Jump to content

R+L=J v. 88


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Do you figure that's show creep? I also think the "Jon Snow is a pretty boy" comments I've seen have more to do with Harington than the character. I don't remember really anybody thinking he's pretty in the books. (You could do the "Lyanna is pretty and Jon looks like Lyanna" thing, but for whatever reason that's just not how anybody reacts to him in the books. Ned either.)

Here is a link to one of the images in the graphic novels.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2bv21wc281rtar0bo1_500.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is the assumption I've always had problems with - the assumption that because there is some KG with the king, the ToJ 3 are free to do other things, like run relatively unimportant errands for the Crown Prince that are:

1) not covered under their vows to guard the king, obey the king OR keep his secrets (as guarding Lyanna would not be - at the time Rhaegar left, she was at best Rhaegar's second wife, and was carrying only a fourth in line for the throne fetus, even if it DID turn out to be both legitimate and male.) In comparison to their duties to the king, this WOULD be an unimportant errand.

2) An errand bound to keep the 3 ToJ KG both away from their King and out of communication with their King for weeks at a time - thus keeping 3/7 of the KG FROM actual vow-fulfilling duties - one of those 3 being the Commander...under the assumption that none of them will be needed by the king during that time in the middle of a civil war.

And I think that assumption is simply unjustified. The KG doesn't just guard the king; they lead his armies, they guard his relatives. Just because they left the King with four KG, they have no justification to think that this situation will remain static. Battles will be fought, relatives may need to go elsewhere for safety, and 4 with the King might not stay 4 with the king over many weeks.

To believe the MarriedR+L theory is certain requires believing that the KG is simultaneously obsessed with guarding the king when they think the king is Jon ("The only reason they could possibly be there guarding the tower is because Jon is the King and the Kingsguard guards the king!") and totally careless of guarding the king when they think the king is Aerys ("Yes, we three will just stay here guarding your fourth-in-line heir for weeks, out of touch with KL. It's not like the King is going to need 42% of his Kingsguard including the Commander during a civil war. What could go wrong?")

I don't think those two assumptions really go together.

To me, staying in a place where the King could not call them and where they could not hear if the King needed them for weeks at a time during a war is not adequate Kingsguarding. To say it is is like saying that a family who leaves the baby in the care of the eleven year old (who has thus far only babysat for an afternoon) while they go off on some out-of-state weeklong trip due to a lesser responsibility without leaving a phone number behind is doing an adequate job of child care.

So to me, the fact that they obeyed Rhaegar and stayed there MAY show that: 1) they feel that they MUST obey any order from the Royal family (like Rhaegar) as IF he were the king, regardless of whether such an order indirectly endangers the King, or 2) they have actually taken Rhaegar AS their king and are obeying HIS orders and not Aerys', or 3) they have agreed to fudge their vows and turn a blind eye to Rhaegar's stealthy removal of his father's KG so that he can dethrone his father without them having to openly violate their vows by taking Rhaegar's side against his father, or 4) still more exciting possibilities we may not have thought of yet.

Well...

"The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else.""

http://web.archive.org/web/20051103091500/nrctc.edu/fhq/vol1iss3/00103009.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on--you don't really believe they sent Jon to Starfall, do you? If they had taken Jon to Starfall, why would all 3 KG come back to ToJ to guard a dying Lyanna? Wouldn't at least one KG stay at Starfall with Jon? And if they stole Jon from Lyanna, they would not have told her of Jon's whereabouts, so Lyanna would not know where Jon had been taken. And if the KG had told Lyanna (i.e., he was not "stolen" from her but moved to safety), then why wouldn't they claim they were taking Ned's offer to go to Viserys, and go to Jon instead and get him from wherever Lyanna knew he was--that seems more logical that trying to keep Ned from talking to Lyanna and risk all their deaths. And if they thought there was a safer place for Jon than ToJ that they could have taken him to, then why not take Lyanna there earlier when she could travel to make Jon safe then (keeping the fetus safe seems equally important or at least almost as important). In my earlier post, I did not go into all these details, and I probably could come up with more if I thought about it a little harder, but come on and be real. I know you know this stuff better than that.

I never said the KG took Jon to Starfall, or that they stole him from Lyanna or anything like that.

Ran has stated that it is his belief that Jon was not at the tower during the fight, but in fact was at Starfall. That he had earlier been moved there due to Lyanna's illness, which the KG wouldn't have known wasn't communicable. Some people have argued in reply that they feel the lack of Jon's presence during the fight ruins the 'KG presence=Jon's legitimacy' argument. I don't agree.

For example, the best thing the KG have going for them concerning Jon's protection is that almost nobody knows that he even exists. Yet once Ned sees Lyanna in her bed of blood all of that will change. So, possibly, the KG determined that the best course of action would be to prevent that from happening.

But why wouldn't one of the KG have gone to Starfall with Jon? Perhaps they received word that Ned was on his way with six companions. They would have needed all three KG to have a realistic chance of defeating the seven Northerners, and could have planned to meet up with Jon after they had dealt with them.

Think about it, you're defending someone's life in your front yard. Is that person safer in your house, right behind you, or in the next town over at someone else's house? It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the idea.

But doesn't at least one KG have to be with the king at all times? Sure, more or less. But the first duty of the KG is to protect the king. And if the KG thought that sending the king somewhere they weren't gave them a better chance to protect him, what do you think they'd do?

Do I believe that's what happened? Probably not, but I do think it's definitely possible, yeah. It doesn't really change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is the assumption I've always had problems with - the assumption that because there is some KG with the king, the ToJ 3 are free to do other things, like run relatively unimportant errands for the Crown Prince that are:

1) not covered under their vows to guard the king, obey the king OR keep his secrets (as guarding Lyanna would not be - at the time Rhaegar left, she was at best Rhaegar's second wife, and was carrying only a fourth in line for the throne fetus, even if it DID turn out to be both legitimate and male.) In comparison to their duties to the king, this WOULD be an unimportant errand.

2) An errand bound to keep the 3 ToJ KG both away from their King and out of communication with their King for weeks at a time - thus keeping 3/7 of the KG FROM actual vow-fulfilling duties - one of those 3 being the Commander...under the assumption that none of them will be needed by the king during that time in the middle of a civil war.

And I think that assumption is simply unjustified. The KG doesn't just guard the king; they lead his armies, they guard his relatives. Just because they left the King with four KG, they have no justification to think that this situation will remain static. Battles will be fought, relatives may need to go elsewhere for safety, and 4 with the King might not stay 4 with the king over many weeks.

To believe the MarriedR+L theory is certain requires believing that the KG is simultaneously obsessed with guarding the king when they think the king is Jon ("The only reason they could possibly be there guarding the tower is because Jon is the King and the Kingsguard guards the king!") and totally careless of guarding the king when they think the king is Aerys ("Yes, we three will just stay here guarding your fourth-in-line heir for weeks, out of touch with KL. It's not like the King is going to need 42% of his Kingsguard including the Commander during a civil war. What could go wrong?")

I don't think those two assumptions really go together.

To me, staying in a place where the King could not call them and where they could not hear if the King needed them for weeks at a time during a war is not adequate Kingsguarding. To say it is is like saying that a family who leaves the baby in the care of the eleven year old (who has thus far only babysat for an afternoon) while they go off on some out-of-state weeklong trip due to a lesser responsibility without leaving a phone number behind is doing an adequate job of child care.

So to me, the fact that they obeyed Rhaegar and stayed there MAY show that: 1) they feel that they MUST obey any order from the Royal family (like Rhaegar) as IF he were the king, regardless of whether such an order indirectly endangers the King, or 2) they have actually taken Rhaegar AS their king and are obeying HIS orders and not Aerys', or 3) they have agreed to fudge their vows and turn a blind eye to Rhaegar's stealthy removal of his father's KG so that he can dethrone his father without them having to openly violate their vows by taking Rhaegar's side against his father, or 4) still more exciting possibilities we may not have thought of yet.

1) not covered under their vows to guard the king, obey the king OR keep his secrets (as guarding Lyanna would not be - at the time Rhaegar left, she was at best Rhaegar's second wife, and was carrying only a fourth in line for the throne fetus, even if it DID turn out to be both legitimate and male.) In comparison to their duties to the king, this WOULD be an unimportant errand.

2) An errand bound to keep the 3 ToJ KG both away from their King and out of communication with their King for weeks at a time - thus keeping 3/7 of the KG FROM actual vow-fulfilling duties - one of those 3 being the Commander...under the assumption that none of them will be needed by the king during that time in the middle of a civil war.

And I think that assumption is simply unjustified. The KG doesn't just guard the king; they lead his armies, they guard his relatives. Just because they left the King with four KG, they have no justification to think that this situation will remain static. Battles will be fought, relatives may need to go elsewhere for safety, and 4 with the King might not stay 4 with the king over many weeks.

You appear to be concerned with logical fallacy of Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

Without the assumption that R married L one cannot reach the conclusion.

To believe the MarriedR+L theory is certain requires believing that the KG is simultaneously obsessed with guarding the king when they think the king is Jon ("The only reason they could possibly be there guarding the tower is because Jon is the King and the Kingsguard guards the king!") and totally careless of guarding the king when they think the king is Aerys ("Yes, we three will just stay here guarding your fourth-in-line heir for weeks, out of touch with KL. It's not like the King is going to need 42% of his Kingsguard including the Commander during a civil war. What could go wrong?")

I don't think those two assumptions really go together.

You appear to be concerned with the logical fallacy known as: Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

(minor side note... to believe the KG at the ToJ prove R married L. rather than to believe R married L)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To believe the MarriedR+L theory is certain requires believing that the KG is simultaneously obsessed with guarding the king when they think the king is Jon ("The only reason they could possibly be there guarding the tower is because Jon is the King and the Kingsguard guards the king!") and totally careless of guarding the king when they think the king is Aerys ("Yes, we three will just stay here guarding your fourth-in-line heir for weeks, out of touch with KL. It's not like the King is going to need 42% of his Kingsguard including the Commander during a civil war. What could go wrong?")

I don't think those two assumptions really go together.

The reason that these two assumptions are not inconsistent is that circumstances changed. Initially, they were with Rhaegar--next in line. When Rhaegar goes to war, he orders them to stay, and they will obey that order because they have no reason not to obey it. Aerys is protected by Jaime, a KG. Aegon is similarly safe in the Red Keep. Rhaegar is with 3 other KG at the Trident. So staying at ToJ is perfectly understandable under those circumstances no matter whether Jon is a girl or boy or legitimate or bastard.

Later--once Aerys, Aegon and Rhaegar are dead--and Viserys has gone to Dragonstone--circumstances are different. If Viserys is now king--he is unguarded. They cannot leave the king unguarded. Sending at least one KG to Viserys at that point in time would have to supersede any orders from a dead crown prince. But they don't go to Viserys. Even when Ned virtually begs them to leave the ToJ and go to Dragonstone, they decline the offer and fight. The point is not that they are "obsessed with guarding the king" it is that they are "obsessed with keeping their vows" and keeping their vows means ensuring that the king has at least one KG guarding him at all times (not all 7 but at least 1). Before the death of Aerys, no problem to keep their vows because Jaime is with Aerys. But if Viserys has become king, they are no longer keeping their vows without at least one of the KG trying to get to him.

I know we have had this debate before, and I don't believe I will convince you. But you are simply incorrect from a logical consistency point of view when you say that the two statements cannot be resolved. You may not think this explanation is accurate. But if you are looking at it objectively, you simply cannot maintain that the two statements are inherently inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said the KG took Jon to Starfall, or that they stole him from Lyanna or anything like that.

Ran has stated that it is his belief that Jon was not at the tower during the fight, but in fact was at Starfall. That he had earlier been moved there due to Lyanna's illness, which the KG wouldn't have known wasn't communicable. Some people have argued in reply that they feel the lack of Jon's presence during the fight ruins the 'KG presence=Jon's legitimacy' argument. I don't agree.

For example, the best thing the KG have going for them concerning Jon's protection is that almost nobody knows that he even exists. Yet once Ned sees Lyanna in her bed of blood all of that will change. So, possibly, the KG determined that the best course of action would be to prevent that from happening.

But why wouldn't one of the KG have gone to Starfall with Jon? Perhaps they received word that Ned was on his way with six companions. They would have needed all three KG to have a realistic chance of defeating the seven Northerners, and could have planned to meet up with Jon after they had dealt with them.

Think about it, you're defending someone's life in your front yard. Is that person safer in your house, right behind you, or in the next town over at someone else's house? It's not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the idea.

But doesn't at least one KG have to be with the king at all times? Sure, more or less. But the first duty of the KG is to protect the king. And if the KG thought that sending the king somewhere they weren't gave them a better chance to protect him, what do you think they'd do?

Do I believe that's what happened? Probably not, but I do think it's definitely possible, yeah. It doesn't really change anything.

I tend towards Rans thinking as well, because keeping Jon in a place of illness seems very out of sync with medieval reactions to illness where the sick would often be left on their own, especially when there is a baby at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sickness argument makes sense. But, if I'm being honest, having Jon at Starfall during the ToJ seems wrong. Even if the KG knew Ned was coming, it's their duty for at least one of them to be with Jon. If the other two die in the crossfire, then so be it. But one KG needs to be with Jon. It kinda takes away from the fever dream scene of Whent on one knee followed by "our knees do not bend" and "we swore a vow."



I get the analogy J. Stargaryen made about protection but it somehow doesn't feel as epic (bad word, going with it anyway) for Ned and other to fight these men and then go into the tower and find Lyanna with a baby, it all dawning (heh) on him.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I believe that's what happened? Probably not, but I do think it's definitely possible, yeah. It doesn't really change anything.

Now I get it. I basically agree with you now that I understand what you really meant--although I think Jon being moved from ToJ is very unlikely just for literary reasons if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I get it. I basically agree with you now that I understand what you really meant--although I think Jon being moved from ToJ is very unlikely just for literary reasons if nothing else.

I also don't think he was removed elsewhere and I'm honestly not sure why Ran thinks that (I've actually read his rationale before and I confess that I still don't get it). In terms of literary heft, I think that Jon actually being at the Tower when Ned arrives -- that these three men died to protect a baby that was very much under their immediate physical protection -- is far more powerful of an image. But that's me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't think he was removed elsewhere and I'm honestly not sure why Ran thinks that (I've actually read his rationale before and I confess that I still don't get it). In terms of literary heft, I think that Jon actually being at the Tower when Ned arrives -- that these three men died to protect a baby that was very much under their immediate physical protection -- is far more powerful of an image. But that's me.

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. You said it well (as usual).

Link to comment
Share on other sites





To me, staying in a place where the King could not call them and where they could not hear if the King needed them for weeks at a time during a war is not adequate Kingsguarding. To say it is is like saying that a family who leaves the baby in the care of the eleven year old (who has thus far only babysat for an afternoon) while they go off on some out-of-state weeklong trip due to a lesser responsibility without leaving a phone number behind is doing an adequate job of child care.



So to me, the fact that they obeyed Rhaegar and stayed there MAY show that: 1) they feel that they MUST obey any order from the Royal family (like Rhaegar) as IF he were the king, regardless of whether such an order indirectly endangers the King, or 2) they have actually taken Rhaegar AS their king and are obeying HIS orders and not Aerys', or 3) they have agreed to fudge their vows and turn a blind eye to Rhaegar's stealthy removal of his father's KG so that he can dethrone his father without them having to openly violate their vows by taking Rhaegar's side against his father, or 4) still more exciting possibilities we may not have thought of yet.







That's is your interpretation. You have that right to believe that.



But the story goes, Ned after 14+ years, still hold those 3 KGs, especially Dayne, in high regards, a shining example to the world. Basically, no blame should be cast upon them; after all the excuses that he gave them to leave the tower, to go be with Viserys (who is the rightful heir, if Rhaegar and Lyanna had not married), they refuse to go.



Also, Aerys was the King then in their eyes, that he would yet still sit the throne if they were there and they wished Jaime damned to hell for his treachery. There was not one point of them going against Aerys in their tone when Ned brought up the subject. There was also no tone of considering Viserys as a king either when Ned brought it up, it was them considering Ser Willem good and true, but not of the Kingsguard. Now, after the fact (after Trident, after the sack of KL, after knowing Viserys is at Dragonstone), they still do not flee. In their eyes, at that very moment, they have a duty to do; the Lord Commander make sure Ned gets it clear, we swore a vow.



A vow to keep a dead prince's order to defend and keep his mistress and bastard boy safe? NO


A vow to keep a dead prince's order to defend and keep his wife and baby boy (heir to the throne) safe? YES



Arthur to Ned: And now it begins.


Ned to Arthur: No, now it ends.



Like Rhaegar before going to the Trident, full of confidence, Arthur was confident that the 3 KGs will survive and kill Ned and his men. It was in their nature to defend and stand their ground at the tower--if there was someone there worthy of their duty/vow--Jon, who was born of royalty and the person that the 3 KGs decided to stay for.



Now, I'm not sure about the other RLJ fans out there, but I'm of the opinion, that the 3KGs did not know if the baby was to be a male or female. So there was a point in time that's a little vague than we could admit. Therefore, a few things might be different...



The 3KG heard the news:


Rhaegar died


Aerys died


presumably hearing that Aegon died (when news of the Mountain killing him to show loyalty of Tywin to Robert, spread)


Lords & Knights still loyal to the crown, pledge fealty, bend the knee to Ned (Robert) at Storms End


Prince Viserys to Dragonstone (since from their conversation with Ned, they knew that already, acknowledging that Ser Willem is good and true, but not of the Kingsguard)



Assumptions:


1. Before (married) Lyanna gave birth:


- In my opinion, the behavior of the 3 seem to be of waiting, but waiting for what? they had to make sure the baby was not a male, thus a direct heir of to the throne second to Aegon--may still be living at this time inside the castle. Were they to leave the tower, they would still be breaking their vow-Lyanna was pregnant, thus Interregnum or a suspension of the line of succession is applied (even after the news of the sack of KL). Viserys is King, if baby female; the baby is King (heir to the throne), if baby is a male. If the baby was a female, then when Ned offers them to go to Dragonstone to go with Viserys, I'm sure they would, they have kept their vow to Rhaegar, keeping his order to safeguard the tower. It is none of their concern what Ned will do to his sister and the baby girl, certainly not a fight to the death. Their main concern is to reach Viserys, who was now their King and has the rights of their vows.



2. Before (unmarried) Lyanna gave birth:


- The 3 KG are in direct violation of their vow, they were still at the tower; Prince Rhaegar has died (his orders) do not trump their vow as Kingsguard to protect the next heir to the throne, they should have gone to Prince Viserys, the next living heir, he has rights to their Kingsguard vow.



3. After (married) Lyanna gave birth:


- The 3 KGs made a decision to stay at the tower and guard the baby, who they see is a male--vow to protect the heir apparent, the mother (as Queen regent) was too weak to move, soon she is displaying signs of fever.



4. After (unmarried) Lyanna gave birth:


- The 3 KG made a decision in direct violation of their vow; Lyanna and the baby being born male, do not have the rights of the Kingsguard's vow, rights of which only can be given by the King. They should have been long gone upon hearing of Rhaegar's death, at least have started their travel to Dragonstone.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reason the KG would fight Ned if Jon weren't at the tower, would be to keep him from talking to Lyanna and learning Jon's whereabouts and possibly even of his existence in the first place.

Also, I don't believe it contradicts the logic of the KG vow to protect the king, if Jon had been sent to Starfall ahead of the confrontation with Ned.

---

Has anybody here read today's Sean Bean interview at vulture.com? :)

- Link

---

Re: Second sons.

Second sons is definitely a theme in the series. There's also the sellsword company of the same name, that flies a banner with a broken sword. Reminiscent of Lightbringer, perhaps.

A reason the KG would fight Ned if Jon weren't at the tower, would be to keep him from talking to Lyanna and learning Jon's whereabouts and possibly even of his existence in the first place.

Also, I don't believe it contradicts the logic of the KG vow to protect the king, if Jon had been sent to Starfall ahead of the confrontation with Ned.

---

Has anybody here read today's Sean Bean interview at vulture.com? :)

- Link

---

Re: Second sons.

Second sons is definitely a theme in the series. There's also the sellsword company of the same name, that flies a banner with a broken sword. Reminiscent of Lightbringer, perhaps.

Broken sword and the second sons? Never even thought about their banner. Just looked and the top part of the sword is missing the point. Alia might now this. Alia, wasn't Edward the confessor the second son of Emma of Normandy by Athelred, and his sword was the broken sword called Mercy? The sword itself is used in coronations and is the sword used for knighting in Britain. He came to the throne 3rd of his mothers children as only one of them was legitimate. Edward was not actually legitimate but was of the royal line. Eventually after he passed two people were chosen for the Crown. Edgar of the Royal line and Harold Hastings not of the Royal line or not as much of it I should say. The people chose Harold because he was really powerful and they felt the need to be protected rather than to respect the royal line.

Edward was said to be a saint, and eventually was the patron saint of England, until he was replaced by George. But the most interesting part of it is he is regarded by many as the last Anglo Saxon king and the last of the house of Wessex. The Normans invaded I think about a year after his death and Harold got dead.

I think that's mostly right, but not 100%.

As for the theory of Jon at Starfall, yeah I think that theory has merit as well and honestly think both work. A middle ground idea I had was that upon the approach of unknown riders the KG sent someone and Jon off to Starfall and held a delaying action. Not really knowing the intentions of the riders. If the rider could sneak off and the KG could distract them they may never know Jon was there.

But really in the end it's not going to change much, blood is blood and your parents are your parents. Either way the KG is enough to imply a certain level of importance. Though the stuff Martin says about heroes all in white and how doesn't like them worries me a bit. Can he just not tarnish Arthur, can I have one honest to god Knight who is a pillar, Selmy is close but he bent to Robert. I get it he regrets it and was all busted up at the time, but come on give me Arthur. Just a throw back to my childhood, I can only take so much of the crazy. He says wise things, he wields a cool magic sword, he has an awesome nickname, comes from a magic sounding castle. Starfall, isn't that nice? And Dawn what a great name for a sword, good be a girls name could be the sunrise, could be both. Everyone loved him except the crazy guy who tried to murder a little girl.

Arthur' legacy is pretty much fucked isn't it? The hammer of the author is coming for him. Probably get some flash back from Bran where Arthur is talking about all the children he has killed and eaten. Now we know what happened to Jon's twin, he was brunch for Arthur and the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is the assumption I've always had problems with - the assumption that because there is some KG with the king, the ToJ 3 are free to do other things, like run relatively unimportant errands for the Crown Prince that are:

1) not covered under their vows to guard the king, obey the king OR keep his secrets (as guarding Lyanna would not be - at the time Rhaegar left, she was at best Rhaegar's second wife, and was carrying only a fourth in line for the throne fetus, even if it DID turn out to be both legitimate and male.) In comparison to their duties to the king, this WOULD be an unimportant errand.

2) An errand bound to keep the 3 ToJ KG both away from their King and out of communication with their King for weeks at a time - thus keeping 3/7 of the KG FROM actual vow-fulfilling duties - one of those 3 being the Commander...under the assumption that none of them will be needed by the king during that time in the middle of a civil war.

And I think that assumption is simply unjustified. The KG doesn't just guard the king; they lead his armies, they guard his relatives. Just because they left the King with four KG, they have no justification to think that this situation will remain static. Battles will be fought, relatives may need to go elsewhere for safety, and 4 with the King might not stay 4 with the king over many weeks.

To believe the MarriedR+L theory is certain requires believing that the KG is simultaneously obsessed with guarding the king when they think the king is Jon ("The only reason they could possibly be there guarding the tower is because Jon is the King and the Kingsguard guards the king!") and totally careless of guarding the king when they think the king is Aerys ("Yes, we three will just stay here guarding your fourth-in-line heir for weeks, out of touch with KL. It's not like the King is going to need 42% of his Kingsguard including the Commander during a civil war. What could go wrong?")

I don't think those two assumptions really go together.

The strength of the theory isn't that the circumstances prior to the Trident and the Sack necessarily justified the presence of 3 of 7 KG at the ToJ. It's that the circumstances after the Trident and the Sack make very little sense and are extremely hard to justify if Viserys is king.

I don't think it's unfair to question the wisdom or the intentions of the KG behavior prior to their knowledge that House Targaryen is in ruins. It is pretty hard to question their intentions (maybe not wisdom) once the dynasty stands on the precipice of extinction, given their protestations of KG loyalty prior to the fight with Ned's party.

Again, I think you do a decent job of questioning the necessity of devotion to prime duty under normal, or even slightly tenuous circumstances, I just don't think you can then apply those same alternatives to the extraordinary circumstances they were facing.

I wouldn't say that you are guilty of this in particular, but a lot of fresher faces to the married R+L theory seem to think that the KG can afford to be casual about the continuation of the Targaryen dynasty and therefore overestimate how much priority that they (the KG) A. can place on something other than guarding the heir (again, in these particularly bleak circumstances) and B. might place on something else while so proudly trumpeting their KG status.

What could be more important than securing the heir in a time of great peril? The alternatives suggested are often: KG can, at times, be asked to guard royal mistresses and bastards (in simpler times, they might do any number of things).

How assured would they have to be that the king is secure to justify not flying to his side? Being in complete isolation at the ToJ and only hearing via messenger that the king is "safe" at Dragonstone, immediately after a successful rebellion, falls very short of the kind of assurance logic dictates would be required. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the only assurance good enough would be to know that the king was with a brother in white, and this much is alluded to in the portion of the conversation about Willem Darry.

Again, the strength of the theory is not on how these principles apply when there are 7 living KG spread out among 3 different locations, but how they apply when there are 3 living (loyal to the Targaryens) KG in only one location (a point that often gets missed on the follow up to such a post as this).

Edit: I've also seen it suggested that in the Defiance of Duskendale, the KG did not immediately fly to Aerys's side as an example of why they need not necessarily have flown to Viserys. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that we have enough information to say that this is truly an analog. Duskendale was a hostage situation and Aerys's life was threatened if anyone moved to attack. All of the KG suddenly moving to just outside the walls of the city is not suggestive of the fact that Duskendale's threat was being taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had the fight gone the other way, does anyone think Dayne would have raised Jon?

I think it would have been a Jasper Tudor/Henry VII situation (which is sort of like how Jon Connington and Aegon are set up, only it's a hybrid of Warbeck and Henry, and the Henry bit fits in the Blackfyres = Beauforts mold). Dayne takes him abroad, starts a court in exile around him and eventually makes an attempt to retake the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would have been a Jasper Tudor/Henry VII situation (which is sort of like how Jon Connington and Aegon are set up, only it's a hybrid of Warbeck and Henry, and the Henry bit fits in the Blackfyres = Beauforts mold). Dayne takes him abroad, starts a court in exile around him and eventually makes an attempt to retake the throne.

Yes I agree. The plan JonCon/Illyrio/Varys have is a smart one even if fraudulent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would have been a Jasper Tudor/Henry VII situation (which is sort of like how Jon Connington and Aegon are set up, only it's a hybrid of Warbeck and Henry, and the Henry bit fits in the Blackfyres = Beauforts mold). Dayne takes him abroad, starts a court in exile around him and eventually makes an attempt to retake the throne.

Yep, that is what I was thinking as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that these two assumptions are not inconsistent is that circumstances changed. Initially, they were with Rhaegar--next in line. When Rhaegar goes to war, he orders them to stay, and they will obey that order because they have no reason not to obey it. Aerys is protected by Jaime, a KG. Aegon is similarly safe in the Red Keep. Rhaegar is with 3 other KG at the Trident. So staying at ToJ is perfectly understandable under those circumstances no matter whether Jon is a girl or boy or legitimate or bastard.

Later--once Aerys, Aegon and Rhaegar are dead--and Viserys has gone to Dragonstone--circumstances are different. If Viserys is now king--he is unguarded. They cannot leave the king unguarded. Sending at least one KG to Viserys at that point in time would have to supersede any orders from a dead crown prince. But they don't go to Viserys. Even when Ned virtually begs them to leave the ToJ and go to Dragonstone, they decline the offer and fight. The point is not that they are "obsessed with guarding the king" it is that they are "obsessed with keeping their vows" and keeping their vows means ensuring that the king has at least one KG guarding him at all times (not all 7 but at least 1). Before the death of Aerys, no problem to keep their vows because Jaime is with Aerys. But if Viserys has become king, they are no longer keeping their vows without at least one of the KG trying to get to him.

I know we have had this debate before, and I don't believe I will convince you. But you are simply incorrect from a logical consistency point of view when you say that the two statements cannot be resolved. You may not think this explanation is accurate. But if you are looking at it objectively, you simply cannot maintain that the two statements are inherently inconsistent.

The reason that these two assumptions are not inconsistent is that circumstances changed. Initially, they were with Rhaegar--next in line. When Rhaegar goes to war, he orders them to stay, and they will obey that order because they have no reason not to obey it. Aerys is protected by Jaime, a KG. Aegon is similarly safe in the Red Keep. Rhaegar is with 3 other KG at the Trident. So staying at ToJ is perfectly understandable under those circumstances no matter whether Jon is a girl or boy or legitimate or bastard.

Are we assuming perfect knowledge of the KG?

If they know the location and distribution of the other KG after Rhaegar leaves it appears we are.

If we continue to assume perfect knowledge,

A redistrubution of KG after the Trident is inn order the King went from having 1/7th of the KG to having 1/4 of the KG with an army approaching the city.

Later--once Aerys, Aegon and Rhaegar are dead--and Viserys has gone to Dragonstone--circumstances are different. If Viserys is now king--he is unguarded.

Assuming perfect knowledge, the KG should have already redistributed to KL following the Trident.

Information about the Trident could not have reached the ToJ before the sack of KL. (Limited knowledge is fine)

The information about the sack and the Trident reached the ToJ at the same time. (again limited knowledge is fine)

Jon must have been born before the information about the sack and the Trident reached the ToJ

(that may create logical problems)---more later

After the sack, the Tyrells were still loyal to the Targs and laying seige to SE. If protecting the king was their primary concern, the assistance of the Tyrells required. If secrecy was the primary concern, the KG were guarding a king in exile.--This would make their later claims of not fleeing false,

Information of the Trident, the sack, and the lifting of the seige of SE arriving at the same time eliminates this dilemma, (again limited information is fine)

It does create a problem. The Tyrell surrender placed 2 armies between the 3 KG and Viserys.

--This is a tough one to wiggle out of. You cannot provide both information and opportunity to go to Viserys before Ned arrives,

(Jon must have been born before the news of the sack reached the ToJ and after the news of the Tyrell surrender in order to explain the KG's remaining in place--This limited information is a problem.. you have to have reports coming in to the ToJ in reverse order of their happening--In doing so you can't give the KG the information and the ability to go to Viserys)

They cannot leave the king unguarded. Sending at least one KG to Viserys at that point in time would have to supersede any orders from a dead crown prince. But they don't go to Viserys

--The defiance at Duskendale saw Aerys captive without KG for several months before Aerys was rescued. The 3 KG had Ned's army and the Tyrells between them and Dragonstone-- In any scenario that would give them the information to make the choice between Jon and Viserys,

.

Even when Ned virtually begs them to leave the ToJ and go to Dragonstone, they decline the offer and fight. The point is not that they are "obsessed with guarding the king" it is that they are "obsessed with keeping their vows

Having Ned provide all the information solves the earlier problems.

It does pose the problem of 3 KG facing an enemy of whichever Targ was king. Not accepting the enemy's offer of safe passage.. probably sould not be made to be a deriliction of duty.

--3 KG fell on the trident defending Aerys while Aerys was in King's landing there is no reason 3 KG at the ToJ could not have fallen protecting Viserys in Dragonstone.

"

and keeping their vows means ensuring that the king has at least one KG guarding him at all times (not all 7 but at least 1). Before the death of Aerys, no problem to keep their vows because Jaime is with Aerys. But if Viserys has become king, they are no longer keeping their vows without at least one of the KG trying to get to him.

This is to call Darry, Selmy, Hightower, Dayne, Whent, oathbreakers for Duskendale

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...