R+L = J v 86

[Ygritte]

I think you make a good point. KG protects the king and the royal family.

My claim was a counter to the KG only protects the king... and you were kind enough to help me dispel that.

No, the KG can also protect the royal family. It is known. But, there must always be at least one KG with the king. The only exception we've seen is when the KG have a meeting, and then everybody has to vouch for who is guarding the king while they meet (Jaime AFFC). And that's just for an hour or so. And I imagine the king can take a crap without a KG present, or have sex with the queen, etc. But there has to be a KG who's assigned to the king, even if he's not physically with the king at that moment.

So. Arys can go to Dorne with Myrcella, who is the heiress presumptive. And Loras can be off with the fleet during that same time, and Jaime in the riverlands. But there are three KG left in King's Landing assigned to Tommen: Blount,Trant, and Kettleblack. OK, they suck, but they're KG. But if all three of Blount, Trant, and Kettleblack were to get killed during that period of time, then one of the three remaining guys would have to come back.

[stateofdissipation]

No, the KG can also protect the royal family. It is known. But, there must always be at least one KG with the king. The only exception we've seen is when the KG have a meeting, and then everybody has to vouch for who is guarding the king while they meet (Jaime AFFC). And that's just for an hour or so. And I imagine the king can take a crap without a KG present, or have sex with the queen, etc. But there has to be a KG who's assigned to the king, even if he's not physically with the king at that moment.

So. Arys can go to Dorne with Myrcella, who is the heiress presumptive. And Loras can be off with the fleet during that same time, and Jaime in the riverlands. But there are three KG left in King's Landing assigned to Tommen: Blount,Trant, and Kettleblack. OK, they suck, but they're KG. But if all three of Blount, Trant, and Kettleblack were to get killed during that period of time, then one of the three remaining guys would have to come back.

But, there must always be at least one KG with the king. The only exception we've seen is when the KG have a meeting, and then everybody has to vouch for who is guarding the king while they meet (Jaime AFFC). And that's just for an hour or so. And I imagine the king can take a crap without a KG present, or have sex with the queen, etc. But there has to be a KG who's assigned to the king, even if he's not physically with the king at that moment--ygritte

I get that. You added the appropriate exceptions to the always even. I can't disagree with a thing you have said.

I would like to point out "protect" in relation to the ToJ. For arguments sake, we will say that Ned just informed the KG that Viserys had fled and all other heirs were dead. The KG then knew Viserys was king and it was their duty to protect him. Revealing their concern for Viserys would not protect their king in any way. Pretending he did not matter might.

I am not saying I hold that position. I just find it interesting that people cite the KG's apparent lack of concern shown to Ned (the enemy) as absolute proof of actual lack of concern. (if Viserys was king Ned was absolutely an enemy. If Jon was king he may have been the enemy but he was also the kings uncle)

So. Arys can go to Dorne with Myrcella, who is the heiress presumptive. And Loras can be off with the fleet during that same time, and Jaime in the riverlands. But there are three KG left in King's Landing assigned to Tommen: Blount,Trant, and Kettleblack. OK, they suck, but they're KG. But if all three of Blount, Trant, and Kettleblack were to get killed during that period of time, then one of the three remaining guys would have to come back.

Excellent example fine person.

Going with your example, all 3 KG in KL are killed. Loras runs in to Stannis who tells him that all three KG in KL have been killed. Does Loras then drop his sword and try to run to KL? or does He try to kill the rebel and return to KL?

[Emerentiana_Zamora]

I'm peacing out of this thread.

I am almost there with you.

Are you not aware you made that up out of thin air. Or do you not think anybody would notice that you made that up out of thin air?

stateofdissiptation

"I was with her when she died," Ned reminded the king. "She wanted to come home, to rest beside Brandon and Father." He could hear her still at times. Promise me, Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes. Ned remembered the way she had smiled then, how tightly her fingers had clutched his as she gave up her hold on life, the rose petals spilling from her palm, dead and black. After that he remembered nothing.

AGoT Paperback pgs. 43-44.

Bolded part sounds a lot like dying. A lesson I remember from my 7th grade English class is to use interesting verbs when writing. Yell instead of said...etc. While it doesn't just apply to verbs. By being more cryptic Martin fools readers who don't pay too much attention to follow his hinkypunk lantern off in the wrong direction.

what you found combined with what you wrote was pretty good evidence of making up prime duties

stateofdissiptation

I will now quote myself quoting the book because I am too lazy to look up the same quote for the same thread.

"The FIRST duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the KING'Scommands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not, serve his pleasure and defend his name and honor. Strictly speaking, it was purely the KING'S choice whether or not to extend Kingsguard protection to others, even those of royal blood. Some KING'S thought it right and proper to dispatch Kingsguard to serve and defend their wives and children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of greater and lesser degree, and occasionally even their lovers, mistresses, and bastards. But others preferred to use household knights and men-at-arms for those purposes, whilst keeping their seven as their own personal guard, never far from their sides." ADwD Pg. 737 Hardcover

The bold and all caps was added by me.

Fred, read ADwD again. I knew you were mistaken and I haven't read the book in almost a year. Rhaegar is NEVER referred to as king. They didn't have to keep his commands and even if he had the authority to tell the Kingsguard to protect his mistress and bastard before his death, their first duty is to the rightful king and any other orders are secondary.

Please stateofdissiptation read the books again.

Edit: Trolls are back. Run for your lives!!!!!!

[Ygrain]

No need to back out of the thread, just use the Ignore button and keep discussing whatever's interesting for you :-)

[UnmaskedLurker]

[snip]

I will try to keep this brief (but probably fail). I simply want to explain why I do not consider my reasoning circular. We agree that Jon was born at ToJ and that Lyanna is his mother. The question is whether we can pin down timing. I suggest that we cannot pin down the timing to a certainty BUT we can pin down the time to pre-showdown at a high level of confidence. The reason is because I believe that unless Jon is already born prior to the showdown, at least one of the KG at ToJ would have attempted to get to Viserys at Dragonstone. It is that simply. Jon in the womb prior to KG finding out about the death of Aerys makes perfect sense because Jaime is KG and assigned to the king. KG staying at ToJ after learning about death of Aerys and that Viserys has gone to Dragonstone, but before the birth of Jon simply is not reasonable to me. I am not being circular. I believe that these 3 KG would hold to the vow that at least one KG must be assigned to the king at all times (subject to TEMPORARY absences due to things like KG meetings or the king slipping away or the KING ordering them to be somewhere else), but a permanent absence of a KG and no assignment to the king at all is not acceptable.

So I form my conclusion based on the following facts: (1) the 3 KG learn of the death of Aerys (and Rhaegar and Aegon) at the very latest in time, right before the fight starts, when Ned mention these facts and (2) the KG express no need to try to get to Dragonstone where Viserys currently is known to reside. These two facts alone are enough to convince me that at the time of the showdown, Jon must have been born already. I cannot say whether it was 3 days prior to 3 weeks prior (thus my admission that I cannot nail down the precise date), but the evidence to me is fairly clear that the birth was BEFORE the showdown. I simply believe from everything we have been told about KG in general and these 3 KG in particular that given the 2 known facts listed above, at least one of the KG would have tried to leave for Dragonstone if Jon was not already born at the time of the showdown. I have tried to be as clear as possible. You don't find it persuasive, but it is not circular. It is based on a premise that you don't accept, but it is not circular.

The premise that I accept and you do not is that once the KG find out that the old king is dead, the KG would consider it part of their vows to make sure that the new king has at least one KG assigned to him. This premise is not based on my belief that Jon was already born before the showdown. This premise is based on my understanding of the vows of the KG and the behavior of these 3 KG who take their vows more seriously than some KG have taken their vows. I don't see any obligation to Rhaegar regarding guarding something important to Rhaegar to supersede their vow to make sure at least one KG is protecting the king. The fact that the 3 KG made no attempt to get to Viserys even after Ned basically tells them that he will let them pass to get to Viserys and they express no need to get to Viserys tells me that they had to know at that moment that Viserys was not king. That conclusion is only possible if Jon is already born.

So my reasoning is very straight line and not circular at all. My logic follows from the following conclusions and understandings of the facts: (1) 3 KG at ToJ take vows very seriously, (2) at least 1 KG is assigned to the king at all times; (3) when one king dies, the KG make sure that at least one KG becomes assigned to the new king; (4) the 3 KG at ToJ find out at the very latest immediately prior to the battle with Ned that Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are dead and Viserys has gone to Dragonstone (they might have known all or some of these facts earlier, but at the very latest, the know when Ned tells them); (5) after finding out this information, the 3 KG express no need to get to Viserys and make no attempt to leave ToJ to get to Viserys. I know you don't accept each of these points as accepted facts, but I do. They are not circular reasoning, they are my understanding of facts that I believe have been expressed either explicitly or implicitly in the text. From these facts I surmise that the 3 KG's actions can only be explained by concluding that the 3 KG knew that Viserys was not king, and more to the point, they were already guarding the king--Jon. They are not guarding the king if Jon is not already born, and thus Jon must have been born prior to the showdown. I have engaged in straight-line reasoning, with no premise dependent on a following conclusion. You think the KG behavior is explained by protecting something important to Rhaegar. I find that premise unpersuasive.

[Ygritte]

Excellent example fine person.

Going with your example, all 3 KG in KL are killed. Loras runs in to Stannis who tells him that all three KG in KL have been killed. Does Loras then drop his sword and try to run to KL? or does He try to kill the rebel and return to KL?

If he's literally in mid-fight, he obviously can't teleport there. :D But yes, he should go back to KL as quickly as possible, leaving the siege in the hands of one of his lieutenants. (Assuming he really is besieging the place and not lying to Cersei, which is a whole other kettle of fish.) That's not saying he will-obviously, not every KG is faithful to his vows. But if he is to be remembered by Ned Stark years later as an exemplary keeper of his vows, then yes, he should.

And before you say that the guys at the KG were mid-battle, they weren't. There were several minutes of talk before anyone started fighting, during which Hightower could have turned to the others and said "Well, I see Viserys is our king now. I must go to him. Lord Stark, you'll find your sister and nephew on the third floor."

[stateofdissipation]

I am almost there with you.

stateofdissiptation

AGoT Paperback pgs. 43-44.

Bolded part sounds a lot like dying. A lesson I remember from my 7th grade English class is to use interesting verbs when writing. Yell instead of said...etc. While it doesn't just apply to verbs. By being more cryptic Martin fools readers who don't pay too much attention to follow his hinkypunk lantern off in the wrong direction.

stateofdissiptation

I will now quote myself quoting the book because I am too lazy to look up the same quote for the same thread.

Please stateofdissiptation read the books again.

Edit: Trolls are back. Run for your lives!!!!!!

"The FIRST duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat--Emerentiana_Zamora

what you found combined with what you wrote was pretty good evidence of making up prime duties---ASOD

First duty =/= to prime duty....

First duty to guard the king and be with the king =/=The FIRST duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat-

Yes, they are close. They are not the same. I was addressing altered versions of that quote and Jamie's comments on the duties of the KG. I have no objection to the quote Emerentiana_Zamora

Alter the quote to something similar for the sole purpose of proving a point you cannot make without the alteration... is exactly what I called it.... made up and a fabrication

Please read the thread again... insert your actual quote inserted in place of the altered quote that I claimed to be fabricated.... then see if it leads to the same concluson. I can save you the time, it does not.

[Ygritte]

"The FIRST duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat--Emerentiana_Zamora

what you found combined with what you wrote was pretty good evidence of making up prime duties---ASOD

First duty =/= to prime duty....

First duty to guard the king and be with the king =/=The FIRST duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat-

Yes, they are close. They are not the same. I was addressing altered versions of that quote and Jamie's comments on the duties of the KG. I have no objection to the quote Emerentiana_Zamora

Alter the quote to something similar for the sole purpose of proving a point you cannot make without the alteration... is exactly what I called it.... made up and a fabrication

Please read the thread again... insert your actual quote inserted in place of the altered quote that I claimed to be fabricated.... then see if it leads to the same concluson. I can save you the time, it does not.

What do you think prime means?

[UnmaskedLurker]

But, there must always be at least one KG with the king. The only exception we've seen is when the KG have a meeting, and then everybody has to vouch for who is guarding the king while they meet (Jaime AFFC). And that's just for an hour or so. And I imagine the king can take a crap without a KG present, or have sex with the queen, etc. But there has to be a KG who's assigned to the king, even if he's not physically with the king at that moment--ygritte

I get that. You added the appropriate exceptions to the always even. I can't disagree with a thing you have said.

I would like to point out "protect" in relation to the ToJ. For arguments sake, we will say that Ned just informed the KG that Viserys had fled and all other heirs were dead. The KG then knew Viserys was king and it was their duty to protect him. Revealing their concern for Viserys would not protect their king in any way. Pretending he did not matter might.

I am not saying I hold that position. I just find it interesting that people cite the KG's apparent lack of concern shown to Ned (the enemy) as absolute proof of actual lack of concern. (if Viserys was king Ned was absolutely an enemy. If Jon was king he may have been the enemy but he was also the kings uncle)

So. Arys can go to Dorne with Myrcella, who is the heiress presumptive. And Loras can be off with the fleet during that same time, and Jaime in the riverlands. But there are three KG left in King's Landing assigned to Tommen: Blount,Trant, and Kettleblack. OK, they suck, but they're KG. But if all three of Blount, Trant, and Kettleblack were to get killed during that period of time, then one of the three remaining guys would have to come back.

Excellent example fine person.

Going with your example, all 3 KG in KL are killed. Loras runs in to Stannis who tells him that all three KG in KL have been killed. Does Loras then drop his sword and try to run to KL? or does He try to kill the rebel and return to KL?

I don't follow your logic here. The 3 KG know that Ned believes Viserys to be the Targ king (unless they think he knows about Jon). There is nothing the KG can say to Ned or action they can take that can make V more safe. Showing lack of concern does not make V more safe. If N want to kill all Targ heirs (which he does not, but KG might think he does), showing lack of concern for V can in no way make V more safe. I just don't see how that makes any sense.

Your last point may be the real point of difference. You seem to suggest that the KG only found out about V maybe being king from Ned and will send someone to V but only after the KG kill Ned and his group. Maybe. I admit they would be in a very tight spot. But there still would be no reason to tell Ned that going to Dragonstone would be fleeing even now. If the plan is to kill Ned and his group and then send one KG to Dragonstone, they would not have said what they said about not fleeing and keeping their vows. It makes no sense to me. They would have said, we will go to Dragonstone once we kill you (or something like that)--not that KG do not flee then or NOW. Ned knows V is at least a potential heir (and is the king if Ned does not know about Jon) and know where he is. KG have no reason to try to deceive Ned about their views toward V. It is not in their nature to deceive for no purpose or gain.

[stateofdissipation]

If he's literally in mid-fight, he obviously can't teleport there. :D But yes, he should go back to KL as quickly as possible, leaving the siege in the hands of one of his lieutenants. (Assuming he really is besieging the place and not lying to Cersei, which is a whole other kettle of fish.) That's not saying he will-obviously, not every KG is faithful to his vows. But if he is to be remembered by Ned Stark years later as an exemplary keeper of his vows, then yes, he should.

And before you say that the guys at the KG were mid-battle, they weren't. There were several minutes of talk before anyone started fighting, during which Hightower could have turned to the others and said "Well, I see Viserys is our king now. I must go to him. Lord Stark, you'll find your sister and nephew on the third floor.

OK Let me rephrase... would "as soon as Loras could get back to KL" be immediately sprinting or is he allowed to fight the king's enemy before he starts sprinting?

Not going back is not an option....He will go back.

The question is. is he breaking the vow by fighting the kings enemy on his way back?

I was not saying the KG were mid battle I said if Viserys was king then Ned was absolutely the king's enemy.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

But, there must always be at least one KG with the king. The only exception we've seen is when the KG have a meeting, and then everybody has to vouch for who is guarding the king while they meet (Jaime AFFC). And that's just for an hour or so. And I imagine the king can take a crap without a KG present, or have sex with the queen, etc. But there has to be a KG who's assigned to the king, even if he's not physically with the king at that moment--ygritte

I get that. You added the appropriate exceptions to the always even. I can't disagree with a thing you have said.

I would like to point out "protect" in relation to the ToJ. For arguments sake, we will say that Ned just informed the KG that Viserys had fled and all other heirs were dead. The KG then knew Viserys was king and it was their duty to protect him. Revealing their concern for Viserys would not protect their king in any way. Pretending he did not matter might.

I am not saying I hold that position. I just find it interesting that people cite the KG's apparent lack of concern shown to Ned (the enemy) as absolute proof of actual lack of concern. (if Viserys was king Ned was absolutely an enemy. If Jon was king he may have been the enemy but he was also the kings uncle)

So. Arys can go to Dorne with Myrcella, who is the heiress presumptive. And Loras can be off with the fleet during that same time, and Jaime in the riverlands. But there are three KG left in King's Landing assigned to Tommen: Blount,Trant, and Kettleblack. OK, they suck, but they're KG. But if all three of Blount, Trant, and Kettleblack were to get killed during that period of time, then one of the three remaining guys would have to come back.

Excellent example fine person.

Going with your example, all 3 KG in KL are killed. Loras runs in to Stannis who tells him that all three KG in KL have been killed. Does Loras then drop his sword and try to run to KL? or does He try to kill the rebel and return to KL?

The KG were created to protect the King. It is up to the king to decide who else might enjoy this protection. Only the king himself, or perhaps his wife as well, and his heir? Or all his children. A King might even choose to extend the KG protection to his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, and paramours.

You're example is now: there are 3 KG in KL with the King (Tommen). Should, for some reason, all three KG die in one battle, the King is without KG protection. For the remaining KG, the protection of the King would become priority #1. That doesn't mean they have to stop with whatever they are doing. That is never stated anywhere. The commands regarding who should go and guard the king, would most logically come from the Lord Commander. If the LC is not available (like Jaime, lost in the Riverlands), the next person in command (Hand of the King, the Regent etc.) would give the orders.

Going back to the ToJ example, the LC was present at the ToJ. If indeed the commands of sending KG to the King, should the King find himself without KG protection, come from the LC, than that would have been Gerolds job. Seeing as how Gerold doesn't seem to have commanded anyone to go elsewhere (to Viserys on Dragonstone, for example), it suggests that Gerold believed his King to be at ToJ. Just as he was.

If Jon was king he may have been the enemy but he was also the kings uncle

He was the King's uncle.. who had just sworn his loyalty to the new King (the Usurper). Of whom they could not know how he would respond to the reveal of a new Targaryen King. Who had spend the best part of a year fighting against Targaryens.

What I suspect that is going on with Ned´s dream, is not that he is dreaming stuff differently than it happened in real life, but rather, that he skips several parts in his dream. Perhaps the actual conversation Ned and the KG had was longer, and the missing part features the explanation as to why the KG wouldn´t led Ned into the tower. That is something Howland Reed might clear up in the future (since I don't recall a weirwood being mentioned to have been present at ToJ, making the chances that Bran will clear that up rather small).

Also, when you respond to people's posts, just quoting them is good enough ;) There is no reason to quote the post you respond to, then copy-past the specific passage in your own bost, bold it, and change the size of some of the words. It makes reading your posts rather difficult at times, and that is a shame, because it makes conversation more difficult.

[Ygritte]

OK Let me rephrase... would "as soon as Loras could get back to KL" be immediately sprinting or is he allowed to fight the king's enemy before he starts sprinting?

Not going back is not an option....He will go back.

The question is. is he breaking the vow by fighting the kings enemy on his way back?

I was not saying the KG were mid battle I said if Viserys was king then Ned was absolutely the king's enemy.

There would be no reason for Ned to try to detain any of the KG from getting to Viserys. Ned doesn't give a hoot about Viserys. If they'd picked up and headed off for Viserys, there wouldn't even be a fight. That's what he expects them to do, until he finds out the details of the situation.

[Emerentiana_Zamora]

What do you think prime means?

prime¹

prīm/

adjective

1. 1.

   of first importance; main.

   "her prime concern is the well-being of the patient"

   synonyms:

   main, chief, key, primary, central, principal, foremost, first, most important, paramount, major; More

2.

of the best possible quality; excellent.

"a prime site in the center of Indianapolis"

synonyms:

top-quality, top, best, first-class, first-rate, grade A, superior, supreme,choice, select, finest, top-end, top-tier; More

noun

1. 1.

   a state or time of greatest strength, vigor, or success in a person's life.

   "you're in the prime of life"

   synonyms:

   heyday, best days, best years, prime of one's life; More

2.

CHRISTIAN CHURCH

a service forming part of the Divine Office, traditionally said (or chanted) at the first hour of the day (i.e., 6 a.m.), but now little used.

from google. I could change the bolded part to Kingsguard but I won't.

[stateofdissipation]

What do you think prime means?

prime adj 1. First in excellence, quality, or value

first (fûrst) n. 1. The ordinal number matching the number one in a series.

Notably prime is an adjective indicating quality, excellence or value Frst is a noun that indicates a series....

If one wishes to associate value, one uses prime.... if one wishes to indicate a series one uses first...

The substitution of prime for first adds changes one in a series of duties into the most important in a series of duties. The manufactured importance is then used exclude all other duties on the list. That is not simple word play... that is deliberate misrepresentation

[Ygritte]

prime adj 1. First in excellence, quality, or value

first (fûrst) n. 1. The ordinal number matching the number one in a series.

Notably prime is an adjective indicating quality, excellence or value Frst is a noun that indicates a series....

If one wishes to associate value, one uses prime.... if one wishes to indicate a series one uses first...

The substitution of prime for first adds changes one in a series of duties into the most important in a series of duties. The manufactured importance is then used exclude all other duties on the list. That is not simple word play... that is deliberate misrepresentation

OK, what are you actually arguing? No bolding, giant font, or quote trees please. What do you think was going on? What do you think the KG died for?

[stateofdissipation]

There would be no reason for Ned to try to detain any of the KG from getting to Viserys. Ned doesn't give a hoot about Viserys. If they'd picked up and headed off for Viserys, there wouldn't even be a fight. That's what he expects them to do, until he finds out the details of the situation.

I am quite aware of how things played out.Ned offered them a chance to flee or to surrender and they refused both.

you did not answer the question.

the question was is fighting the king's enemies enroute to defending the king considered breaking the vow?

If fighting the king's enemies enroute to defend the king is breaking a vow and the KG kept their vow, then clearly Viserys was not king.

[Ygritte]

I am quite aware of how things played out.Ned offered them a chance to flee or to surrender and they refused both.

you did not answer the question.

the question was is fighting the king's enemies enroute to defending the king considered breaking the vow?

If fighting the king's enemies enroute to defend the king is breaking a vow and the KG kept their vow, then clearly Viserys was not king.

No. Fighting the king's enemies en route to defend the king is not breaking the vow. If Viserys had been king, and if Ned had gotten in their way and kept them from going to him, then they would not be breaking their vow to try to fight their way through to Viserys. I'm sure you will find a way to twist this to mean something else, but hey.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I am quite aware of how things played out.Ned offered them a chance to flee or to surrender and they refused both.

you did not answer the question.

the question was is fighting the king's enemies enroute to defending the king considered breaking the vow?

If fighting the king's enemies enroute to defend the king is breaking a vow and the KG kept their vow, then clearly Viserys was not king.

It is not just a matter of fighting the king's enemies. It is that in part, but it is also what the KG said. They made it clear that they were NOT going to go to Dragonstone. They had no reason to lie to Ned about that. The statement that going to Dragonstone would be fleeing (as opposed to protecting the new King) is what demonstrates that the KG knew that V was not king at that time.

[stateofdissipation]

The KG were created to protect the King. It is up to the king to decide who else might enjoy this protection. Only the king himself, or perhaps his wife as well, and his heir? Or all his children. A King might even choose to extend the KG protection to his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, and paramours.

You're example is now: there are 3 KG in KL with the King (Tommen). Should, for some reason, all three KG die in one battle, the King is without KG protection. For the remaining KG, the protection of the King would become priority #1. That doesn't mean they have to stop with whatever they are doing. That is never stated anywhere. The commands regarding who should go and guard the king, would most logically come from the Lord Commander. If the LC is not available (like Jaime, lost in the Riverlands), the next person in command (Hand of the King, the Regent etc.) would give the orders.

Going back to the ToJ example, the LC was present at the ToJ. If indeed the commands of sending KG to the King, should the King find himself without KG protection, come from the LC, than that would have been Gerolds job. Seeing as how Gerold doesn't seem to have commanded anyone to go elsewhere (to Viserys on Dragonstone, for example), it suggests that Gerold believed his King to be at ToJ. Just as he was.

He was the King's uncle.. who had just sworn his loyalty to the new King (the Usurper). Of whom they could not know how he would respond to the reveal of a new Targaryen King. Who had spend the best part of a year fighting against Targaryens.

What I suspect that is going on with Ned´s dream, is not that he is dreaming stuff differently than it happened in real life, but rather, that he skips several parts in his dream. Perhaps the actual conversation Ned and the KG had was longer, and the missing part features the explanation as to why the KG wouldn´t led Ned into the tower. That is something Howland Reed might clear up in the future (since I don't recall a weirwood being mentioned to have been present at ToJ, making the chances that Bran will clear that up rather small).

Also, when you respond to people's posts, just quoting them is good enough ;) There is no reason to quote the post you respond to, then copy-past the specific passage in your own bost, bold it, and change the size of some of the words. It makes reading your posts rather difficult at times, and that is a shame, because it makes conversation more difficult.

For the remaining KG, the protection of the King would become priority #1. That doesn't mean they have to stop with whatever they are doing. That is never stated anywhere Rhaenys_Targaryen

Going back to the ToJ example, the LC was present at the ToJ. If indeed the commands of sending KG to the King, should the King find himself without KG protection, come from the LC, than that would have been Gerolds job. Seeing as how Gerold doesn't seem to have commanded anyone to go elsewhere (to Viserys on Dragonstone, for example), it suggests that Gerold believed his King to be at ToJ. Just as he was.--Rhaenys_Targaryen

Agreed,The LC's failing to send KG to dragonstone completely suggests that the LC believed his king to be in the ToJ.

if the LC knew of Visery's whereabouts and the deaths of Aerys and Aegon before Ned's arival

and

If Jon had been born when Ned arrived at the ToJ

Absent a prohibition on fighting the king's enemies enroute to the king, you need to include those prerequisites to the assertion.

He was the King's uncle.. who had just sworn his loyalty to the new King (the Usurper). Of whom they could not know how he would respond to the reveal of a new Targaryen King. Who had spend the best part of a year fighting against Targaryens. Rhaenys_Targaryen,

Ned had just rebelled against Aerys for the murder of his father and broter. He gave up the Iron Throne to Robert's "better claim." That better claim was that Robert's grandmother was Targaryen. Agreed they could not know how he would respond to his nephew and a boy with more Targaryen blood and better claim to the Iron Throne the man Ned had just supported based that man's Targaryen blood.

What I suspect that is going on with Ned´s dream, is not that he is dreaming stuff differently than it happened in real life, but rather, that he skips several parts in his dream. Perhaps the actual conversation Ned and the KG had was longer, and the missing part features the explanation as to why the KG wouldn´t led Ned into the tower. That is something Howland Reed might clear up in the future (since I don't recall a weirwood being mentioned to have been present at ToJ, making the chances that Bran will clear that up rather small).---Rhaenys_Targaryen,

I agree many things from the ToJ are really fill in the blank. Hopefully HR clears things up in tWoW

I just got to the don't paste quote it makes things difficult and will stop doing that now and in the future....

[BearQueen87]

It is not just a matter of fighting the king's enemies. It is that in part, but it is also what the KG said. They made it clear that they were NOT going to go to Dragonstone. They had no reason to lie to Ned about that. The statement that going to Dragonstone would be fleeing (as opposed to protecting the new King) is what demonstrates that the KG knew that V was not king at that time.

The fact that Viserys fled to Dragonstone without a KG and the KG learn this and still do not flee!

The KG are down several members. Jamie just slew Aerys. Selmy is with Robert. The others are dead. If they thought even for a second that Viserys was king, ONE of them (Hightower) would have ridden like a bat out of hell to the nearest port.