R+L=J v.89

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Apparently we lost the last 12 hours worth of posts.

It's not just the forum, also the wiki. As someone who had spend an hour struggling to add text on the wiki using a phone, I'm not that happy with the fact that it is now erased... :(

[JonSnow4President]

It's not just the forum, also the wiki. As someone who had spend an hour struggling to add text on the wiki using a phone, I'm not that happy with the fact that it is now erased... :(

Did they have to do a big rollback or something?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

It's just a jump to the left:

@Aeron_Damphair wrote (ex-#221):

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:05 PM, said:

Ugh, Seriously? It can never be disobeying an order to protect a king (or do I need to cite that now?).

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:05 PM, said:

In Duskendale Aerys was being held under threat of death if anyone attempted to stage a rescue.

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:05 PM, said:

Nonsense. If anyone is interpolating the evidence around their theory it is you.

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:05 PM, said:

But any parley involves letting the cat out of the bag. The secret is blown with a parley. No way to ensure it doesn't spread. Again, who is to stop one man from riding away and giving Robert this sensitive info? If it's a fight, nothing is more important to any of the 7 than the fight. If there's a secret of this magnitude, it would be justified for at least one of the seven to ride away and blow Jon's cover.

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:05 PM, said:

Barristan could not help the Targaryen dynasty. He was captured. As has been said many times throughout the series, there are honorable men on both sides of every war. Barristan could die, or he could serve another honorable man. Even Barristan later regrets this. These 3 KG can help the Targaryen dynasty. That is an enormous difference. The rest of it is just you being hung up on the fact that an order could take precedence over a dynasty. I can't give you specific textual support for that being absurd. Sorry. I am surprised it would ever need to be explained, but the overall impression I get from the text is that it is absurd to suggest that an outdated order can take precedence over securing the 283 year Targ dynasty, much less dying in battle at that dynasty's expense.

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:05 PM, said:

Read what I wrote again. I certainly didn't say anything about them meaning to spare Ned. I literally have no idea where you got that from. I only meant that ironically, in killing 5 of Ned's 7, few enough men remained that Jon's secret was able to be kept. If 7 had lived, it's hard to believe all would have been complicit in the high treason that not telling Robert the baby's true identity would have represented.

In summary, some things can be demonstrated by merely cutting and pasting a passage from the text. Some things cannot. Some things have to be inferred using logic from the overarching story.

The suggestion that an outdated order can take precedence over protecting the rightful king, or that the KG could play fast and loose with the Targaryen dynasty by leaving the rightful king unprotected, is an absurd suggestion. I can't take it seriously. You think it's a bridge too far for me to make such a statement. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

@mambru wrote (ex-#222)

BearQueen87, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:10 PM, said:

This is exactly what I mean by assuming the existence of rules that the evidence of the books actually contradicts. The books say the vows include Obey as well as Protect. The incident of Barristan, Bob and the Boar shows that the KG must Obey even over Protecting the King. Yet you assume there's a duty to disobey orders to protect the king even though there's no evidence of such a priority existing and some evidence against it.

Quote

The KG knew for six months that those were the terms. It took them six months to attempt a sneaky rescue? And in ADWD it's clear that Barristan had to ask permission from Tywin to make his attempt. IMO, that shows that the KG does not consider itself able to independently go rogue from their duty to obey the hierarchy even to protect the King himself

[Ygrain]

Did they have to do a big rollback or something?

Yep :-(

[Consigliere]

Did they have to do a big rollback or something?

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/114368-deleted-posts/?p=6043758

[Jon Weirgaryen]

then just a step to the right...

@Apple Martini wrote (ex-#223)

This is important to remember. The stuff compiled in these threads is the result of the input of dozens, maybe even hundreds, of different people, over years of time.

No one single person sat down after a first reading of the books and hammered out all of this, even if they did figure out the basic premise on their own.

@Bog Devil of Greywater wrote (ex-#224)

Miklanios Smith, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:25 PM, said:

I first read GoT in 1996. I missed it on my first read, but picked it up on the second read a couple months later.

On the second read, what actually pointed me to it was tuning into Ned's constant internal monologue of guilt and regret and trying to figure out what exactly he was so miserable about.

It was obviously tied to his sister, so I paid very close attention to the Lyanna scenes and dialogue, and it all fell into place from there.

@Aeron_Damphair wrote (ex-#225)

Miklanios Smith, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:25 PM, said:

I wish I could say I picked it up on my own, but I didn't. I agree, it isn't obvious in the least.

I started reading the books after something like 7 episodes of the HBO show though, so I, admittedly, was speeding through the earlier stuff that, in my mind, I already knew. A friend of mine introduced me to R+L=J and I had to go through my own period of skepticism and sussing out every alternative possibility before I ultimately bent the knee, but at this point I consider it canon.

@Baer_Queen87 wrote (ex-#226)

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:29 PM, said:

The first duty is to protect the king. If there is an order that contradicts that, then screw the order: you protect the king.

Apple Martini, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:30 PM, said:

It took my maybe 3 re-reads of aGoT for something to go CLICK. My first clue was when my brain suddenly went, "wait...why doesn't Ned hate Rhaegar..."

@Bog Devil of Greywater wrote (ex-#227)

Apple Martini, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:30 PM, said:

Yes. Great point by both of you. I've known about the theory forever, and I'd found quite a lot of things on my own, but even recently one of J.Stargaryen's posts showed me a few things I'd missed completely, even after reading many threads about it over the years.

@Aeron_Damphair wrote (ex-#228)

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:29 PM, said:

Strictly speaking, protect the king is the first duty, and it comes before obey the king chronologically.

As for Barristan, Bob, and the Boar, that was a grown king telling Barristan to stand down (what? 50 feet away?) during a hunt, not a child king left half a kingdom away immediately after a successful rebellion. The two situations are not that similar IMO.

Duskendale had to be resolved in as sensitive a manner as possible. Perhaps stationing 7 KG immediately outside the city walls would have been too aggressive a posture, and gotten Aerys killed. We don't know exactly what happened, but again, a situation not that similar.

@Bog Devil of Greywater wrote (ex-#229)

Aeron_Damphair, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:37 PM, said:

Not just that, but Robert's prowess as a hunter was well known and unquestioned. Barristan had likely seen Robert drunk and able to take a charging boar without much effort previously. Even the one that gored him didn't get away. He was strong enough to drive it's dagger through it's eye and kill it too. He'd have no real reason to have expected he needed to ignore Robert here.

@mambru wrote (ex-#230)

Apple Martini, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:14 PM, said:

No, what we have in Robert's will is a live King's mother superceding a dead King's wishes while a KG stands passively. Cersei tears up Robert's will naming Ned Regent. Barristan, after one token protest, obediently shushes when she silences him and stands there refusing to take any action as she essentially names herself Regent and tells Ned to run away home. His silence and inaction gives consent to her usurpation. Afterwards, when Ned called for the Lannisters' arrest - Superknight Barristan is immediately and ignominiously disarmed by Ned's pedestrian guards. He was caught unprepared for battle with his pants down because he'd passively abdicated taking any role once Cersei made her power play. He chose the live King's mother (royal family) over the unrelated though legitimate Regent.

To me that means the KG should have considered Lyanna as a person they owed obedience to - IF they thought she was the mother of their king. The fact that they tried to kill her brother under her window - which she would NOT have wanted them to do - shows they don't think they owe obedience to her. Which makes it more likely they think she's the mother of a bastard, not a king, IMO.

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

The last time I saw this thread, it was nearly 11 and half pages long. We lost a lot of theory posting to R+L=J.

Rhaegar probably did put Elia aside for Lyanna.

I wonder Robert realizes that he was related to the Targaryens.

[Consigliere]

I wonder Robert realizes that he was related to the Targaryens.

I'm sure Robert knew his grandma was Targaryen. That and Rhaegar used to call him cousin.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Let's do the time warp again!

@Aeron_Damphair wrote (ex-#231)

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:44 PM, said:

You really think the most important piece of evidence re: Jon's legitimacy is that the KG tried to kill Lyanna's brother? (a piece of evidence so easily mitigated by the fact that this brother is one of the heads of the rebellion that just murdered most of the royal family)

There are a dozen things from this scene pointing to Jon's legitimacy, but an easily reconcilable apparent affront to the queen trumps all that? I completely disagree.

@honeyed_chicken wrote (ex-#232)

Bog Devil of Greywater, on 20 Jul 2014 - 6:40 PM, said:

I've been quoting left and right.

The problem is in the way the story is constructed. The best evidence a believer in this theory (and I still count myself as one - but with reservations) is the fever dream Ned had after his leg shattered.

Most of the other participants have died. Robert gave us nothing except that he thinks Rhaegar raped Lyanna (and Ned didn't argue. In fact, Bran later states that as a fact and Maester Luwin does not correct him)*.

The problem for those who want to believe is that the evidence is circumstantial and incomplete.

*I have a massive spread sheet I've been working on that goes chapter by chapter through the book (far from complete at this point). It has columns for any mention of Jon's parentage and any mention of Lyanna, as well as a col. for the Daynes. There just isn't much there.

Given how little we know I'm going to hold onto my 5% uncertainty.

@mambru wrote (ex-#233)

Aeron_Damphair, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:37 PM, said:

Bob was dead drunk and a boar is a damn dangerous animal. There's plenty of examples in both mythology (Adonis) and actual history (Philip IV) of even cold sober, experienced hunters getting killed by boars. But when dead-drunk Bob ordered Barristan to stand back, Barristan chose to Obey over Protect - and no one, not even Honorable Ned thought he was breaking his vows by doing so. So the principle seems to be established - Obey over Protect.

BearQueen87, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:33 PM, said:

Not according to Barristan and Ned (see above).

Admittedly, my evidence is indirect - no one in the books says outright that Obeying comes before Protecting. So all I'm asking is that you provide some indirect evidence to counter what I've presented. Show me ONE incident where a KG disobeyed their orders in order to protect the king and was condoned for it. I've cudgeled my brains and I can't remember one...though I can remember other incidents where the KG obeyed orders that indirectly endangered the king (like Jaime obeying Cersei's orders to leave KL, leaving a guy like Kettleblack in charge of the KG AND of protecting Tommen).

[BearQueen87]

Well apparently Jon Weirgaryen has a bunch of our stuff!

The last time I saw this thread, it was nearly 11 and half pages long. We lost a lot of theory posting to R+L=J.

Rhaegar probably did put Elia aside for Lyanna.

I wonder Robert realizes that he was related to the Targaryens.

I don't know about "putting aside" because there tends to be a negative connotation there. Rhaegar probably would never have visited her bed again, true, but Elia would also die in childbirth if she got pregnant. Rhaegar was fond of Elia and they did have 2 children together. One of my big questions is how much did Elia know?

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

I'm sure Robert knew his grandma was Targaryen. That and Rhaegar used to call him cousin.

Nothing like a family dysfunction.

We know he (Robert) slept around before he got "sort of engaged" to Lyanna. (Mya, Edric, Gendry and other bastards out there have Robert's blood in them.) He slept around when he was married to Cersei. Of course, Cersei was having a incest relationship with Jaime.

I don't know about "putting aside" because there tends to be a negative connotation there. Rhaegar probably would never have visited her bed again, true, but Elia would also die in childbirth if she got pregnant. Rhaegar was fond of Elia and they did have 2 children together. One of my big questions is how much did Elia know?

I do not know how much she knew about it. It died along with her at Dragonstone.

[BearQueen87]

Admittedly, my evidence is indirect - no one in the books says outright that Obeying comes before Protecting. So all I'm asking is that you provide some indirect evidence to counter what I've presented. Show me ONE incident where a KG disobeyed their orders in order to protect the king and was condoned for it. I've cudgeled my brains and I can't remember one...though I can remember other incidents where the KG obeyed orders that indirectly endangered the king (like Jaime obeying Cersei's orders to leave KL, leaving a guy like Kettleblack in charge of the KG AND of protecting Tommen)

What about Jamie killing Aerys? Are you not counting Jamie actually killing his king and the fact that he's called Kingslayer since? His duty was to stay in KL in the Red Keep and protect Aerys. It's his first duty as KG. Now what he did was a good thing since Aerys wanted everyone to burn, but he's treated as someone who has honor for shit...and most importantly treated as someone who has honor for shit according to Ned Stark, who hold Arthur Dayne up as the best KG knight, someone who helped abduct his sister for the Prince.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Let's do the time warp agaiaiaiaiain!

@JonSnow4President wrote (ex-#234):

honeyed chicken, on 20 Jul 2014 - 8:05 PM, said:

So Ned would correct Robert, even though he's specifically hiding the heir from EVERYBODY? Sure.Luwin also wouldn't know for the same reason.

@Aeron_Damphair wrote (ex-#235):

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 8:07 PM, said:

Let's even grant this: just for the sake of argument.

Here you have Bob ordering Barristan not to protect him. (I don't know how you hunt boar with a spear without putting yourself in some danger. Maybe they should just have forbade Bob from hunting altogether, but I digress.

In the other situation, you certainly didn't have Viserys ordering H, D, and W to stay away.

Beyond that, it is unlikely that the hunting party knew the extent of Bob's drunkenness. He was drinking planted strongwine, presumably much more potent than what anyone (Bob included) expected he was drinking.

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 8:07 PM, said:

Forgive me, but I don't believe you have succeeded in establishing this.

@Aeron_Damphair wrote (ex-#236):

mambru, on 20 Jul 2014 - 8:07 PM, said:

And again, you have something of a false premise here. It isn't "protecting the king" or "obeying the king." It's "protecting the king" or "obeying the dead crown prince."

One contains "king" and the other doesn't. What is the name these fellows have again?

@Ygrain wrote (ex-#237):

honeyed chicken, on 20 Jul 2014 - 8:05 PM, said:

He dreamt an old dream

In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life

He did not think it omened well that he should dream that dream again after so many years

In other words: he has had the dream before, many times, in years. He directly confirms parts of the dream as faithfully reflecting reality, and after he wakes up, he elaborates on the details of the event:

It would have to be his grandfather, for Jory’s father was buried far to the south. Martyn Cassel had perished with the rest. Ned had pulled the tower down afterward, and used its bloody stones to build eight cairns upon the ridge. It was said that Rhaegar had named that place the tower of joy, but for Ned it was a bitter memory. They had been seven against three, yet only two had lived to ride away; Eddard Stark himself and the little crannogman, Howland Reed.

Ser Boros Blount guarded the far end of the bridge, white steel armor ghostly in the moonlight. Within, Ned passed two other knights of the Kingsguard; Ser Preston Greenfield stood at the bottom of the steps, and Ser Barristan Selmy waited at the door of the king’s bedchamber. Three men in white cloaks, he thought, remembering, and a strange chill went through him.

@honeyed chicken wrote (ex-#239):

Bog Devil of Greywater, on 20 Jul 2014 - 7:31 PM, said:

This part makes a lot of sense.

Ned's obsession clearly is important - the "promise me Ned" part, but it also raises a question. Why does the thought of Jon never occur to Ned along with the "promise me" part?

If his promise was to raise Jon and shield him from Robert*, I have two answers for that question and dislike them both.

- the first is that GRRM is a dishonest writer. He picks and chooses what he reports from Ned's head to not give away the surprise. That's like describing Sandor Clegane without mentioning the scar on the side of his face until the climatic scene. I think that a writer has a responsibility to report accurately what's going on whether it's a thought or a face. If it turns out he's been leaving little bits all these years, I'm going to burn the books and walk away in disgust.

- the second is that Ned didn't think of Jon because Jon and Lyanna having nothing to do with one another.

*if Jon truly is Rhaegar's I personally would not trust Robert near Jon, such was Robert's hatred of Rhaegar.

@honeyed chicken wrote (ex-#240):

JonSnow4President, on 20 Jul 2014 - 8:14 PM, said:

I was quoting that as one of the things we do have - that Rhaegar could have been the father.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Nothing like a family dysfunction.

We know he (Robert) slept around before he got "sort of engaged" to Lyanna. (Mya, Edric, Gendry and other bastards out there have Robert's blood in them.) He slept around when he was married to Cersei. Of course, Cersei was having a incest relationship with Jaime.

Just to point out, of the three you mention, Mya was conceived and born before Robert got engaged to Lyanna. The others were conceived and born after her death, though they were conceived and born during his engagement/marriage to Cersei

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I do not know how much she knew about it. It died along with her at Dragonstone.

Elia died at KL ;) Rhaella died at Dragonstone.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Let's do the time warp again! (sorry, this is -so far- the last one my browser allowed me to retrieve.)

@stateofdissipation wrote (ex-#238):

Aeron_Damphair, on 20 Jul 2014 - 6:07 PM, said:

Of course Ned didn't attack them unawares. Ned would never do this because he's chivalrous to a fault. I know that's not your point though, but just wanted to point out that this is totally unremarkable. I've said this a hundred times to you, but that's fine, I'll say it once more: Any parley involves giving away the secret that Jon is king.

Where do we get that Jon is king is "secret"?

That this tight group at the ToJ are the only people who knows he exists is the greatest advantage that whatever is left of the Targaryen dynasty currently holds.

How is nobody knowing that there is a Targaryen king an advantage to the dynasty?

Ned certainly wouldn't have been the one killing Jon.

OK

He'd turn the baby (his nephew) over and beg for Robert to show it mercy if anything (as far as the KG know). Of course the reader knows that Ned and Robert had a huge falling out over the fact that Robert condoned the killing of the Targ babies, but these three don't. But the fact that Ned wouldn't personally kill the baby is no guarantee (not even close to it) that the baby would not come to harm. By the book, the baby gets turned over, the baby is killed.

No murdered babies are mentioned during the showdown.

Do they owe Lyanna (their queen regent--your assertion) by a parley with Ned (her brother)?

yes

Is she even in any condition to negotiate?

unknown

Can they trust her (their queen regent's--your assertion)judgment

They have no choice.

or does their obligation to the dynasty trump whatever obligation that they might have to her(their queen regent's--your assertion)?

The orders of the regent come before the obligation to the dynasty--- see same decision made obey Aerys start the rebellion.

Again, you have your opinion of the merits of a negotiation and they have theirs.(I have mine)

OK

This all ties into the above. You still see obviously this parley as a greater possibility than the KG (I) do.

OK

What you've (I have) really concocted here is fanfiction.

You get to decide when Jon was born, what the KG know and when, and what they have done about it.

Throughout the story lots of people make decisions that affect the outcomes of situations dramatically. They did not make the decision to parley. This is not problematic for most people looking at the evidence. (that accept my assertions as canon)

OK

It is problematic for your interpretation, but you are one person. It is not objectively problematic.

If the ONE PERSON happens to be RIGHT--- it is very objectively problematic...... objectivity does not depend on what most people think...

Again, their responsibility to the survival of the dynasty is best kept by ensuring that nobody else knows about Jon.

Repeating this assertion does not make it any more valid.

That is clearly their (my) interpretation. Again, by the book: (my assessment) Ned takes the child, turns over child, child is killed. Holding Ned hohistage isn't (Nothing is) necessarily going to ensure that nobody lives and escapes to tell Robert about Jon (bring reinforcements). Their (my) estimation of Ned's sympathy for the baby is clearly lower than yours.

OK

If Aegon and Rhaenys had been spared it may have been different, but that's not what happened.

This is never mentioned in the sequence. The reader and Ned know, no indication the KG do.

----As for them trying to keep the secret of Jon's presence in the tower - the fact that Ned is there at all shows at least part of the secret has been blown.---

Which part? That Rhaegar once held Lyanna there? In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that Ned has any direct evidence of a living Targaryen heir. On the other hand, it is a Targaryen love shack where the crown prince and his sister were that now inexplicably has the last 3 KG holed up there. If Ned had an inkling that Jon was there, it was likely an inference, not a firsthand account of it. Still, Ned has probably pieced out the possibility, which explains why he takes a small party.

The tower is no longer a secret. You now have a "secret" king in an unsecret location.

---If the KG kill Ned, his army has NO reason to spare Jon, and nothing will get them to stand down in pursuit of the men who killed their lord - and they can't flee with a newborn. Killing Ned pretty much guarantees a Famous Last Stand scenario...which seems to be what the KG want, far more than to protect Jon.--

Still ties into the above. As far as the KG is (I am) concerned, the baby falling into Ned's hands equals the death of the baby.

OK

As to the bolded, I'm just left scratching my head every time. There is still a dynasty to protect. Viserys is the heir to that dynasty if your assessment of the situation is accurate. The KG reaffirm their loyalties to the Targ dynasty (Aerys) in front of Ned's very eyes, yet you still think they're more interested in an honorable death than (as their) their duty to protect the (dead) king.

OK

There's no honor in forfeiting a life that can be better used in the service of the (dead) king (dynasty) to which they swore their vows. Can't buy it, won't buy it.

Check out 47 ronin

---Why not? If you accept GRRM's own word that the KG must obey orders and cannot make up new ones on their own judgement, then you accept the idea that they MUST under the terms of their vows continue obeying those orders until a royal order whose authority they recognize countermands them. The ToJ KG are, by trying to kill Ned, showing that they are NOT obeying Lyanna. The country has pretty much fallen under Usurper rule, and Jon MUST flee if he is to survive. But the KG has made up their mind that fleeing is NOT an option - therefore they are not acting in the interest of Jon's survival. They are acting under obsolete orders that do not allow the possibility of fleeing. So they will fight to the death where they stand, and they would have if Ned had brought sixty soldiers instead of six...which would inevitably doom Jon.---

There is a new king to protect. There is no need to make up orders.

OK but we expect no made up orders

If they were ordered to guard a concubine and a bastard, (the ToJ-- as per SSM) they know that it was at a time when 7 KG lived.

OK

At least one must go to Viserys or they are actually violating their known vow. --no making up orders--

OK

This would be ten times more derelict an action than whatever dereliction at least one of them leaving Lyanna to protect king Viserys would represent.

ten times zero is zero

----If the KG had been ordered to take and hold a key fortress in Aerys' name, and they did it while the rest of the country fell to the Rebellion, and King Robert himself came up to the gate and said, "Listen, guys - I have the whole country now, so why don't you just surrender and spare your men a long siege and death?" - no one would consider it strange if that KG roared from his battlements "Aerys ordered me to hold this fort, and I will HOLD it, vile Usurper!" and fight to the bloody end in defence of his honor as a Kingsguard - no matter how futile such an undertaking would be. For him to disobey the orders he was given and flee cravenly to wherever the next landless Targaryen heir is would be dishonoring his KG vows.

Totally disagree, if there is another Targaryen heir to go to, you go. It is not dishonoring the KG vows to do so, it is dishonoring the KG vows not to do so. One could stay with Lyanna and Jon I suppose, but not three. Does not make sense.

If the kingdom is lost, the Targaryen is heir to nothing. Holding on to the part of the realm that the Targaryens still control is protecting the heir's inheritance. Losing the kingdom is losing the king.

---Why is it so difficult to imagine that the ToJ 3 acted for the Tower the same way my theoretical KG would act for his fortress? That is, provoking a bloody and useless last stand that would vindicate his honor as a KG, instead of disobeying his last orders to escape and serve the next throneless Targaryen heir? A live KG would be much more useful to the heir than a bloody Last Stand, but obeying his orders and NOT fleeing like a craven is more important to the KG than being useful to the heir - especially an heir that is no longer a King.---

Could never, ever agree with this. The KG duty is to the heir, to the dynasty. (protect the king, obey his orders, keep his secrets) If this (a duty) has to be explained (invented) probably won't be understood (accepted). What is happening with fAegon right now in the series? That is what a loyal KG would do. As others have said, fAegon is essentially living the story that should have been Jon's if not for Ned's party killing the final loyalists at the ToJ (destroying any chance of negotion or escape from the ToJ)

OK

Suffice it to say that to claim that anything could be more important than securing the dynasty (protecting the king, obeying his orders, and keeping his secrets) is an extraordinary claim.

OK

Leaving the dynasty to expire, the Targaryen line to be extinguished, would represent the ultimate unforgivable failure of KG duties. --This is an extraordinary claim

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You (I)have not presented such.'

OK

Finally, as long as an heir lives, a loyalist must call him a king. This is borne out throughout the series. All supposed pretenders are styled as kings by their loyal subjects. Every one.

OK

There is no greater dishonor than sacrificing the king's best interests (probably life).

---The worst were those that played the game of thrones.... Selmy on the kingsguard aDwD queensguard.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, ironically, in killing the majority (failing to kill) of Ned's party, the KG seem to actually have succeeded in (proved they were not in fact) protecting Jon's life,

OK

which may actually lead to him pressing his claim sometime in the future.

Living does tend to strengthen a claim to the throne.

So they did not simply die in vain. They laid down their lives to protect Jon, exactly as a KG should (if my interpretation is correct). (because of an imaginary threat.)Had they succeeded in not dying there.--- (They had nothing ) necessarily going to ensure that nobody lives and escapes to tell Robert about Jon (bring reinforcements)

OK

[Consigliere]

Just to point out, of the three you mention, Mya was conceived and born before Robert got engaged to Lyanna. The others were conceived and born after her death, though they were conceived and born during his engagement/marriage to Cersei

If Bella's claim is to be believed then she would have been conceived during Roberts engagement to Lyanna.

[mambru]

Wow, JonWeirgaryen, thanks for making all that effort to preserve the thread.

What about Jamie killing Aerys? Are you not counting Jamie actually killing his king and the fact that he's called Kingslayer since? His duty was to stay in KL in the Red Keep and protect Aerys. It's his first duty as KG. Now what he did was a good thing since Aerys wanted everyone to burn, but he's treated as someone who has honor for shit...and most importantly treated as someone who has honor for shit according to Ned Stark, who hold Arthur Dayne up as the best KG knight, someone who helped abduct his sister for the Prince.

I...don't get it. How is Jaime killing Aerys an example of a Kingsguard Disobeying an order to Protect the king and being condoned for it (which was what I was asking for with my question to you)?

[BearQueen87]

I do not know how much she knew about it. It died along with her at Dragonstone.

.

Elia died at KL ;) Rhaella died at Dragonstone.

Right. And since we know Rhaegar was in KL and the Red Keep before going off to the Trident...what was their final conversation? These are things I need to know!

[BearQueen87]

Wow, JonWeirgaryen, thanks for making all that effort to preserve the thread.

I...don't get it. How is Jaime killing Aerys an example of a Kingsguard Disobeying an order to Protect the king and being condoned for it (which was what I was asking for with my question to you)?

Whoa. Never mind. In the effort to read through what we're just now getting back...ignore me please. My brain did the thing where it was like "condoned" mean X but really it means Y.

I shall try to think of another example. :dunce: