 (15 lines wihout the word duty much less duty to protect the king and more than half as many times the word or phrase gets inserted to explain it.)

4 Two words amounting the second sarcastic statement of the obvious should not be colored to include a statement of duty. Unless one of the words is duty. 4 a) it is hard to re-affirm on the first time.

5) Leave peacefully in the face of an armed threat is an interesting way to describe "flee." 5 a) Interesting way to throw duty into a change from prince to heir while ignoring that the heir would be king.

6) the lord commander does not mention viserys at all or who is with him or not with him. 6 a., b., and c.) It must be hard to resist tacking on duty to guard the king to the middle sentence. I was impressed that you waited two whole sentences to throw in the third. 6 d.) Hpw many times can we tack "a vow" on to an unrelated statement? more interestingly how many times do you mention "vow" where it is used? 0

7) Oddly enough "does not flee" really shouldn't be colored to include choices as to when and when to not flee. 7 a. and b.) Though duty to protect versus duty to protect the king is an interesting injection it only gets 1 for the how many ties we can tack on the phrase. 7 c.) the earlier statement was praise of Ser Willem. 7 d.) It is a three word comment so it is a pretty good plan to bring up what comes later. 7 e.) You can draw guarding the king at his location from "does not flee" and "then." 7 f.) You went from "leave peacefully" to "leave the king" You managed to create a king out of thin air and did not add the "duty."

8) We are only certain there is a king there because you invented him out of "then or now." 8 a.) so it was the LC's decision to have the other two swear the vow or was it his decision to fo the duty to protect the king? 8 b.) was it the vow that kept them there or was it Hightower's decision, or was it their duty. I did not forget that you made "now or then" into a king. The if there is a king present makes it seem like the earlier made king has been forgotten.

9) Is Arthur Dayne's call to start the fight supposed to mean that he knows he will win it?

10) again it is three words. Unless blame is one of them and not another your statement should not be derived from it. Otherwise you could have just tacked that observation anywwhere. However tacking it at the end does make it more likely to get freely noticed.

[WhiteOwl18]

I've always felt that way but also that Ned using the word prince, on top of bringing only six other close and trusted friends with him to the TOJ was also an indication that Ned suspected what he might find in the tower. When he went off to search for Lyanna after Storm's End, he seems to have taken steps to make sure that only trusted individuals would know what he found.

I agree. How did Ned know where to find Lyanna in the first place? The tower is very isolated and its location a secret. Someone must have told him (possibly Ashara) and the person who did it probably told him what he would find. In fact, this conversation might be seen as Ned trying to get the KG to admit to what he already knew.

[Sasha Steelsong]

I agree. How did Ned know where to find Lyanna in the first place? The tower is very isolated and its location a secret. Someone must have told him (possibly Ashara) and the person who did it probably told him what he would find. In fact, this conversation might be seen as Ned trying to get the KG to admit to what he already knew.

I genuinely question as to whether we'll ever find out the answer to that question. I would think we might, but since everyone who would know (except HR) is dead, not sure if it will ever be filled it. After all, Bran can pick up a northern wedding and Jon's parentage via Weirnet, not to mention that there might be something in the Winterfell crypts to support Lyanna and Rhaegar as Jon's parents, but not sure if how Ned found the TOJ will ever be explains. I'm dying to know though.

[stateofdissipation]

Yes you see it as I did. but I am not going as far as to say he will be king or anything. My point is basically just that the NW has fallen apart and Jon has been stabbed by his own men, they basically kicked him off the Wall and out of the NW. So there is his 1st out, his 2nd out is what I was saying earlier, the NW is barely even happening anymore and it has fallen into ruin and therefore the oaths that were taken to uphold it are diminishing. The 3rd thing is that, at what point do the vows conflict with what is right thing to do? If the Wall falls or the WW's invade Westeros and utter chaos is reigning, then IMO, it would be acceptable for those of the NW who are still alive to go and fight the WW in the best way they see fit, even if that means getting involved with the 7k and not turning a blind eye to everything that is happening simply because you took a vow to not get involved.

But yes if Jon leaves the wall, then he tries to become king, I think some people might question his loyalty to the vows he has sworn. But everything is so up in the air in Westeros right now anyway that detail might be something that just gets swept under the rug, when he is declared the true born son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. I would even make the argument that he should be released from his NW vows given his heritage and that he went into the NW not knowing who he was. There must be some precedent for royalty being pardoned or something. And even if there is no precedent and nothing like this has ever happened before then I think a new rule should be written.

1) If Jon survives, he will still be LC. The men that stabbed him are subject to execution as traitors. If he dies then he is out (the until my death escape clause)

2) As Lord Commander, Jon has to fix it. If he cannot, he should step down and follow somebody more capable. (see 3 before taking that too harshly)

3) When the NW present is no longer capable of completing its mission, the Lord Commander must seek outside assistance. If that means raising a private army in the south so be it (getting involved does not seem likely to accomplish much other than killing the living). I do not think there is a point where the Boltons and the Lannisters are a greater threat than the Others. So the NW mission is the greater good.

I find it hard to come up with a scenario where Jon could inherit the throne regardless of his legitimacy. If Jon's destiny is to rule, he will have to take it. Saving the world would be a good place to start. Stannis's comments on he put the cart in front of the horse by trying to win the throne to save the kingdom come to mind. If Jon is the PtwP, his destiny seems to be to save the world. I do think that knowing about his parents would be personally important. But i doubt they matter much to anything else. In the end I think that Jon will be what he does. Remember, Aerys was born a king.

[WhiteOwl18]

I genuinely question as to whether we'll ever find out the answer to that question. I would think we might, but since everyone who would know (except HR) is dead, not sure if it will ever be filled it. After all, Bran can pick up a northern wedding and Jon's parentage via Weirnet, not to mention that there might be something in the Winterfell crypts to support Lyanna and Rhaegar as Jon's parents, but not sure if how Ned found the TOJ will ever be explains. I'm dying to know though.

There's also Howland Reed and Wylla the wetnurse to fill in the blanks (and Ashara, if she's alive). But we'll just have to wait and see...

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I've always felt that way but also that Ned using the word prince, on top of bringing only six other close and trusted friends with him to the TOJ was also an indication that Ned suspected what he might find in the tower. When he went off to search for Lyanna after Storm's End, he seems to have taken steps to make sure that only trusted individuals would know what he found.

Or it indicates that he knows that Viserys has not yet been crowned.

[Ghost's Shadow]

There's also Howland Reed and Wylla the wetnurse to fill in the blanks (and Ashara, if she's alive). But we'll just have to wait and see...

2020, here we come. :P

[Jon Weirgaryen]

I agree. How did Ned know where to find Lyanna in the first place? The tower is very isolated and its location a secret. Someone must have told him (possibly Ashara) and the person who did it probably told him what he would find. In fact, this conversation might be seen as Ned trying to get the KG to admit to what he already knew.

If I was Ned and had just seen Rhaegar slain without Rhaegar giving anyone that piece of information before he died... then seen King`s Landing sacked and Storm`s End relieved of the siege...

... I`d head straigt for Summerhall.

Which is not too far from the Tower of Joy.

He might have learned from the smallfolk and/or run into Ashara Dayne on his way.

[MtnLion]

Or it indicates that he knows that Viserys has not yet been crowned.

Actually, Ned calling Viserys or anyone besides Robert king would be . . . uh, interesting. Remember Ned has just seen to Robert getting the throne. (Not that he is real pleased with Robert at the present time.)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Actually, Ned calling Viserys or anyone besides Robert king would be . . . uh, interesting. Remember Ned has just seen to Robert getting the throne. (Not that he is real pleased with Robert at the present time.)

O yeah... hehe. forgive me, I was tired when typic that... :)

Rober is, of course, Ned's King.

[WhiteOwl18]

2020, here we come. :P

If we're lucky... :)

[stateofdissipation]

the term gunwale is used in all watercraft. The edges of my canoe are still called gunwales, even though no canoe ever had a gun. You are right, this term would have never come to fruition in Westeros, Author mistake.

Well lets see the etemology before we identify the author's mistake.

gun (n.) ---Old Norse Gunnhildr, woman's name, from gunnr + hildr, both meaning "war, battle http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=gun&searchmode=none

wale (n.)----Old Norse völr "round piece of wood, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=wale&allowed_in_frame=0

Dictionaries came after modern "guns" were in wide spread use around 1520. Wheel lock guns were in use by 1509 whih were an improvement over the 1400 matchlocks.

War or battle plank would have been an apt description of the top of a ship well before the invention of firearms.

gunwale would seem to be an anachronism.. until one looks to see if the term "gun" predates the use of firearms (cannon). It does so it isn't. GRRM did not make that particular mistake.er

Look at how quickly "google" founded in 1998 became a verb meaning to search for something on the internet. Look now at how quickly we have forgotten the dewey decimal system that was used for over 100 years. Will the next generation ever associate a search to giant boxes of cards or know that googol used to be a number?

[FrozenFire3]

Take it as you will, mates. From WiC fan coverage of Season 4 premiere:

Isaac was wearing my favorite outfit of the night, I even took pictures of his shoes. I asked him if he would like to have Bran’s powers in real life, “HELL YES!” even if that meant taking on the negatives of those powers, “Yea, ya know it’s not all bad, right? That’s not so bad?” he said. I can’t spoil anything for the unsullied but our conversation then got crazy and long and involved lots of jumping around and waving our hands and talking about a Tower in the South of Westeros.

That happened.

[Sasha Steelsong]

2020, here we come. :P

2020? You're very optimistic. ;)

[Ygrain]

Take it as you will, mates. From WiC fan coverage of Season 4 premiere:

Isaac was wearing my favorite outfit of the night, I even took pictures of his shoes. I asked him if he would like to have Bran’s powers in real life, “HELL YES!” even if that meant taking on the negatives of those powers, “Yea, ya know it’s not all bad, right? That’s not so bad?” he said. I can’t spoil anything for the unsullied but our conversation then got crazy and long and involved lots of jumping around and waving our hands and talking about a Tower in the South of Westeros.

That happened.

Most intriguing - makes one wonder about the vegetation around a certain Tower down there.