Ser Arthur Dayne, Ser Oswell Whent, and Lord Commander Gerold Hightower. . .The Three Ghosts

[mambru]

It doesn't. It's just the most logical and obvious answer for reasons that I wouldn't think even need to be explained. You are loyal to the king, yes, but ultimately all KG who live long enough will be protecting that king's heir as well. So ultimately the loyalty lies with the dynasty. This is why Ned thinks they might have sailed to Dragonstone with WIllem Darry.

I can't prove to you that their concern should obviously be with the dynasty. I think it is abundantly obvious, especially considering that the alternative is the orders of a dead man who couldn't have predicted that his dynasty was in peril when he gave them.

It is logical to assume that the KG would be guarding the king, and this should be the default position. Alternative positions should bear the burden of proof.

One scenario is natural and obvious, another is convoluted and strange. I know we don't agree which is which, but such is life. We'll just have to wait to settle it.

I agree, neither of us knows for sure why the ToJ KG 3 acted the way they did. But if the vows state that the KG are to Obey the King - even in orders that directly endanger the King's own life (as in Barristan, Bob, and the Boar) I can't see why an exception in the rules would be made to allow the KG to Disobey to safeguard the King's mere genetic material when they are not allowed to Disobey even to safeguard the King himself.

For instance, what do YOU think the ToJ 3 would have done if they'd been at KL instead of Jaime during the Sack and found out about Aerys' plan to immolate himself and his heirs Rhaenys and Aegon (as well as the Red Keep and KL?) Would they have stopped him? Or submissively said, "Yes, Your Grace, we'll help carry your torches." Think well before you answer.

The rulebook to the KG probably doesn't have detailed appendixes for what to do if the original owners of the Iron Throne are dethroned. IMO, each KG or group of KG would have to decide how to respond to that unprecedented event. There is more than one way to respond. And IMO, without truly knowing the ToJ 3 and their circumstances, we can't know for sure how each of them DID respond and for what reasons.

And with the KG rules of honor often being illogical ("You are an honorable knight who always keeps his word! Therefore you will aid and abet a man to do evil things that an honorable knight would cut his throat rather than do!") I don't think we can count on logic by itself to give us the full answer.

[Aeron_Damphair]

I agree, neither of us knows for sure why the ToJ KG 3 acted the way they did. But if the vows state that the KG are to Obey the King - even in orders that directly endanger the King's own life (as in Barristan, Bob, and the Boar) I can't see why an exception in the rules would be made to allow the KG to Disobey to safeguard the King's mere genetic material when they are not allowed to Disobey even to safeguard the King himself.

For instance, what do YOU think the ToJ 3 would have done if they'd been at KL instead of Jaime during the Sack and found out about Aerys' plan to immolate himself and his heirs Rhaenys and Aegon (as well as the Red Keep and KL?) Would they have stopped him? Or submissively said, "Yes, Your Grace, we'll help carry your torches." Think well before you answer.

Loyalty to the king necessarily means loyalty to his dynasty. I still say you are egregiously over trivializing this dynasty concern and you simply don't agree with me, but that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

As for the second question, that is what is so great about Jaime's character. He has depth because he, uniquely, had to wrestle with that decision. Nobody can say what Dayne, Whent, or Hightower would have done in that spot but it wasn't for their characters to face, it was a legitimate catch 22.

Even if the knights at the ToJ were not simply guarding the heir, their every behavior seems to point in that very direction. Could it be misdirection? Anything is possible in a fictional universe, but given how all of the clues are buried, I just don't think it is likely at all.

[Ygrain]

As for the second question, that is what is so great about Jaime's character. He has depth because he, uniquely, had to wrestle with that decision. Nobody can say what Dayne, Whent, or Hightower would have done in that spot but it wasn't for their characters to face, it was a legitimate catch 22.

You have been caught in a net of warring duties that you did not weave. But think, servants of your Lord, blind in your obedience, that but for the treason of Beregond, Faramir, Captain of the White Tower, would now also be burned."

A nice parallel, isn't it?

[mambru]

Loyalty to the king necessarily means loyalty to his dynasty. I still say you are egregiously over trivializing this dynasty concern and you simply don't agree with me, but that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

It did not mean loyalty to the Targaryen dynasty for Barristan - and yet Ned (our only witness to the ToJ affair) did NOT consider Barristan a dishonorable oathbreaker for that. Just saying.

As for the second question, that is what is so great about Jaime's character. He has depth because he, uniquely, had to wrestle with that decision. Nobody can say what Dayne, Whent, or Hightower would have done in that spot but it wasn't for their characters to face, it was a legitimate catch 22.

I really don't think that Jaime's dilemma was the first time ever that any of the Aerys' KG had to wrestle with a decision that was a Catch-22. There were others - we just don't know about them yet. I mean, these guys were supposedly the souls of honor, and yet they were aiding a sadistic maniac rape his wife and set innocent people on fire. There had to have been some point when one or two of them asked themselves if their own precious honor was worth all the innocent people that were dying for it.

I'm beginning to incline more to a theory PrettyPig mentioned on another thread - they'd decided to go along with Rhaegar's orders because they knew he was planning to overthrow his father, he'd convinced them it was necessary and he could heal the kingdom, but they didn't want to violate the letter of their vow by being at the Red Keep and thus being put in the position of having to defend Aerys against Rhaegar. So they followed Rhaegar's order to stay at the ToJ - orders that they KNEW were dangerous to Aerys, and which they should not have followed if they were wholeheartedly TRYING to protect Aerys.

So they stayed there, hoping for Rhaegar's success - but he failed, and died, and Aerys fell, and Elia and the kids slaughtered - and it was partly THEIR fault for their wishy-washy screwing around with their vows.

I really do think they made up their minds to die obeying their last orders after that. I mean, suppose they DO decide that Jon is the "king." What are their options? Take him to Dragonstone and present him as the "king" to his Targaryen relatives? Once they're there, the KG would have to submit to the authority of Rhaella and her council - and they COULD decide that whatever marriage Rhaegar may have cobbled up was not legitimate and Jon was a bastard. If that happens, then the KG will live on for years in infamy, trailing around after Viserys the Beggar King's wake and being forever pointed out as the KG who failed King Aerys because they were too busy guarding Rhaegar's mistress and bastard.

If they refuse to accept that label for Jon, they can enter into direct competition with Viserys on the begging circuit in exile, shaking the tin cup before stingy barbarians - either way they will STILL be serving a boy who is King of Nothing, and they will STILL be pointed at as the Kingsguard who failed Aerys and thus are unworthy of the name. To prideful men like that, that might well be a fate worse than death.

[Daemon Blackfyre IV]

i sorta wrote this in my little synopsis of what i believe took place earlier in the thread but i wanted to chime in again.

Some of you were speaking of the we swore a vow part. my belief is Rhaegar asked them to swear to protect his family let's call this a vow for these noble knights. Someone mentions that Aegon didn't have a KG that is not correct, you will remember that before Rhaegar left he had Jamie promise to protect his family. That family most definitely includes the heirs heir Aegon !

[Aeron_Damphair]

It did not mean loyalty to the Targaryen dynasty for Barristan - and yet Ned (our only witness to the ToJ affair) did NOT consider Barristan a dishonorable oathbreaker for that. Just

saying.

Well, sure, but what choice did Barristan have? He was injured and captured. He could either die or submit to the other side. It wasn't as if there weren't good men on either side of the war. He later comes to regret it, for whatever that's worth.

I really don't think that Jaime's dilemma was the first time ever that any of the Aerys' KG had to wrestle with a decision that was a Catch-22. There were others - we just don't know about them yet. I mean, these guys were supposedly the souls of honor, and yet they were aiding a sadistic maniac rape his wife and set innocent people on fire. There had to have been some point when one or two of them asked themselves if their own precious honor was worth all the innocent people that were dying for it.

I completely agree, but Jaime's the one whose story we have the most access to. The way that the one most important moral decision he ever made was in direct contradiction to his KG vow. Nobody else was put in that position, so there really isn't any reason to speculate on what they may have done.

I don't agree with the rest of what you said primarily because these three knights acted in complete unison, pounding their chests all the while about their sacred vow as KG.

What would be important to Rhaegar after he died other than that his heir be protected? Do you think he had a personal problem with young Viserys? Do you think he wouldn't want to preserve the dynasty of Aegon the conqueror, and the trio that he has begun naming his children after? How does protecting a mistress and a bastard at the expense of the head of the dynasty relate to a steadfast and vocal emphasis on being "of the kingsguard?" I just don't think it does.

I realize a lot of the people who don't agree with me just aren't taking to my idea that the king and the dynasty are one in the same. I don't see how it could be otherwise, but to each his own opinion. Those people and I just obviously aren't going to agree. So be it, doesn't make me any less sure of it.

[Roxy Carmichael]

i sorta wrote this in my little synopsis of what i believe took place earlier in the thread but i wanted to chime in again.

Some of you were speaking of the we swore a vow part. my belief is Rhaegar asked them to swear to protect his family let's call this a vow for these noble knights. Someone mentions that Aegon didn't have a KG that is not correct, you will remember that before Rhaegar left he had Jamie promise to protect his family. That family most definitely includes the heirs heir Aegon !

Aegon, Rhaegar's heir, was left in KL with a single guard. Lyanna and her unborn baby were left with three. I think this speaks more to Rhaegar not believing that he, his father, or his oldest child were in any real danger. Based on his interactions with Jaime before the leaving for the Trident, he seemed pretty assured that he would be winning the battle and returning to KL... because, you know, prophecy and stuff.

[Boarsbane]

i sorta wrote this in my little synopsis of what i believe took place earlier in the thread but i wanted to chime in again.

Some of you were speaking of the we swore a vow part. my belief is Rhaegar asked them to swear to protect his family let's call this a vow for these noble knights. Someone mentions that Aegon didn't have a KG that is not correct, you will remember that before Rhaegar left he had Jamie promise to protect his family. That family most definitely includes the heirs heir Aegon !

Seems like he might of taken Jaime too but he was scared what Aerys might do if he tried to take his Lannister hostage

[Arlan of Pennytree]

That's the first time I've read that from GRRM, so thanks for that.

Hmm. Dayne and Whent I can believe, especially Dayne because of how he is presented and the fact that he and Rhaegar were very close; and I think a good chunk of readers know that Rhaegar was planning something about his father. If Hightower signs off on it, then yeah, I'd say the KG were planning a peaceful overthrow of Aerys for the good of the realm. Jamie might have been out of the loop not only because he's new but he's also Tywin's son. If Tywin knew that the KG were planning, he might try to weasel his way into power and favor. Tywin has very little reason to love Aerys, but every reason to want to take back power and turn the situation to this advantage.

Remember in Feast for Crows, LC Jamie is talking w/sir Loras. They are discussing KG history and sir Criston Cole The Kingmaker comes up. KG have been players in the game before, but oath-breaking and The White Bull doesn't seem right given the way Hightower is remembered by Jamie and Ned.

[BearQueen87]

Remember in Feast for Crows, LC Jamie is talking w/sir Loras. They are discussing KG history and sir Criston Cole The Kingmaker comes up. KG have been players in the game before, but oath-breaking and The White Bull doesn't seem right given the way Hightower is remembered by Jamie and Ned.

It doesn't seem right, I would agree. But Jamie wouldn't know if there was deception or not; he wasn't in on it.

[lareine]

It doesn't seem right, I would agree. But Jamie wouldn't know if there was deception or not; he wasn't in on it.

And think how deliciously ironic it would be if the readers eventually learn that the man who Jaime thought was so by the book that he'd follow his vows up honor's ass actually had come to the same realization that Jaime had; that the lives of innocent people were not worth the price of maintaining his 'honor' by continuing to obey and protect a mad man. This is just my opinion, but I think that the few scraps we've been thrown about Hightower being this by-the-book tight ass who chastises Jaime about obeying and not 'judging' the king are red herrings to set up a later reveal that he too had ultimately come to the realization that Aerys had to go.

That would make Hightower and Jaime wonderful foils and parallels for each other. On the surface, their public reputations are the polar opposites of each other. But we as readers eventually learned that Jaime's reputation as a soiled knight, an oathbreaker and a Kingslayer is based on incomplete knowledge of what really happened the night he slew the king. Perhaps Hightower's reputation as the ultimate example of the steadfastly loyal and honorable Kingsguard is also based (at this time) on an incomplete understanding of events and motivations. If that were the case, than public reputations aside, it would make neither man better or worse than the other. Instead it would beautifully illustrate the themes about knighthood that GRRM's been consistently hammering us with throughout the series; that honor, decency and complete obedience to competing vows are not always possible and that the perfect 'white' knight is nothing more than a myth.

Now that to me would be great writing ;)

[Ygrain]

And think how deliciously ironic it would be if the readers eventually learn that the man who Jaime thought was so by the book that he'd follow his vows up honor's ass actually had come to the same realization that Jaime had; that the lives of innocent people were not worth the price of maintaining his 'honor' by continuing to obey and protect a mad man. This is just my opinion, but I think that the few scraps we've been thrown about Hightower being this by-the-book tight ass who chastises Jaime about obeying and not 'judging' the king are red herrings to set up a later reveal that he too had ultimately come to the realization that Aerys had to go.

That would make Hightower and Jaime wonderful foils and parallels for each other. On the surface, their public reputations are the polar opposites of each other. But we as readers eventually learned that Jaime's reputation as a soiled knight, an oathbreaker and a Kingslayer is based on incomplete knowledge of what really happened the night he slew the king. Perhaps Hightower's reputation as the ultimate example of the steadfastly loyal and honorable Kingsguard is also based (at this time) on an incomplete understanding of events and motivations. If that were the case, than public reputations aside, it would make neither man better or worse than the other. Instead it would beautifully illustrate the themes about knighthood that GRRM's been consistently hammering us with throughout the series; that honor, decency and complete obedience to competing vows are not always possible and that the perfect 'white' knight is nothing more than a myth.

Now that to me would be great writing ;)

I think that role might be reserved for Arthur Dayne. We have too little to build on with Hightower, but with Dayne, there is that recurring feature of sadness, in connection with vows ("we all swore vows"). Plus, that "keep reading" when asked how Dayne put up with Aerys' cruelty - there is something in store for us.

[BearQueen87]

I think that role might be reserved for Arthur Dayne. We have too little to build on with Hightower, but with Dayne, there is that recurring feature of sadness, in connection with vows ("we all swore vows"). Plus, that "keep reading" when asked how Dayne put up with Aerys' cruelty - there is something in store for us.

Hopefully a trip to Starfall in our future!

[stateofdissipation]

small word... "they"

Lyanna's death scene comes before the Tower of Joy. In the scene, They had found him (Ned) still holding her (Lyanna's) body silent with grief. Howland Reed had taken her (Lyanna's) hand from his (Ned's),

If Lyanna died immediately after the showdown, who is "they." Immediately after the showdown only Howland, Ned, were outside and was in the tower. Howland Reed does not a "they" make,

Slightly larger word "coagulate"

Lyanna died in a room that smelled of "blood and roses"

Blood dries in about 15 minutes. The smell of blood does not last much longer than that. The smell of old and rotting blood is the same as the smell of dead and rotting meat. notably the text does not say smelled of "rancid meat and roses."

Is there anything in the text that puts Lyanna in her "bed of blood" before or during the showdown? The closest i found is Lyanna/the guy waking Ned up from his dream about the showdown. Lyanna calls "Ned" "Lord Eddard" in that dream...

[Arlan of Pennytree]

Im not sure I agree that the KG dont have to die for anyone but the king, wasnt it stated that the KG member with Tommen should have died before letting the crown prince be taken?

That was Cersei Lannister's ravings, but you may be right. If you examine Sir Barristan's thoughts about Daenerys being missing when she flew off on Drogon, he clearly states that if he had been ordered by Daenerys to defend Hizdahr zo Loraq he would have had to. I don't know if he meant to the death, but given Selmy's chivalrous YET cautious alignment (He has yielded defeat before, very much unlike our 3 @ ToJ) it is hard to say drawing off his prospective.

[Arlan of Pennytree]

Ok..say Jon has "proof" that he is the legitimate heir.

Jon takes his magic paper (just like his father did) and marches it up to king's landing... Too bad they sent Ned's head home, Jon's would be on a spike alone.

Viserys was the presumed heir. Nobody supported him. He died.

The lannisters have an army. Stannis has an army. Dany has an army. Jon has managed to get himself stabbed while at the head of a few hundred men.

The 7 kingdoms seems an unlikely Mr. Brownlow. for Jon's version of Oliver Twist. The 7 kingdoms seem more likely to kill him than to lovingly welcome him as their rightful ruler.

Jon Snow's parentage is a backstory...

On an interesting note the prophecy predates the Targ's arrival in Westeros. It predates the Targs adopting the faith of the seven. (Aegon I converted)

The prophecy Rhaegar was worried about said blood of the dragon... not blood of the dragon legitimized by the faith of the seven. Worrying about what the faith of the seven thinks about an ancient prophecy outside their religion is as out of place as readers thinking that there were marriage licenses in westeros.

on topic arthur dayne of starfall said all knights must bleed it is a sign of our devotion and he was likely bleeding when he after the showdown at ToJ. If r plus l equals j... J was born under the protection of the bleeding arthur dayne of starfelll

the smoke was from the sack of kings landing

the salt his mother's tears

Dragons are returning

it is hard to imagine a darker eye than death which has fallen on Jon...

Jon is the prince that was promised.... not the king of the seven kingdoms..

Not yet. . .But riding a white dragon and wed to a targ princess who rides a big black dragon with 3+ sellsword companies, 10,000 Unsullied, 30-40,000 Dothraki Screamers, an army of freed slaves and the lords and their banners still loyal to house Targ? An army of 55,000 against 10,000 conscripts and 3 dragons is the precedent, Jon's odds will be much better if he desires the Iron Throne.

[Lady Woodland]

small word... "they"

Lyanna's death scene comes before the Tower of Joy. In the scene, They had found him (Ned) still holding her (Lyanna's) body silent with grief. Howland Reed had taken her (Lyanna's) hand from his (Ned's),

If Lyanna died immediately after the showdown, who is "they." Immediately after the showdown only Howland, Ned, were outside and was in the tower. Howland Reed does not a "they" make,

Slightly larger word "coagulate"

Lyanna died in a room that smelled of "blood and roses"

Blood dries in about 15 minutes. The smell of blood does not last much longer than that. The smell of old and rotting blood is the same as the smell of dead and rotting meat. notably the text does not say smelled of "rancid meat and roses."

Is there anything in the text that puts Lyanna in her "bed of blood" before or during the showdown? The closest i found is Lyanna/the guy waking Ned up from his dream about the showdown. Lyanna calls "Ned" "Lord Eddard" in that dream...

Interesting... Are you proposing that Ned discovered Lyanna somewhere, she died in his arms, then the "battle" took place at the ToJ sometime afterward & it was a revenge deal on Ned's part? that might actually make more sense. Still holes in the plot though either way.

[stateofdissipation]

Not yet. . .But riding a white dragon and wed to a targ princess who rides a big black dragon with 3+ sellsword companies, 10,000 Unsullied, 30-40,000 Dothraki Screamers, an army of freed slaves and the lords and their banners still loyal to house Targ? An army of 55,000 against 10,000 conscripts and 3 dragons is the precedent, Jon's odds will be much better if he desires the Iron Throne.

So the army makes him king. Kind of what it always was.

I don't think that anybody asked Aegon if he was legitimate. The Targs (with dragons) were above the laws of gods and men.

Real world example: William the Conquerer. Until he conquered England he was known as William the Bastard.

An army makes you king. One's name and birth can give one an army. (Like Joff or Tommen)..

[stateofdissipation]

Interesting... Are you proposing that Ned discovered Lyanna somewhere, she died in his arms, then the "battle" took place at the ToJ sometime afterward & it was a revenge deal on Ned's part? that might actually make more sense. Still holes in the plot though either way.

If bed of blood means childbirth, Ned found a pregnant Lyanna in the ToJ. If the room smelled of blood and roses, Lyanna had given birth very recently not days but hours. Finally if "they" found him, I propose Howland Reed left and came back with somebody (a midwife or a maester). I am open to others from his party arriving.

Ned thinks of blood when he thinks of Lyanna but does not think of blood regarding the showdown. a swordfight that 8 men died in and were presumably bloody. Ned had seen combat before the ToJ. It was nothing new to him. It is doubtful that he had ever seen a baby delivered before.

[Arlan of Pennytree]

So the army makes him king. Kind of what it always was.

I don't think that anybody asked Aegon if he was legitimate. The Targs (with dragons) were above the laws of gods and men.

Real world example: William the Conquerer. Until he conquered England he was known as William the Bastard.

An army makes you king. One's name and birth can give one an army. (Like Joff or Tommen)..

Still, his claim is not diminished IF he is the legitimate son. For sure, a claim alone is not enough (e.g., Stannis B.), but to be the rightful heir has its importance. . .