R+L=J v.89

[BearQueen87]

The problem with reading anything into things like kings hiding under snow is it could so easily be a false lead.

Dany's HotU vision is about as clear and irrefutable a piece of evidence as we have about Jon being Lyanna's & Rhaegar's, as long as you attach the caveat that it was a vision and all such must be taken with a grain of salt.

I did read the Tower of the Hand's excellent summary of all the clues we have, and it is all strongly suggestive. As I've said, repeatedly, I like the hypothesis and it answers much of what we know so I'm 98% of the way there.

How much evidence do you accept from the show? There are some things there as well; like a RL carved into a post right next to Jon's head when he's telling Sam about how it feels to be a bastard. The blue rose pops up in the throne room EVERYWHERE including in Dany's HotU vision where Snow is falling all around the throne.

It could be a false lead, I agree. But when the evidence really begins to pile up, at what point do all the false leads start to become truth?

So my question to you is what's the 2%holding you back?

[J. Stargaryen]

It's an interesting point, but I'm not convinced. Blue Roses are grown at Winterfell and closely linked to Starks. Bael's story specifically links a blue rose with a Stark daughter, so the connection clearly pre-dates the tourney at Harrenhal by a long time. Would the crown for the Queen of Love and Beauty have been made from blue roses had Rhaegar not intended to give it to Lyanna?

Sure, there is a connection, but it really doesn't look to be as close or automatic as some people make it out to be. We have exactly two stories linking Stark girls in ~8,000 years of Stark history. I do think that the blue roses mean something different, but that Stark girls, or at least the ones in the stories, are a part of it.

In other words, the roses in Ned's thoughts or dreams about Lyanna are from the crown that Rhaegar gave her. You can look for an occasion in the books where Ned thinks of Lyanna and roses which predates Harrenhal, but you won't find it. In Ned's thoughts, all of Lyanna's roses are from Rhaegar.

Bael asks for the most beautiful flower in that has grown at Winterfell, and is given a blue rose. He swaps the blue rose for Brandon Stark's daughter, leaving it on her bed in her place. I'd say that makes a direct correspondence between Stark girls and blue roses. The parallels between the two stories are interesting but not conclusive. It's pretty important to the Bael story that it's Bael's son who kills him (kinslaying is a BIG thing in ASoIaF), which obviously has no parallel in the Rhaegar/Lyanna story.

We're definitely led to believe that the rose is a metaphor for the girl. But the outcome, and some of the specific wording Ygritte uses, leads to a different conclusion about the symbolism at play in the story.

Here is the line that you're referencing:

“Her bed they found empty, but for the pale blue rose that Bael had left on the pillow where her head had lain.”

- ACoK, Jon VI

Then, only a few paragraphs later, we get this:

“No. They had been in Winterfell all the time, hiding with the dead beneath the castle. The maid loved Bael so dearly she bore him a son, the song says… though if truth be told, all the maids love Bael in them songs he wrote. Be that as it may, what’s certain is that Bael left the child in payment for the rose he’d plucked unasked, and that the boy grew to be the next Lord Stark. So there it is—you have Bael’s blood in you, same as me.”

Bael took the girl and left a rose. = Bael took the girl and left a son. The common denominator here is the girl, which means the rose symbolizes the son. Or, at least it symbolizes a Stark girl giving birth to a Stark son. Which would be different than a Stark girl marrying into a different House and having, say, a Manderly son. So, Jon and Bael's son, are Starks through the female line.

That's not to say that Jon isn't a trueborn Targaryen, but that his mother was a Stark. This is an especially important point which contrasts the cover story that it's Jon's father who is a Stark.

[BearQueen87]

Can anybody give a reason why news of the rebellion would travel more slowly than Ned?

If not.

Does anybody still wish to use Peuperal fever as the likely cause of Lyanna's death?

Where are you getting 30 miles a day.

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

It was his sister. Ned cared for sister. He cares for Jon as he is Stark blood.

[mambru]

Look, being 20 yards away during a hunt is not the same as being 500 miles away from a 7 year old with no protection. This is NOT a real comparison.

Oh, yeah, that's another rule that doesn't actually exist in the books AFAIK, but you're still using it to prove your theory - the rule that a KG must be with the King at all times, or else he is without protection... and therefore, the KG must remedy this instantly by abandoning whatever mission they've been assigned to to run to the king. You think the fact that the KD didn't IMMEDIATELY run to Viserys (even though Viserys has a knight they admitted is trustworthy, and a garrison of soldiers) proves that they don't think Viserys is the King.

This weirdly specific rule that that a KG must be with the King at all times, or else he is without protection... and therefore, the KG must remedy this instantly by abandoning whatever mission they've been assigned to to run to the king...can you QUOTE me anyplace in the books where this weird rule appears?

IIRC, this rule doesn't appear in the books. In fact the books specifically contradict that supposed rule. The books say (during the KG meeting Jaime presided over) that the king CAN be left with trustworthy non-KG men...and the book doesn't specify what time limit exists on this and under what other circumstances this can occur besides a meeting of the KG. So again, you're relying on a rule you've essentially invented without evidence, to prove your theory, instead of tailoring your theory to the rules that actually appear in the books.

First off, it would have been a crown prince's order trumping protecting the king. That they would guard a mistress and a bastard and leave the king alone defies logic, for all the reasons already stated.

Dayne and Whent were, IIRC, assigned by the king to be Rhaegar's personal bodyguards - that is, to protect and obey Rhaegar. Therefore, it is no breach of their vows to Aerys for them to follow Rhaegar's orders to watch over Lyanna to the death, regardless of whether Lyanna was wife or mistress. It would in fact be a breach of their vows to DISOBEY Rhaegar, unless Rhaegar specifically ordered them to harm Aerys or Aerys specifically ordered them removed from their duties of being Rhaegar's KG.

Hightower is the sticking point, IMO. He was never formally assigned as Rhaegar's bodyguard. His presence at the Tower indicates several possibilities:

1) Rhaegar convinced Hightower that his mission from Aerys to find Rhaegar and put him in charge of ending the war put Hightower under Rhaegar's command.

2) Rhaegar blackmailed Hightower into staying at the ToJ by saying he would refuse to go to Aerys unless Hightower agreed to remain - and so Hightower decided that staying at the tower was the only way he could Obey Aerys, get Rhaegar to KL as ordered, and thus keep his precious vows.

3) Hightower wanted Aerys removed, but did not want to break the letter of his vows by helping Rhaegar do it - so he obeyed orders from Rhaegar that he really shouldn't have obeyed, under the tacit understanding that Rhaegar would humanely and bloodlessly depose his father while Hightower was far away and wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position of either breaking his vows or fighting Rhaegar to keep him from deposing a king that really NEEDED to be deposed.

or...

4) Hightower - hell, all THREE of the KG - have sworn vows to Rhaegar as their new king and repudiated Aerys.

We don't know which of those possibilities it (or maybe none of them at all and something else entirely) but it's fun to speculate if you keep an open mind.

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

Plus, Rhaegar needed a place to keep Lyanna safe from the Mad King himself.

[stateofdissipation]

Where are you getting 30 miles a day.

350 miles between the Trident and King's Landing covered in 14 days (Rossart was hand for a fortnight-- was made hand after the old hand burned was killed 2 weeks later by Jamie)

25 miles a day--- that is kind of a shaky timeline---

so I went with historical max speeds... 28 miles in a day.... and speed on horseback 20 to 40 miles a day

http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Logistic.htm

http://www.cartographersguild.com/reference-material/19730-how-far-horse-travels-one-day.html

but it really does not matter that much

15 miles per day--probably more realistic.

Ned 86 days

News 50 days

Jon 36 days at youngest for Ned's arrival

60 miles a day--there is a statue in south africa for a horse that made 600 miles in 10 days.---For Ned to cover the distance in the same time he would need to do it more than twice.

Ned 21 days

News 12 days

Jon 9 days at the youngest for Ned's arrival.

[Aeron_Damphair]

I don't think it is making up rules to observe that the KG have chosen to be with Jon and not Viserys and infer that Viserys is not king. No reason to go point by point.

My thesis is as follows:

The dynasty is more important than a dead man's order. I'm not going to continue to defend this position. I have tried to defend it, but I don't think it requires defense. It's just common sense.

Barristan, Bob, and the boar just isn't the same thing.

A messenger telling the KG that Viserys is "safe" under the circumstances is also not satisfactory IMO. This is not a safe time. In either case, they are favoring the ToJ mother and child over the known royal family for some reason. I just don't think I can convince anybody who thinks that it is plausible that House Targaryen, the dynasty, or the rightful heir are less important than a dead man's order to protect non royals, so I'm going to stop trying.

I think it is self-evidently absurd to suggest that the KG don't care about the dynasty.

[BearQueen87]

I don't think it is making up rules to observe that the KG have chosen to be with Jon and not Viserys and infer that Viserys is not king. No reason to go point by point.

My thesis is as follows:

The dynasty is more important than a dead man's order. I'm not going to continue to defend this position. I have tried to defend it, but I don't think it requires defense. It's just common sense.

Barristan, Bob, and the boar just isn't the same thing.

A messenger telling the KG that Viserys is "safe" under the circumstances is also not satisfactory IMO. This is not a safe time. In either case, they are favoring the ToJ mother and child over the known royal family for some reason. I just don't think I can convince anybody who thinks that it is plausible that House Targaryen, the dynasty, the rightful heir is less important than a dead man's order to protect non royals, so I'm going to stop trying.

I think it is self-evidently absurd to suggest that the KG don't care about the dynasty.

Because Robert never missed a boar before. Robert is an idiot, but everyone knows what a good hunter he is. Barristan probably rolled his eyes (when Robert wasnt' looking) but he didn't think Robert was in any real danger because no one (NO ONE) is going to suspect that the boat is going to rip open Robert.

However the King inside the Tower is in danger. Ned isn't just Lord Stark, he's the Best friend, Second in Command, Brother of the Girl locked in a tower for (until Ned knows for sure otherwise) the pleasure of Rhaegar Targaryen. Who knows what Ned will do to that baby when he finds it! Rhaenys and Aegon were killed, why not Jon?

[IceFire125]

Just a couple of things ...

I think when Aemon said that Daeron II "had the right of it," he means right as in "correct," not "authorized." I see your point, but I think Aemon is just saying that Daeron was correct in sending him to the Citadel, just like Jon is correct to send Sam to the Citadel. So the parallel is still there, it's just a different meaning.

I, like you, have noticed that Jon has been compared to both Aegon V and Daeron II. Most people draw on the Egg parallel, because he, like Jon, was unlikely to ever be king, and he, like Jon, found himself invested with power and authority that was thrust upon him, not actively sought.

Having said that, I actually find the Daeron II parallel to be more interesting. Jon's original boyhood hero was Daeron I. But Daeron I is truly a boy hero: live fast, die young and leave not much of a legacy except to inspire like-minded hotheaded boys with military fantasies. Daeron II was known as an unglamorous but wise, diplomatic and educated king. He's not the hero of any military-minded types, but he made lasting peace with the Dornish and is generally recognized as being a pretty terrific king, probably in the top 3-5 in the throne's history. Jon's progression from admiring Daeron I to taking on the leadership characteristics of Daeron II represents, to me, his coming of age. It's forward movement and developing maturity. He also, despite not being as exciting (for lack of a better word), managed to defeat Daemon Blackfyre, who was more militaristic and traditionally "kingly." It could point to Jon overcoming Aegon (and Jon, like Daeron II, would face questions about his parentage; many people would view Aegon's claim as better). Or maybe his more glamorous foe will be Dany. But Jon, like Daeron II, will probably never be all that "exciting." And that's OK. Daeron also had Bloodraven on his side; I think Bloodraven will ultimately be on Jon's side, if the raven's words are any indication.

It's almost a mirror, isn't it? and how fitting, GRRM and his method of instilling this cyclical theme.

Jon will have little joy in his command (Aemon's counsel), it won't be exciting, overwhelming responsibilities, but he has to, it's what the hard life requires him to do, since it has chose Jon for that task.

King Daeron II was indeed at the center of it all during the first Blackfyre rebellion. I would venture to think that GRRM might consolidate those cyclical theme of an inverse-Blackfyre rebellion with Dance 2.0, together. And guess who might be the center of it all? another 'Daenerys'.

That instead of fAegon/Daenerys (as was Daemon and his Daenerys) in love, maybe it would be Daenerys leaving fAegon for Jon (maybe after discovering his true origin) and meeting him probably will lead to her falling in love with him, leading to the inevitable war (again). It's the ultimate theme of Jon's love life--stealing women's heart (the true wildling way) ^_^

[mambru]

I think it is self-evidently absurd to suggest that the KG don't care about the dynasty.

Barristan didn't care about the dynasty when he decided that Viserys wasn't king and he swore fealty to Robert.

And Honorable Ned - our ONLY witness to the supposed nobility of the ToJ Kingsguard - thought Barristan was a trustworthy and honorable KG, even though he did exactly the OPPOSITE of what you think the noble ToJ Kingsguard did.

And yes, I know we've discussed these points before, but not on this thread, and there may be some who haven't read it and have some fresh insight.

Incidentally, you wrote this earlier:

They did not make the decision to parley. This is not problematic for most people looking at the evidence. It is problematic for your interpretation, but you are one person. It is not objectively problematic.

You seem to be saying that because there are more people on this particular thread agreeing with you than with me, that proves that your opinion is "objectively" correct while my opinion isn't. That's...a really weak argument. It's not logic, it's the Bandwagon Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy

I do think that, though, that the fact that the vast majority of people on this thread believe one side of the argument DOES make it more difficult to discuss something like my view that Jon was R & L's kid but probably not legitimate. Points made here tend to get drowned out by people asking about whether Jon is the child of R&L at all, and people who've long since made up their minds and prefer to discuss what Jon Targaryen's sigil looks like.

[stateofdissipation]

I don't think it is making up rules to observe that the KG have chosen to be with Jon and not Viserys and infer that Viserys is not king. No reason to go point by point.

My thesis is as follows:

The dynasty is more important than a dead man's order. I'm not going to continue to defend this position. I have tried to defend it, but I don't think it requires defense. It's just common sense.

Barristan, Bob, and the boar just isn't the same thing.

A messenger telling the KG that Viserys is "safe" under the circumstances is also not satisfactory IMO. This is not a safe time. In either case, they are favoring the ToJ mother and child over the known royal family for some reason. I just don't think I can convince anybody who thinks that it is plausible that House Targaryen, the dynasty, the rightful heir is less important than a dead man's order to protect non royals, so I'm going to stop trying.

I think it is self-evidently absurd to suggest that the KG don't care about the dynasty.

The dynasty is more important than a dead man's order. I'm not going to continue to defend this position. I have tried to defend it, but I don't think it requires defense. It's just common sense.

Common sense and inserting "Dynasty" in place of king for KG vows, forgetting that the kingdom was lost, forgetting that 3 KG fell on the Trident protecting their Aerys in KL, forgetting the defiance at Duskendale (Aerys without KG for several month until they found a way to rescue him),forgetting that Lyanna would be queen regent, and forgetting that bed of blood means childbirth. ---Then we have a dynasty that is more important than a dead man's order.

Barristan, Bob, and the boar just isn't the same thing.

Aerys captive in Duskendale without KG for several months is the same.

I just don't think I can convince anybody who thinks that it is plausible that House Targaryen, the dynasty, the rightful heir is less important than a dead man's order to protect non royals, so I'm going to stop trying.

Ser Arthur Dayne, Ser Gerold Hightower, and Ser Oswell Whent were ordered by Rhaegar to stand guard at the 'tower of joy' near Dorne. All three died there (I: 354-356) http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/Concordance/Entry/The_Kingsguard/

Rhaegar who gave the order to guard the ToJ is dead when the House Targaryen, the dynasty King and the rightful heir die in KL.

--That is not only "plausible." It happened.

[BearQueen87]

Barristan didn't care about the dynasty when he decided that Viserys wasn't king and he swore fealty to Robert.

And Honorable Ned - our ONLY witness to the supposed nobility of the ToJ Kingsguard - thought Barristan was a trustworthy and honorable KG, even though he did exactly the OPPOSITE of what you think the noble ToJ Kingsguard did.

He thought Barristan was a good man, but NOT a shining example of the KG. Ned tells Bran that once the KG WERE shinning examples of knightliness. When Bran asks who the best of them were, Ned says Arthur Dayne. In other words: Barristan is a good guy but he's no Arthur Dayne.

I wonder what Arthur Dayne did that Barristan did not....*hmmm*

Also, you're forgetting Howland Reed. He's alive. And by god he will be in WOW! (shakes fist)

Bran: Are they truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms?

Ned: No longer. But once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world. he finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed

Barristan, Bob, and the boar just isn't the same thing.

Aerys captive in Duskendale without KG for several months is the same.

How???

The KG cannot walk up to the holdfast and insist that the Lord let one of them in so that the King has one KG with him because "we swore a vow."

The KG did not have a choice in this matter. They were forced to sit outside and come up with a way to get Aerys that would not result in his death before they could rescue him

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The KG did not have a choice in this matter. They were forced to sit outside and come up with a way to get Aerys that would not result in his death before they could rescue him

Also worth remembering that Aerys did have a Kingsguard with him at Duskendale: Gaunt. It's just that Gaunt was killed when Aerys was taken hostage. And, as you said, there was no way to get to Aerys without risking his life. That was a case where the king was actually more at risk if the Kingsguard did try to actively get to him. There's a difference between not going to Aerys because doing so would threaten his life and not going to Viserys because they seemingly just didn't care.

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

I still say Howland needs to break his silence in WoW.

[stateofdissipation]

Barristan didn't care about the dynasty when he decided that Viserys wasn't king and he swore fealty to Robert.

And Honorable Ned - our ONLY witness to the supposed nobility of the ToJ Kingsguard - thought Barristan was a trustworthy and honorable KG, even though he did exactly the OPPOSITE of what you think the noble ToJ Kingsguard did.

And yes, I know we've discussed these points before, but not on this thread, and there may be some who haven't read it and have some fresh insight.

Incidentally, you wrote this earlier:

You seem to be saying that because there are more people on this particular thread agreeing with you than with me, that proves that your opinion is "objectively" correct while my opinion isn't. That's...a really weak argument. It's not logic, it's the Bandwagon Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy

I do think that, though, that the fact that the vast majority of people on this thread believe one side of the argument DOES make it more difficult to discuss something like my view that Jon was R & L's kid but probably not legitimate. Points made here tend to get drowned out by people asking about whether Jon is the child of R&L at all, and people who've long since made up their minds and prefer to discuss what Jon Targaryen's sigil looks like.

The KG at the ToJ proving anything is meeh-- too many assumptions.. too much out of context... and in the end one finishes with what one wanted to finish with...

This is a more solid case for R married L

Eddard chapter 36

---Ned has just resigned as hand over Robert's order to kill children, stating--"I thought you a better man than this Robert, I thought we had made a better king."--Eddard aGoT page 343.

"but he(Ned) had assured her(Lyanna) that what Robert did before their betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true that would love her with all his heart." aGoT page 367

---Lyanna disagreed stating:"Love is sweet dearest Ned but it cannot change a man's nature" aGoT page 367

---Going to a brothel to see one of Robert's bastards clearly showed Ned that he had been mistaken.

"He wondered if Rhaegar Targaryen had frequented brothels; somehow he thought not." aGoT page 369

Ned was visiting Robert's bastard at a brothel. He had just confirmed that what Robert did (sex) before his betrothal did matter.

Ned thought Rhaeger would not frequent brothels.----Unknown source of this conclusion---

Hypothesis---the unknown source of the conclusion---Ned knew that Rhaegar did not have sex before his marriage.

This will run us back in to but Rhaegar was married. Polygamy from the time of dragons.. is pretty weak.

There is evidence in the text;

"...How long till he decides to put me aside for some new Lyanna?"-- Cersei aGoT page 79 paperback

"The maid was Loras tyrell`s sister Margaery, he'd confessed, but there were those that said she looked like Lyanna"--aGoT page 269 paperback

"A year ago I schemed to make the girl (Margaery Tyrell) Robert's queen."--Renly aCoK page 478 paperback

The source (in law or religion) of Cersei's concern and Renly's scheme is not given. It clearly is not the Targaryen polygamy from the time of dragons.

Lyanna plays in to both the concern and the scheme.

Hypothesis-- Rhaegar put Elia aside for Lyanna.

No I do not claim to have proof... Nothing must be...

---By-the-by, I hate R married L. I think it is pretty cheesy and cliched. I have been known to mock it calling it the "Jon Twist theory." ----

Personal preference aside, Chekhov's gun tells me I have to accept that R married L. I can't see the how Renly's scheming, Cersei's concern, and Ned's thoughts on Rhaegar are essential to the story if R did not marry L.

[mambru]

Mambru if I can't think of an example...*sigh*

I think there a lot of extenuating circumstances though. And just because I--and others--can't think of an example doesn't mean anything.

S'allright. I don't pretend I have the books memorized, and there are ASOIAF stories I haven't read. There may be an example I missed where a KG DID disobey an order so that he could protect the King and was praised for it. But I can't remember any, and there are the examples I cited that seem to indicate that the KG is supposed to Obey over Protect. I'm not certain that I'm right - it just seems more likely to me. Mainly I just want interesting discussion with nice people like yourself who don't immediately assume I'm a troll because I disagree (which HAS happened).

He thought Barristan was a good man, but NOT a shining example of the KG. Ned tells Bran that once the KG WERE shinning examples of knightliness. When Bran asks who the best of them were, Ned says Arthur Dayne. In other words: Barristan is a good guy but he's no Arthur Dayne.

Yes, Ned thought Arthur Dayne was the best. But does that mean he thinks Barristan is unworthy of being a Kingsguard - much less a dishonorable oathbreaker (as he would be if his only honorable option was to be faithful to the Targaryen dynasty and yet he turned his cloak and swore fealty to Robert instead?) AWOIAF says Ned said: Ser Barristan is as valiant and honorable as any man in King's Landing.

Also, you're forgetting Howland Reed. He's alive. And by god he will be in WOW! (shakes fist)

Yes, Howland Reed was a witness to what went down at the ToJ. He's not yet been our witness, though. And yes, I am looking forward to WOW to see what he has to say. I'm also looking forward to Wylla. We know next to nothing about her, but she must be at the very least a terrific liar - making everyone at Starfall believe for fifteen years that she WAS Ned's lovah - what's HER story?

[Aeron_Damphair]

You seem to be saying that because there are more people on this particular thread agreeing with you than with me, that proves that your opinion is "objectively" correct while my opinion isn't. That's...a really weak argument. It's not logic, it's the Bandwagon Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy

I can understand why you interpreted my comment that way, but that is not how it was intended. I only meant that you find it problematic, but that is just one person's opinion. I also included the fact that most people don't find it problematic, but I'm simply stating my observation. This was not meant to be evidence of any kind, nor was it meant to justify the part where I said that it was "not objectively problematic." One is symptomatic of the other, but not causal of the other. I worded it in such a way that it was destined to be interpreted the way you did, though, so I acknowledge it was clumsy.

It is not problematic that the KG would simply try to kill all of Ned's party because they are rebel usurpers who just killed most of the royal family. I would argue it is, objectively, not problematic, and plenty of people (though not, strictly speaking, a measure of the validity of my opinion) agree.

Barristan probably did care about the dynasty and only changed allegiances when he could do, literally, nothing to help said dynasty, lest he be killed.

Whent, Dayne, and Hightower can help the dynasty, and I argue they did, by protecting Jon from Ned's party.

Comparing that to a POW who can either yield or die is a non sequitur.

[BearQueen87]

Yes, Ned thought Arthur Dayne was the best. But does that mean he thinks Barristan is unworthy of being a Kingsguard - much less a dishonorable oathbreaker (as he would be if his only honorable option was to be faithful to the Targaryen dynasty and yet he turned his cloak and swore fealty to Robert instead?) AWOIAF says Ned said: Ser Barristan is as valiant and honorable as any man in King's Landing.

Yes, he thinks of Ser Barristan as an honorable knight but not all knights are the KG. KG are knights to the umpteenth degree, and for Ned Stark, Ser Barristan (great knight) is not a exemplary KG.

And also ask yourself this: "as valiant and honorable as any many in King's Landing.." Find me ONE person in KL who is valiant and honorable. Any of them. Varys, LF, Robert, The Gold Cloaks who pocket money and give away their loyalty, Jamie Lannister....I'm not saying there are none, but it's not example a ringing endorsement is it?

[mambru]

Yes, he thinks of Ser Barristan as an honorable knight but not all knights are the KG. KG are knights to the umpteenth degree, and for Ned Stark, Ser Barristan (great knight) is not a exemplary KG.

And also ask yourself this: "as valiant and honorable as any many in King's Landing.." Find me ONE person in KL who is valiant and honorable. Any of them. Varys, LF, Robert, The Gold Cloaks who pocket money and give away their loyalty, Jamie Lannister....I'm not saying there are none, but it's not example a ringing endorsement is it?

Does Ned ever SAY that Barristan is unworthy of his Kingsguard position? According to the books, he has a "deep respect" for him - which he would not have if he thought refusing fealty to the Targaryen dynasty constituted oathbreaking. Ned loathes oathbreakers. And yeah, he thought Dayne was the best - but Ned's five friends died in combat with the ToJ three, because Ned ordered them to fight. So Ned has a powerful motive to think Dayne and the other two the bestest best - it does his friends honor to believe that they died helping to take down The Best of the Best.