R+L=J v.90

[The Maiden Fair]

That depends on how the marriage is set aside. I know of a RL example when a king had his marriage annulled and removed his children, including an adult heir, from the succession line, so that he could get himself a hot young wife from a more noble family.

If this is the case, and removing the wife removes the children, then Jon would automatically be the heir in a legitimate R+L=/E. If there's not already a SSM for this, maybe we should ask him. Or maybe it will be answered in WoIaF. :dunno:

[Attitude]

That depends on how the marriage is set aside. I know of a RL example when a king had his marriage annulled and removed his children, including an adult heir, from the succession line, so that he could get himself a hot young wife from a more noble family.

Of course if a King decides that his children of a former marriage aren't legit anymore, then that's what's happening. King = law. But that doesn't mean it will always happen. If the king says his 'heir' is his grandfather, then that's what's happening.

[The guy from the Vale]

Cersei is definitely scared about her children not inheriting in case she is set aside, so I'd assume setting aside a wife would disinherit her children.

Basically, an annulment is not the same thing as a divorce - an annulment is a statement that the marriage was never valid in the first place. We haven't seen any divorce in the proper sense in the series at all, not even as being discussed as an option.

[The Maiden Fair]

Of course if a King decides that his children of a former marriage aren't legit anymore, then that's what's happening. King = law. But that doesn't mean it will always happen. If the king says his 'heir' is his grandfather, then that's what's happening.

Unless that king dies and his family decides otherwise. That happened to Robert

and is more or less the entire cause of the Dance of Dragons in tRP and tPatQ

[Attitude]

IMO / My thoughts state that this will only happen if the King decides that the children aren't inherited. Let say a Queen cheats on her King. The King therefor decides he declares the marriage invalid, but that doesn't mean his kids won't inherit the throne if he passes away. That's for him to decide.

Unless that king dies and his family decides otherwise. That happened to Robert

If the king dies before he can state that his kids aren't his true heir, then yes they will stay that of course.

[The guy from the Vale]

Unless that king dies and his family decides otherwise. That happened to Robert

Robert's will didn't specify who the heir was (at least Ned's version... Robert told Ned that Joffrey was his son and heir on his deathbed...)

[The Maiden Fair]

Robert's will didn't specify who the heir was (at least Ned's version... Robert told Ned that Joffrey was his son and heir on his deathbed...)

I was more referring to the part about Ned becoming Regent, which Cersei tore up. The King's words, written and decreed, but not necessarily followed.

[honeyed chicken]

It seems unlikely that Hightower would have remained at the tower if his true king had been without KG protection.

I Didn't really read into any specific person in asoiaf, so neither Hightower. But those who did, can probably state this. I for one will not, because I don't know it for sure. What I do know is that the KG will always protect the king(or follow his order).

I think a big question is; what is the 'vow they swore' which Ser Gerold talked about? The 'vow of the KG to protect the king' or a specific vow Rhaegar made them swore. Because in the last case, it could be a different reason. (Even though highly unlikely IMO)

Take a look at the final part of the ToJ dialogue and filter the interruptions caused by the switching speakers, introductory clauses etc:

"Kingsguard doesn't flee because we swore a vow." ("because" = "explained")

They are referring to the KG vow, no other.

Ah I missed that. I think the strongest point in this sentence is the fact that Ser Gerold says 'Kingsguard' in stead of 'we'. If he would have said: 'We don't flee because we swore a vow', then it could be either one. But since he didn't you can say it's the KG vow. Thanks for pointing that out!

Also worth noting is the use of "vow", which is, in Westeros, often seen as more significant than a promise/duty/order. The Night's Watch, for instance, often refer to the content of the NW oath and commitments as vows. The conflict over breaking those vows is a huge element in Jon's story and character development. I see vows being equal to oaths, if I'm reading correctly. Sacred. Lifelong. I don't think they'd refer to a command in this fashion.

While the truth of Jon being legitimate is questionable, if we can accept that Wylla was likely sent from SF to tend Lyanna, why not also that a septon from nearby was available for a hasty marriage, a la Tyrion and Tysha? There's precedent for unpopular, unfavorable, or unapproved marriages built into the story, I'd like to assume for a reason.

Eta: If we take that marriage as a hint/parallel of this one (secret wedding, hid lover away in a private location, shared marital bliss until discovered, tragedy), Tyrion's wedding earns slightly more significance to the overall story. Not just to motivate his character's actions, but as evidence of the nature of R+L. It seems like a Martin thing to do, and it makes the marriage of R+L feel less contrived when placed side by side with the story's most repetitive doomed romance.

Maybe it's just me but I find the "KG was at the toj, therefore the legit heir had to be there too" argument to be highly squishy.

I would feel better if there had been only one KG at the toj.

I would feel better if at least one of them was with Viserys.

I would feel better if there had been at least as many KG with Aerys (and Elia & Aegon & Rhaenys) as were at the toj.

Even if Rhaegar and Lyanna are lawfully married (without setting aside Elia?) and Jon, R's heir is at the toj, it doesn't smell right.

They had no way to know Jon would survive childbirth and Viserys is sitting out there next in line totally unguarded. How do the vows cover that? If the vows are so important, you'd cover them both. And from everything I've read, while Robert was a big part of the reason for the secrecy and remote location, R was not comfortable with leaving Lyanna and the hypothetical baby in KL (where they would have been easier to protect) because of Aerys' suspicion of his son.

But why are the KG putting more manpower into protecting the son of the son than protecting the sitting king? I realize the KG, unlike the NW ("we don't take sides in the squabbles of the south") have taken sides in the past and appear to be doing so here again.

If we say that the KG and Hightower have concluded that King A is well and truly nuts and that they're putting their money on Prince Rhaegar, fine. But now R is dead. What they are left with is King A, Viserys who may be old enough that the KG can already see is a loose cannon, unborn Daenerys (did they have a way to know before her birth that Dany wasn't going to be a boy? And why couldn't she be queen?), and an infant ("Jon") who may or may not be nuts (and has an ever so slightly better claim than V maybe).

Then again, if you're going to put so much stock in the KG vows, they should all have been at KL with Aerys in the first place. That deviation from the vows is not explained.

If the KG vows mean anything, they are at KL not the toj. Therefore, the vow mentioned must be to Rhaegar and not the KG vow you think.

[Attitude]

If the KG vows mean anything, they are at KL not the toj. Therefore, the vow mentioned must be to Rhaegar and not the KG vow you think.

Possible, but it's easy to say: "What you say doens't make sense', but explain what your theory is then? Why were they there?

Besides, the fact that Ser Gerold said: "The Kingsguard" instead of "we" makes a big difference IMO.

[Ygrain]

Then again, if you're going to put so much stock in the KG vows, they should all have been at KL with Aerys in the first place. That deviation from the vows is not explained.

If the KG vows mean anything, they are at KL not the toj. Therefore, the vow mentioned must be to Rhaegar and not the KG vow you think.

before the Battle of the Bells:

general number of KG: 7

Rhaegar and Lyanna: 2

Aerys: 5

the first duty is fulfilled

before Rhaegar's return to KL:

general number of KG: 7

Rhaegar and Lyanna: 3

Aerys: 4

the first duty is fulfilled

before the Trident:

general number of KG: 7

Lyanna: 3

Rhaegar: 3

Aerys: 1

the first duty is fulfilled

after the Trident:

general number of KG: 4

Lyanna: 3

Aerys: 1

the first duty is fulfilled

after the Sack:

general number of KG: 3

Lyanna: 3

Viserys 0

the first duty is NOT fulfilled /beep beep KG alert/

You may argue that Jaime as a protection of the whole royal family is insufficient, but the KG at ToJ have no way of learning about the distribution of their remaining brethren.

[Attitude]

after the Sack:

general number of KG: 3

Lyanna: 3

Viserys 0

the first duty is NOT fulfilled /beep beep KG alert/

You may argue that Jaime as a protection of the whole royal family is insufficient, but the KG at ToJ have no way of learning about the distribution of their remaining brethren.

Ned tell's them how it is when he arrives. And if Jon is legit they were fulfilling their duty.

[The guy from the Vale]

Ned tell's them how it is when he arrives. And if Jon is legit they were fulfilling their duty.

When Ned tells them, they are not surprised. They don't retreat for further discussion, and decline his offer for them to retreat to Dragonstone ("The Kingsguard does not flee")

And the second part is what Ygrain is getting at - they are only fulfilling their duty, at that time, if the king is at the tower - i.e. if Jon is legitimate.

[BearQueen87]

new people!!

Welcome to the fun!

[stateofdissipation]

before the Battle of the Bells:

general number of KG: 7

Rhaegar and Lyanna: 2

Aerys: 5

the first duty is fulfilled

before Rhaegar's return to KL:

general number of KG: 7

Rhaegar and Lyanna: 3

Aerys: 4

the first duty is fulfilled

before the Trident:

general number of KG: 7

Lyanna: 3

Rhaegar: 3

Aerys: 1

the first duty is fulfilled

after the Trident:

general number of KG: 4

Lyanna: 3

Aerys: 1

the first duty is fulfilled

after the Sack:

general number of KG: 3

Lyanna: 3

Viserys 0

the first duty is NOT fulfilled /beep beep KG alert/

You may argue that Jaime as a protection of the whole royal family is insufficient, but the KG at ToJ have no way of learning about the distribution of their remaining brethren.

the KG at ToJ have no way of learning about the distribution of their remaining brethren.--Ygrain

Ok lets stick to that

before the Battle of the Bells:

general number of KG: 7

Rhaegar and Lyanna: 2

Aerys: 5

the first duty is fulfilled

before Rhaegar's return to KL:

general number of KG: 7

Rhaegar and Lyanna: 3

Aerys: 4

the first duty is fulfilled

before the Trident:

general number of KG: 7

Lyanna: 3

Rhaegar: 3

Aerys: 1

the first duty is fulfilled

after the Trident:

general number of KG: 4

Lyanna: 3

Aerys: 1

the first duty is fulfilled

after the Sack:

general number of KG: 3

Lyanna: 3

Viserys 0

the first duty is NOT fulfilled /beep beep KG alert/

[Attitude]

When Ned tells them, they are not surprised. They don't retreat for further discussion, and decline his offer for them to retreat to Dragonstone ("The Kingsguard does not flee")

And the second part is what Ygrain is getting at - they are only fulfilling their duty, at that time, if the king is at the tower - i.e. if Jon is legitimate.

Agreed, since they state that they don't flee they are actually telling Ned & co: We are here fulfulling our duty. However, I don't see why they think Ned & co would harm King Jon?

(but I keep my statement of not being 100% sure, since he who writes, decides.)

new people!!

Welcome to the fun!

Assuming you are talking to me, thanks. I really enjoy reading your posts and your profile pic is of course awesome. (I really like Jorah)

[Ygrain]

Agreed, since they state that they don't flee they are actually telling Ned & co: We are here fulfulling our duty. However, I don't see why they think Ned & co would harm King Jon?

(but I keep my statement of not being 100% sure, since he who writes, decides.)

He wouldn't, but Robert and the Lannisters are an entirely different kettle of fish - and honour dictates that Ned tells his new king.

[BearQueen87]

Agreed, since they state that they don't flee they are actually telling Ned & co: We are here fulfulling our duty. However, I don't see why they think Ned & co would harm King Jon?

(but I keep my statement of not being 100% sure, since he who writes, decides.)

Well remember: Ned was the second in command to this new "Usurper" and even if Ned has suspicions about what was inside that tower, I don't know how the KG convince him. Their duty is to protect their king. They can't take the risk that Ned won't decide to take matters into his own hands. And even if he believes the KG and decides to protect the secret, that's still a huge risk. The KG HAVE to protect Jon, even if that means hurting his family.

[stateofdissipation]

Maybe it's just me but I find the "KG was at the toj, therefore the legit heir had to be there too" argument to be highly squishy.

I would feel better if there had been only one KG at the toj.

I would feel better if at least one of them was with Viserys.

I would feel better if there had been at least as many KG with Aerys (and Elia & Aegon & Rhaenys) as were at the toj.

Even if Rhaegar and Lyanna are lawfully married (without setting aside Elia?) and Jon, R's heir is at the toj, it doesn't smell right.

They had no way to know Jon would survive childbirth and Viserys is sitting out there next in line totally unguarded. How do the vows cover that? If the vows are so important, you'd cover them both. And from everything I've read, while Robert was a big part of the reason for the secrecy and remote location, R was not comfortable with leaving Lyanna and the hypothetical baby in KL (where they would have been easier to protect) because of Aerys' suspicion of his son.

But why are the KG putting more manpower into protecting the son of the son than protecting the sitting king? I realize the KG, unlike the NW ("we don't take sides in the squabbles of the south") have taken sides in the past and appear to be doing so here again.

If we say that the KG and Hightower have concluded that King A is well and truly nuts and that they're putting their money on Prince Rhaegar, fine. But now R is dead. What they are left with is King A, Viserys who may be old enough that the KG can already see is a loose cannon, unborn Daenerys (did they have a way to know before her birth that Dany wasn't going to be a boy? And why couldn't she be queen?), and an infant ("Jon") who may or may not be nuts (and has an ever so slightly better claim than V maybe).

Then again, if you're going to put so much stock in the KG vows, they should all have been at KL with Aerys in the first place. That deviation from the vows is not explained.

If the KG vows mean anything, they are at KL not the toj. Therefore, the vow mentioned must be to Rhaegar and not the KG vow you think.

The KG mean king present hypothesis requires

---All news to reach the ToJ together

---Child born before the news arrives

There is no reason or evidence to support either.--outside the hopothesis.

[honeyed chicken]

before the Battle of the Bells:

general number of KG: 7

Rhaegar and Lyanna: 2

Aerys: 5

the first duty is fulfilled

before Rhaegar's return to KL:

general number of KG: 7

Rhaegar and Lyanna: 3

Aerys: 4

the first duty is fulfilled

before the Trident:

general number of KG: 7

Lyanna: 3

Rhaegar: 3

Aerys: 1

the first duty is fulfilled

after the Trident:

general number of KG: 4

Lyanna: 3

Aerys: 1

the first duty is fulfilled

after the Sack:

general number of KG: 3

Lyanna: 3

Viserys 0

the first duty is NOT fulfilled /beep beep KG alert/

You may argue that Jaime as a protection of the whole royal family is insufficient, but the KG at ToJ have no way of learning about the distribution of their remaining brethren.

Very nice!

Your work needs to be saved (or did you copy it from somewhere?). I will bookmark it.

There were three KG with R @ the Trident?? I could only think of BS.

You also don't mention Aegon who would be next in line after Rhaegar and before a hypothetical second brother (i.e. Jon).

You lay it out so nicely, but stated in raw numbers like that it looks even more out of kilter.

True, Aegon and Aerys are in KL with all the gold cloaks around them bolstering Jamie's presence. Still 3 KG at a remote tower far away from the action??? Not only is the location safe from Robert in its remoteness, it's close to Starfall, the Dayne stronghold and on the edge of Dorne - Targaryen friends. So why the need for 3? And who did the order come from? Certainly not Aerys? He knew about Lyanna having had Brandon Stark and friends put in the dungeons of KL for trying to kill R for L's abduction, but did he know about Jon? Would he agree with trying to protect him when he already suspected Rhaegar?

Clearly, Rhaegar was afraid of something wrt Lyanna, but what? He was just worried for the safety of the hypothetical child? Or was he worried Lyanna would escape and return to the north because they were not married? Maybe he had actually kidnapped her, and was holding her hostage for some reason?

Even if Jon is who we think he is, 3 KG at the toj at the cost of Aerys' and Aegon's* lives doesn't add up.

*oth, if there had been another KG with Jamie, he would not have become the Kingslayer, he would have become toast along with the rest of KL. Aerys would be remembered as the monster king. Nobody would ever entertain the idea of a Targaryen monarchy again. And ASOIAF would be a very different story . . .

[The guy from the Vale]

The rebels had killed Jon's half-siblings just weeks earlier. Ned is the second in command on the side of the rebels, honor-bound by his oath of fealty to disclose Jon's existence to Robert and hand him over if Robert ordered him to do so. Both sides value the other as honorable, and that is precisely why a fight is unavoidable. Even Lyanna didn't know what Ned would do, and had him promise to her he would keep her child safe.

On top of that, there's the issue that Jon's best protection, at this point, is secrecy - even if Ned would let them leave with their king, the knowledge of his existence would put him in harm's way as long as he's in Westeros. And while they might possibly get Ned to keep his mouth shut, his companions would have incentive to rat out Jon to Robert for a hefty reward...