R+L = J v 86

[MtnLion]

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.

No, you are trying to twist things. Ned is not trying to impede the Kingsguard getting to Dragonstone, he is offering to help them get to Dragonstone. That is why he offers that bit after he has offered to accept their surrender.

[MtnLion]

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.

But, we know that Lyanna died of of a fever after the showdown, and that would take at least three days after Jon's birth. I know, GRRM never says exactly that. No one ever says exactly what you perveive, though. ;)

[UnViserion]

Shame on you all for not reporting this thread as being longer than 20 pages. Shame on you(s).

[J. Stargaryen]

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.)

I did an analysis of those dreams here.

It was later pointed out that some of these same phrases appear in the Dance prologue, but I think that only strengthens the case I made, since I think Varamyr's story is meant to foreshadow Jon's in certain ways; second life fit for a king, etc.

[Ygritte]

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.)

Just ran across another "old dream" that I think is a memory of real events: the one Varamyr has in his prologue. I think there are enough examples to make it clear that these dreams are a device GRRM likes to use for memories that the person doesn't like to think about in waking life.

ETA: Jinx, J. Stargaryen--I didn't see you had posted about the Varamyr dream! :D

[stateofdissipation]

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?)

Selmy went to rescue Aerys after several months. He formulated a plan and executed the plan. He did not charge the gates of duskendale immediately without regard to the situation. The best plan he came up with was at great personal risk but he executed it. The KG vow is very important to them.

It was doubtlessly the KG vow. However, that does not make Jon born or Jon a king. The KG died fighting Targaryen enemies, they kept their vow. They kept their vow even if the nearest Targaryen was at dragonstone.

The assertion that Lyanna died when Ned reached the tower comes from Ned Chapter 39. It is an interrupted dream sequence and is the only time Lyanna calls "Ned" by the name "Lord Eddard," The dream ends when Ned is roused by a somebody calliing Lord Eddard. If we can reasonably use this as an accurate chronology of events, then Lyanna died soon after Ned arrived at the ToJ.

Lyanna's death scene comes from Ned's memory before the ToJ dream. It is reliable and recounts a fever and bed of blood. Notably absent is any marker of the events timing in relation to the showdown at the ToJ.

If we have taken the dream sequence to absolutely establish Lyanna's death and we expand the bed of blood=childbirth into bed of blood=childbirth plus six weeks. We have no need to further include the probable cause of the fever. We have already opened the window wide enough to have Jon born before Ned arrived. Medical terminology seems out of place next to interrupted dreams and creative interpretation of euphemisms. ---if there was no need to stretch things further than GRRM does, take his advice and don't try to interpret Ned's dream as completely accurate-- If we did that we could also leave bed of blood as simply meaning childbirth.

I would put Jon's birth at the arrival of Ned. "bed of blood" meaning childbirth puts Ned present for Jon's birth. Lyanna died of a fever following birth. Lyanna likely died 3 to 10 days after giving birth.

One could push that time back by much more than a fortnight using interrupted dreams and expanding childbirth for 2 to 6 weeks.

[Emerentiana_Zamora]

Shame on you all for not reporting this thread as being longer than 20 pages. Shame on you(s).

I don't know how to. But I was wondering about that.

[J. Stargaryen]

Shame on you all for not reporting this thread as being longer than 20 pages. Shame on you(s).

I don't know how to. But I was wondering about that.

I already did.

[UnViserion]

I already did.

The realm thanks you.

[stateofdissipation]

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.

I am not the one claiming in a legalistic way that the "KG duty to be with the king requires them to immediately drop whatever they are doing and rush to his side"

I am also not the one that claims the Lord of the north that rebelled and headed an army that saw the deaths of the king, his first born son, and his son's first born son is not a threat to the king's second born son.

Calling fighting the kings enemies that have killed the king's father, brother, and nephew "a deriliction of duty" to the king is a pretty big misrepresentation.

turning around to immediately use that misrepresentation to attempt to prove anything... only proves you really have something to prove.

[Aeron_Damphair]

stateofdissipation: I'm going to try to be respectful, but it is exhausting to argue with you because it always follows the same pattern.

1. Other poster makes a sensible argument in support of R+L=legit J, perhaps including some slightly ambiguous wording.

2. State attempts to pick apart meticulously any semantic problem "prince" vs "heir," "prime" vs "first" etc.

3. Other poster digs in and tries to make themselves more clear.

4. State finds another semantic problem with their argument.

5. Other poster tries one last time, carefully crafting their argument so as it can't be misunderstood.

6. State demonstrates finally that he actually agrees with the entire meat of the other poster's argument.

7. Other poster addresses the subtle differences that aren't very meaningful, but because they've already invested so much time and energy, might as well be thorough.

8. State talks about how any piece of logical deduction or extrapolation from the text that isn't explicitly spelled out is just speculation and can't be inferred without absolute knowledge.

(All of the above happens in an aggressively legalistic manner that makes posting a chore, and usually with variable sized font and bolding that makes it mostly unreadable)

There are probably actually more like 24 or 25 steps, but I've condensed for readability.

[UnViserion]

snip

:bowdown: :cheers:

[IceFire125]

Hmm, I'm seeing a pattern..

State, are you Fred in a different name? because I've given up arguing him, but at least you admit R+L=J, except the legitimate Jon part. But I guess there's no more to discuss if you still believe that Jon was not the primary reason the Kingsguard stayed at the TOJ.

For a person like State, I guess there's no need to further discussions until more text relate to Jon hinting being King is more apparent, because the hints and clues from the 5 books thus far was not enough.