Jump to content

R+L = J v 86


Stubby

Recommended Posts

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

They are Kingsguards ;) protecting the King is their job, though the King can order them to do other things as well (Hightower was send out to find Rhaegar, Jaime was send out to set the Riverlands right, etc.).

It is true that it is never stated that the KG would have to stop with whatever order they were trying to fullfill when the King is suddenly and unexpectedly without KG knights. But it is also never stated that they absolutely should remain doing what they're doing ;)

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

HR better show up next book :p ;) He has some explaining to do :)

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

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I agree, but I think there is a more fundamental point. It is possible that they find out about the deaths and V on Dragonstone only from Ned. It is possible that once they find out about V on Dragonstone, they think it is better to kill Ned and the group first before sending one of them to Dragonstone (assuming J is not born yet, so J also could be king if born a boy but V is king if J is born a girl) in order to keep both V and J safe. Here is what they would not do. They would not say, we do not go to Dragonstone then or now because the KG do not flee. If V is potentially king (if J ends up being a girl) it would not be fleeing to go to V "now". The KG have no reason to lie to Ned on this point. Dayne is the one that makes this statement about not fleeing then or now. Ned thinks of Dayne as the best knight Ned ever knew. Ned would not think this way about Dayne if Dayne had lied in that way. Once Ned entered the ToJ and found L and she was still pregnant, Ned would know that Dayne was being dishonest because Ned would know that the KG would have a good reason to go to Dragonstone--it would not be fleeing because the king is there if J is born a girl. But Ned does not think Dayne did anything other than act honorably. Thus, when Dayne said they do not flee then or now, it must have meant that going to V at that moment would be fleeing because they have no duty to go to V because they are protecting the king in ToJ. Thus Jon must have been born prior to the time of the showdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Fighting the king's enemies enroute to the king is not breaking the vow.

You add "obstructing the KG way to the king" after enemies, Fighting the kings enemies obstructing the way to the king while enroute to the king is not breaking the vow.

Not attempting to twist things here.

Dragonstone is northeast of the ToJ....

if Viserys was king and and Ned approached from the northeast the KG could have fought and been keeping kept their vow.

if Viserys was king and Ned approached from the southwest the KG could not have fought and been keeping their vow.

but "gotten in their way" could mean offering actual physical resistance.

Fighting the kings enemies that are offering actual physical resistance while enroute to the king is not breaking the vow.

Back to the Loras running in to Stannis and being told that all KG in KL are dead. If Stannis drops his sword. Loras can't cut him down without breaking his vow.

Good thing that is not common knowledge: King has no kingsguard. I am not resisting you. If you touch me you're an oathbreaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not attempting to twist things here.

Dragonstone is northeast of the ToJ....

if Viserys was king and and Ned approached from the northeast the KG could have fought and been keeping kept their vow.

if Viserys was king and Ned approached from the southwest the KG could not have fought and been keeping their vow.

So because he's coming from Storm's End, which is northeast, you think the KG could have been fighting to get past Ned and his men to get to Dragonstone? (I'm a touch confused now)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

This is a really crappy answer. Not sexy or cool in any way. It does not prove anything. It does not require you to follow any intricate paths. There are no ah has or eurekas. but it is pretty much rock solid. I used proximate cause, It is not necessarily the closest cause in time or space nor the first or last event of the sequence. It is the action that without any independent unforeseeable event would reasonably lead to the KG dying defending the ToJ

The KG were at the ToJ because something very important to Rhaegar was there.

I know it's lame...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really crappy answer. Not sexy or cool in any way. It does not prove anything. It does not require you to follow any intricate paths. There are no ah has or eurekas. but it is pretty much rock solid. I used proximate cause, It is not necessarily the closest cause in time or space nor the first or last event of the sequence. It is the action that without any independent unforeseeable event would reasonably lead to the KG dying defending the ToJ

The KG were at the ToJ because something very important to Rhaegar was there.

I know it's lame...

It is lame because it makes no sense. The KG would not put guarding something important to Rhaegar ahead of making sure the king has at least one KG. See my posts above for a more thorough explanation for why the KG's actions and words are inconsistent with upholding their vows if J is unborn at the time of the showdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because he's coming from Storm's End, which is northeast, you think the KG could have been fighting to get past Ned and his men to get to Dragonstone? (I'm a touch confused now)

That was based on a qualified statement:

The KG can fight the king's enemies that obstruct their way to the king while enroute to the king.

I did not add the qualifier. I asked the question: Are KG allowed to fight the king's enemies while enroute to the king without breaking their vow?

the answer was if they get in his way of getting to the king... or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is lame because it makes no sense. The KG would not put guarding something important to Rhaegar ahead of making sure the king has at least one KG. See my posts above for a more thorough explanation for why the KG's actions and words are inconsistent with upholding their vows if J is unborn at the time of the showdown.

So it makes no sense because whatever was in the ToJ was not important to Rhaegar as I asserted. It makes no sense because Rhaegar did not leave 3 KG at the ToJ as I asserted. It makes no sense because the KG left by Rhaegar at the ToJ would not foreseeably defend the ToJ. It does not make sense because the KG did not die defending the ToJ,

Would you assert any of the above?

If you would then it does not make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KG were at the ToJ because something very important to Rhaegar was there.

Let's run with that idea for a minute, then. You argued previously in the thread that the KG were trying to passively let Jon die. What is at the Tower that Rhaegar values so much over his own child that he'd give the order, "Guys, if somebody attacks, save this thing, but don't worry about my kid."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KG were at the ToJ because something very important to Rhaegar was there.

I think this is the starting point for R+ L = J. I don't think you actually disagree with R+L = J, but you're arguing for what can only be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The KG were at the TOJ because they were guarding something that was important to Rhaegar.

That seems very basic and straightforward. Where the rest of us go, is into what that "thing" is. And for us, it's Jon and a married Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it makes no sense because whatever was in the ToJ was not important to Rhaegar as I asserted. It makes no sense because Rhaegar did not leave 3 KG at the ToJ as I asserted. It makes no sense because the KG left by Rhaegar at the ToJ would not foreseeably defend the ToJ. It does not make sense because the KG did not die defending the ToJ,

Would you assert any of the above?

If you would then it does not make sense.

It's in a mountain pass, much like the ones beyond the Wall of which it's said that a few men could hold them against a larger force. It's also supposed to be a secret, and no one knew it was leaked. And they almost did defend it. They almost won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Did the KG's reaction or lack there of impact Ned's certainty of V being king? Probably not. Would it have made a difference. Probably not.

Is allowing enemies access to your unfiltered concerns a good strategy? definitely not.

The KG could do something to make V more safe: Killing Ned would have made V more safe.

I do not assume that the KG learned of V from Ned. I also do not assume they learned of V before Ned. I do not assume to know what vow the KG were explaining.

I am saying without prior knowledge or a duty to drop everything and retreat to be with the king. The KG fighting a Targaryen enemy, does not make them oathbreakers.

I am saying that without specification of the vow the KG explained does not have to refer to the vow to protect the king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's run with that idea for a minute, then. You argued previously in the thread that the KG were trying to passively let Jon die. What is at the Tower that Rhaegar values so much over his own child that he'd give the order, "Guys, if somebody attacks, save this thing, but don't worry about my kid."

The argument that the KG were passively trying to let Jon die...

If lyanna gqve birth 3 to 10 days before the showdown and was still in a bed of blood at the showdown. The KG failed to take steps to make sure Jon survived.

Now I do not hold that Lyanna gave birth 3 to 10 days before the showdown. I do not use an interrupted dream as the basis for establishing chronology. I also do not use the KG presence proving the birth of Jon and Jon`s birth establishing the KG's presence. (circular)

I the position that i stated was a logical extension of the circular, Jon means KG-KG means Jon circle.

I hold that Ned was present for the birth of Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in a mountain pass, much like the ones beyond the Wall of which it's said that a few men could hold them against a larger force. It's also supposed to be a secret, and no one knew it was leaked. And they almost did defend it. They almost won.

I agree the ToJ was a good place to keep something very important defended by only 3 men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the starting point for R+ L = J. I don't think you actually disagree with R+L = J, but you're arguing for what can only be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The KG were at the TOJ because they were guarding something that was important to Rhaegar.

That seems very basic and straightforward. Where the rest of us go, is into what that "thing" is. And for us, it's Jon and a married Lyanna.

you absolutely got the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Let me push you a long a bit . . .

Barristan says that the first duty of the Kingsguard is to protect the king. No suprise, but then he goes along and tells us that the king may set the disposition of the Kingsguard from sending them all away to keeping them all for himself. The key here, is that it is the king. We know that the Kingsguard are sworn to die in place of the king, if need be. Barristan even rescues Aerys from imprisonment in Duskendale, singlehandedly, against advice. Their vows are very important to them.

Ned reveres Arthur, Oswell, and Gerold; probably Barristan, Lewyn, and Jonothor; as well. He says that they were a shining example to the world, once. We know that they say that their reason (as explained by the White Bull) for fighting Ned and company is their vow. It cannot be any other vow than their Kingsguard vow, from our view of what Ned knows.

When was Jon born? Let's look at this critically. Lyanna died of a fever when Ned reached her at the tower, and childbed fever is the likeliest explanation. That places Jon’s birth between three and ten days before Ned arrives (sure there are cases that fall outside of the bell curve, but no need to stretch things further than GRRM stretches ‘em). Jon is born within a fortnight before or after the sack of King’s Landing, which is eight to nine months before Daenerys is born. Ned attends Robert’s coronation, because he argues over the treatment of Jaime as well as the children. But, even placing the coronation the same day as the sack (I don’t believe that Robert is going to be too far behind, or stand on ceremony when he arrives) Ned has a lot of distance to cover going straight to Storm’s End, and then straight to the tower of joy, to arrive not more than 24 (fortnight + ten days of fever) days after the sack. (GRRM may make it one day travel time, if he chooses. Then we could go Jon was born sack minus fortnight plus 3 days and have Ned arrive up to eleven days before the sack. The total window for Jon’s birth is 35 days, so where would you put Jon’s birth?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If lyanna gqve birth 3 to 10 days before the showdown and was still in a bed of blood at the showdown. The KG failed to take steps to make sure Jon survived.

We actually did this a few pages back--bleeding often continues for several days and in any case she likely had puerpural fever, which would cause further bleeding. The sheets don't have to be the same, unchanged sheets--she's just bleeding on each set of new ones. And they don't have modern medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 KG made it clear that they would not flee and they would not surrender. They also made it clear that they thought they were superb fighters.

They had no reason to tell Ned the truth. They also never stated what they were doing at all other than "we swore a vow"

Fighting the king's enemies is a part of defending him.

We can't tell anything from what dead men don't do. The next steps the KG had planned died with them. Any chance one hopes to have of finding out what those plans were died with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I believe that you are trying to misrepresent the vow with some kind of legalistic word play. The Kingsguard must make a decision about if it serves the king for him to engage the enemy or return forthwith. Is Ned a threat to Viserys? Nope. So, fighting Ned is dereliction of duty to Viserys, if Viserys is king; but it is not if Jon is king. I believe that you understand that, well enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*nods* I just got to the Maggy the Frog scene in AFFC in my reread, and was struck by how similar some of the language around it was. It says Cersei's having an old dream. Her narration explains that some things are different from the way they happened in reality, but that most of it really did happen, and I don't see nearly as much energy expended on claiming none of that dream was true. :)

Both Ned's ToJ dream and Cersei's Maggy the Frog dream also contain the phrase "in the dream, as they had been in life" (something really close to that, but it occurs practically verbatim in both instances.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...