Aeron_Damphair Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Thanks. :thumbsup:I understand all of that. It just doesn't convince me.Viserys was running away, he had to hide, far away from KL. Even if he was the king, he was way too far to make the KG abandon Lyanna to go after him. Even if they had done that, they probably wouldn't get there in time. So, what was the point?You are aware that Viserys lived another 15 or so years after this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran17 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Well, right, it's not gospel. That's true. But, do you think maybe there is a reason why people seem so sure about this conclusion? Because they want Jon to have a claim to the throne. If he's a bastard, that would not seem convincent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Thanks. :thumbsup:I understand all of that. It just doesn't convince me.Viserys was running away, he had to hide, far away from KL. Even if he was the king, he was way too far to make the KG abandon Lyanna to go after him. Even if they had done that, they probably wouldn't get there in time. So, what was the point? But they don't even try to get to Viserys on Dragonstone. Hightower could have easily fled from the ToJ and left the other two there to protect Lyanna if he wanted. The fact is, none of them even bother trying to get to Viserys. When Ned prompts them with knowledge that Viserys fled to Dragstone their response is that Darry (not a KG) can guard him just fine, even though he's not KG (in other words: Viserys does not need KG protection because he is not King). But they, the KG, are not about to leave the ToJ because they swore a vow, then and now, as Unmasked Lurker pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Because they want Jon to have a claim to the throne. If he's a bastard, that would not seem convincent. Why do they specifically want Jon to have a clam to the throne if he's not legit? Hightower isn't Cristian Cole to play Kingmaker. If Hightower honestly believed that the heir to the Targaryen dynasty is on Dragonstone (or somewhere that is not the Tower of Joy) he'd leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mambru Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Remember when I called you "obscurantist" a while back. Humor me for one moment. You are making this situation incredibly complicated, but it isn't. Indeed I do remember. Then you said that your own personal definition of that word totally differed from the actual dictionary definitions of the word, and was therefore not at all insulting. Which - okay, sure. I will, in the interest of fighting obscurantism, make this reply as simple as I can. In the case of the hypothetical order to "guard the ToJ against all comers" there are several problems. First, who did this order come from? The contention, to the best of my recollection is that Rhaegar ordered the three to stay there. If Rhaegar died at the Trident, however, he never actually was the king, as the sack didn't occur until weeks later. It may be that the ToJ 3 didn't know of Rhaegar's death until they knew of Aerys's though, but I don't think that is hugely important. To continue to follow Rhaegar's order is to forsake Aerys's heir (but of course Viserys is every bit as much Rhaegar's as Aerys's direct heir). So the orders of a dead crown prince now take precedence over the first duty to the dead king (their duty to Aerys). If you look at GRRM's quote that I mentioned: "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."" See that word, BUT? GRRM is saying that protecting the king is important 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." So according to the actual author of the books, the KG cannot refuse to Obey an order from the Crown Prince - even with the excuse of Protecting the King. Which explains perfectly why all 3 of them stayed at the Tower of Joy, where they could not communicate with the King or hear him call for them during a civil war. If they had the choice to refuse to obey an order from a mere Crown Prince in the interest of protecting the King, the Lord Commander would have refused to isolate himself and two of his men from communication from the king for WEEKS during a war. To freely decide to do Rhaegar that favor would be lousy Kingsguarding...as lousy as a babysitter who leaves the baby in the care of the eight-year-old and the eleven year old and goes off behind a locked door on another floor for a nap with the radio on, with the rationalization that if he can't hear the baby crying it must be all right. Since they agreed to stay, and they're not idiots, I can only conclude that for whatever reason they felt they had no choice but to obey - which the author concurs with. You may cry out that this idea that Obedience to the Crown Prince trumps Protection of the King is against all "common sense"...but GRRM said it. Maybe you should take it up with him. And if you contend that the death of Rhaegar must make his order null and void, freeing the KG to Disobey it, because that's rational...well, the original ORDER isn't rational to begin with. So you can't just depend on your idea being reasonable just to prove it's true. I have to ASK you for proof from the books to show that the death of the giver of orders frees the KG from Obeying those orders and allows them to abandon their given mission undone (as well as that other proofless assumption you are sure is true, that the King cannot be without a Kingsguard, and that the KG must abandon everything they have been ordered to do to run to his side if he IS without one). I've cited some evidence for the books for my own view that those rules seem unlikely and probably untrue. You've said that you would look for textual evidence that the rules you believe in actually exist - which you haven't, yet. But I said I would wait...and as I've said, I suspect I'm likely to wait a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran17 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 You are aware that Viserys lived another 15 or so years after this right?Of course I am. But I'm talking about immediate decisions and actions.Since Viserys was running away, he would not stay in Westeros long enough for the KG to meet him, even if they departed from the ToJ immediately.He had to keep moving, not waiting for the KG wherever he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Because they want Jon to have a claim to the throne. If he's a bastard, that would not seem convincent. Oh, right. It's all about our wants and desires, as opposed to applying the theory that best fits all of the available evidence. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 MtnLion, it would be a fun exercise to count how many times you posted this analysis... I love it! I have posted it about fifteen times, by guess. It has changed forms, and description slightly since its inception. I hope that this is the final version, but I am a revisionist at heart. ;) Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran17 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 But they don't even try to get to Viserys on Dragonstone. Hightower could have easily fled from the ToJ and left the other two there to protect Lyanna if he wanted. The fact is, none of them even bother trying to get to Viserys. When Ned prompts them with knowledge that Viserys fled to Dragstone their response is that Darry (not a KG) can guard him just fine, even though he's not KG (in other words: Viserys does not need KG protection because he is not King). But they, the KG, are not about to leave the ToJ because they swore a vow, then and now, as Unmasked Lurker pointed out.I agree, but even if Jon was legitimate, I think the fact that the three of them decided to stay is weird.I just can't see why none of them would try to protect the other Targaryens.I believe they had a very good reason to stay there, probably out of loyalty for their king, Rhaegar.If they took their vows so seriously, why would they be at the ToJ in the first place? I don't believe they were ordered to protect Rhaegar by Aerys(if that was indeed the case...).It seems that they were loyal to Rhaegar, not to Aerys or whoever the king was(Jon, Viserys, Dany, Aegon), IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran17 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Why do they specifically want Jon to have a clam to the throne if he's not legit? Hightower isn't Cristian Cole to play Kingmaker. If Hightower honestly believed that the heir to the Targaryen dynasty is on Dragonstone (or somewhere that is not the Tower of Joy) he'd leave. They = The readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon_Samwell_Snow Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I have posted it about fifteen times, by guess. It has changed forms, and description slightly since its inception. I hope that this is the final version, but I am a revisionist at heart. ;) Thanks.Keep on posting it when we get new people in this thread. It will help them to understand what happened at ToJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I agree, but even if Jon was legitimate, I think the fact that the three of them decided to stay is weird.I just can't see why none of them would try to protect the other Targaryens.I believe they had a very good reason to stay there, probably out of loyalty for their king, Rhaegar.If they took their vows so seriously, why would they be at the ToJ in the first place? I don't believe they were ordered to protect Rhaegar by Aerys(if that was indeed the case...).It seems that they were loyal to Rhaegar, not to Aerys or whoever the king was(Jon, Viserys, Dany, Aegon), IMO. 1) They would want to protect other Targaryen's. That I don't question. It's that not one of them went to Viserys, who is supposed to be next in line after Aegon is killed. 2) Hightower is still loyal to Aerys. When Ned mentions Aerys' death by Jamie, Hightower says that if he had been in KL Jamie, their false brother, would be in hell and Aerys would still sit the throne. Whatever might be going on with Dayne and Whent and Rhaegar, Highotwer isn't part of it. That's key. 3) At the ToJ: to guard Rhaegar. Dayne and Whent probably went with Rhaegar as his sworn shield. Hightower was SENT to find Rhaegar and never returned. Some possibilities as to why: He was never technically ordered to come back to KL so Rhaegar could give him new orders OR he was forced to stay the ToJ when Rhaegar left for KL and took Dayne and Whent with him as far as Storm's End and then on to KL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Of course I am. But I'm talking about immediate decisions and actions.Since Viserys was running away, he would not stay in Westeros long enough for the KG to meet him, even if they departed from the ToJ immediately.He had to keep moving, not waiting for the KG wherever he was.That is incorrect, Viserys was on Dragonstone long enough for Daenerys to be born. THat would be nine months, and the Kingsguard with safe passage from Ned couldn't reach him? Think it through a little further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 They = The readers. AH. Well, for me personally I figured R+L = J on my own, but it took this forum and talking to the regular posters here for me to get why they thought R and L were married and J was legit. I never put it together. MntLion's ToJ analysis did wonders. And then I talked with a lot of people on these R and L threads about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran17 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Yes, and of course you bring so much red meat to the table to cast doubt on it too. Seriously, you should try to post something productive. You're not being nice. I think I can question the theory, or else what would be the point of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 That is incorrect, Viserys was on Dragonstone long enough for Daenerys to be born. THat would be nine months, and the Kingsguard with safe passage from Ned couldn't reach him? Think it through a little further. Going off of this: when Rhaella left KL for Dragonstone she was probably only about 2ish (?) weeks pregnant. Bran: the timeline is tricky. If you're getting caught up on that, many people here know it quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mambru Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 You're not being nice. I think I can question the theory, or else what would be the point of this thread? That's kind of why I prefer the secondary threads for actually discussing the possibility of the legitimacy or not of Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Going off of this: when Rhaella left KL for Dragonstone she was probably only about 2ish (?) weeks pregnant. Bran: the timeline is tricky. If you're getting caught up on that, many people here know it quite well. I would say one week pregnant. We know that Jonothor Darry was with Jaime when Daenerys was conceived, two weeks before the sack. One week to the Trident, and a bird flight for news to reach King's Landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran17 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 That is incorrect, Viserys was on Dragonstone long enough for Daenerys to be born. THat would be nine months, and the Kingsguard with safe passage from Ned couldn't reach him? Think it through a little further. I'm confused about the timeline. :bang: If he stayed there for nine months, why didn't Robert or Tywin try to kill him before he had a chance to move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeron_Damphair Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Indeed I do remember. Then you said that your own personal definition of that word totally differed from the actual dictionary definitions of the word, and was therefore not at all insulting. Which - okay, sure. I will, in the interest of fighting obscurantism, make this reply as simple as I can. If you look at GRRM's quote that I mentioned: See that word, BUT? GRRM is saying that protecting the king is important 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." So according to the actual author of the books, the KG cannot refuse to Obey an order from the Crown Prince - even with the excuse of Protecting the King. Which explains perfectly why all 3 of them stayed at the Tower of Joy, where they could not communicate with the King or hear him call for them during a civil war. If they had the choice to refuse to obey an order from a mere Crown Prince in the interest of protecting the King, the Lord Commander would have refused to isolate himself and two of his men from communication from the king for WEEKS during a war. To freely decide to do Rhaegar that favor would be lousy Kingsguarding...as lousy as a babysitter who leaves the baby in the care of the eight-year-old and the eleven year old and goes off behind a locked door on another floor for a nap with the radio on, with the rationalization that if he can't hear the baby crying it must be all right. Since they agreed to stay, and they're not idiots, I can only conclude that for whatever reason they felt they had no choice but to obey - which the author concurs with. You may cry out that this idea that Obedience to the Crown Prince trumps Protection of the King is against all "common sense"...but GRRM said it. Maybe you should take it up with him. And if you contend that the death of Rhaegar must make his order null and void, freeing the KG to Disobey it, because that's rational...well, the original ORDER isn't rational to begin with. So you can't just depend on your idea being reasonable just to prove it's true. I have to ASK you for proof from the books to show that the death of the giver of orders frees the KG from Obeying those orders and allows them to abandon their given mission undone (as well as that other proofless assumption you are sure is true, that the King cannot be without a Kingsguard, and that the KG must abandon everything they have been ordered to do to run to his side if he IS without one). I've cited some evidence for the books for my own view that those rules seem unlikely and probably untrue. You've said that you would look for textual evidence that the rules you believe in actually exist - which you haven't, yet. But I said I would wait...and as I've said, I suspect I'm likely to wait a long time. You didn't understand my post. The default is clear. You will do everything you can to shift the burden of proof from the default to your hypothesis by introducing every possible exception. You believe you have the support of the author and the text. You make loose and tenuous connections that satisfy no one but yourself that these connections are applicable when they are not. I have referenced the text amply. You just don't accept my evidence and you take one GRRM quote: "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."' to cast aside my arguments against the exceptions as though it is a catch all that universally applies. I think it's abundantly clear that it does not. What if Rhaegar died? What if he wasn't king and now they are bound to their duty by Aerys? Why can't they follow his orders and protect Viserys by dividing their number among both locations? I do not accept that you are using this quote correctly. Your demands are not reasonable, nor is the picture you paint as solid as you believe it to be. You are willfully committed to a position that does not best fit what we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.