R+L=J v.104

[mambru]

No, Arthur was a shining example of honor and skill to the world!

ETA: Paraphrased quote, but this is what Ned tells Bran about the man who was the best of the Kingsguard.

It's funny, though, when you say that. Because when Ned actually praises Arthur specifically to Bran, what he says, essentially, is: "Sure, Arthur Dayne was the greatest knight! He almost killed me!"

Which is basically praising his martial skill, not his wonderful chivalry, kindness to the weak...that is, non-martial qualities, which includes complex situations that may not involve swordplay.

Ned's not a complex man. He sees what he expects to see. And IMO, what he saw at his last glimpse of Arthur was Arthur at his finest martial moment...fighting with 3 men against 7 battle-hardened veterans, and almost winning. That shows supreme skill, AND supreme courage - which is a part of the honorable attributes of the KG. Because he sees those qualities most desirable to an ideal KG in Arthur, he assumes that Arthur has ALL the attributes of honor besides courage that an ideal knight should possess. And that may not be so.

Compare Ned's view of Jaime. Through Ned's eyes, we see a rookie pisher who undoubtedly lacks the martial skill of Dayne, and at his young age, even some of the other KG. Nor does he deploy any of the skill he does possess to defend his king. He kills his sworn king and relaxes on the throne until Ned comes in. Ned sees a blackguard who lacks courage - who attacked his king, and waited to do it till there was no danger to himself in doing it, so in Ned's eyes he can't plead to breaking his vow and striking down Aerys to avoid the greater evil Aerys might do. So he immediately condemns Jaime in his mind as the Absolute Opposite of Dayne's shining ideal - and there in Ned's mind he stays till the end.

We KNOW Ned was wrong in a great deal about young Jaime...we know that the situation was more complicated and less absolutely Evol than Ned understands it. IMO, it's likely that Ned may have underestimated Dayne's dark side as well - perhaps in equal proportion.

[BearQueen87]

Well, I didn't say they always END UP as king, I just said that the laws of succession are crystal clear in that case.

Oh yes, I agree with you. I thew in the Targ bit to ward off any criticisms ahead of time.

[stateofdissipation]

Something his father had told him once when he was little came back to him suddenly. He had asked if the kingsguard were truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms. "No longer," he answered,"but once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world."

"Was there one who was best of all?"

"The 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." Father had gotten sad then , and he would say no more.

It is not just Arthur, it is the seven (and Jaime is not counted in Ned's assessment) Kingsguard were a shining example to the world, but Arthur was the best of the seven. Ned tells Robert how he feels about Jaime and the value of his oaths.

Ned is referring to the kingsguard, an institution that had a 300 year old history. To insist that Ned was referring exclusively to the kingsguard under Aerys that had not only failed to protect the king but had killed the king remains baseless. To insist that Ned was referring to three kingsguard at a tower in the red mountains of Dorne. requires a king present at the tower.

Unless there was a king in the tower in the red mountains of Dorne, the three kingsguard outside it were not shining lessons or a marvel. Inserting a king here or inserting a king at the showdown... are the same thing. One can't be seen as supporting the other because both rely on the same invention.

Yes one can come to the same conclusion by adding the same information to two different examples... That does not validate the information added.

[Lord Varys]

Tell that Aerion's infant son, Rhaenys Targaryen, or Laenor Velaryon. Not to mention Aegon II, who was passed over by his own father.

The laws of succession are wax in the hands of the powerful. And Great Councils have twice dismissed the claims of children and infants.

I did not say Aerys has disinherited anyone, I said that - assuming only Rhaegar died during the war, and Aerys II had won in the end (say, because Tywin had joined Aerys, and had crushed Robert with the help of the Tyrells) - he would most likely have disinherited all of Rhaegar's children in favor of Viserys.

He could have done that.

And as things turned out, Lyanna's child could only have become king if the remaining Targaryens - Rhaella and Viserys - would have recognized and accepted him.

A royal child which has not been recognized by anyone in the royal family would have had no chance whatsoever to claim the throne. Aegon VI can claim the throne because everyone knows that such a prince existed, but the idea that a hidden prince shows suddenly up claiming that he is another son of the dead Crown Prince from a wife who is also dead, the chances are zero that this prince would be accepted. Especially not if the child is an infant, and the second marriage of that prince the very cause of civil war which tore the Realm apart. No one would have wanted or liked the living embodiment of Rhaegar's love for Lyanna.

[sj4iy]

It's funny, though, when you say that. Because when Ned actually praises Arthur specifically to Bran, what he says, essentially, is: "Sure, Arthur Dayne was the greatest knight! He almost killed me!"

Which is basically praising his martial skill, not his wonderful chivalry, kindness to the weak...that is, non-martial qualities, which includes complex situations that may not involve swordplay.

Ned's not a complex man. He sees what he expects to see. And IMO, what he saw at his last glimpse of Arthur was Arthur at his finest martial moment...fighting with 3 men against 7 battle-hardened veterans, and almost winning. That shows supreme skill, AND supreme courage - which is a part of the honorable attributes of the KG. Because he sees those qualities most desirable to an ideal KG in Arthur, he assumes that Arthur has ALL the attributes of honor besides courage that an ideal knight should possess. And that may not be so.

Compare Ned's view of Jaime. Through Ned's eyes, we see a rookie pisher who undoubtedly lacks the martial skill of Dayne, and at his young age, even some of the other KG. Nor does he deploy any of the skill he does possess to defend his king. He kills his sworn king and relaxes on the throne until Ned comes in. Ned sees a blackguard who lacks courage - who attacked his king, and waited to do it till there was no danger to himself in doing it, so in Ned's eyes he can't plead to breaking his vow and striking down Aerys to avoid the greater evil Aerys might do. So he immediately condemns Jaime in his mind as the Absolute Opposite of Dayne's shining ideal - and there in Ned's mind he stays till the end.

We KNOW Ned was wrong in a great deal about young Jaime...we know that the situation was more complicated and less absolutely Evol than Ned understands it. IMO, it's likely that Ned may have underestimated Dayne's dark side as well - perhaps in equal proportion.

I don't think he's necessarily wrong about Jaime. Jaime is not a good KG. A KG has to be willing to obey, no matter what. Jaime couldn't do that. Jaime did the right thing killing Aerys and saving King's Landing, but in doing so, he broke every oath he ever took. And he should have paid for doing so by being stripped of his position and being sent to the Wall. He definitely did not deserve to keep the position of KG if he was not willing to uphold his oaths no matter what. That's why Ned holds up Arthur Dayne- not just because he was a good fighter, but because Ned believes that Dayne was loyal to the end.

[BearQueen87]

Tell that Aerion's infant son, Rhaenys Targaryen, or Laenor Velaryon. Not to mention Aegon II, who was passed over by his own father.

The laws of succession are wax in the hands of the powerful. And Great Councils have twice dismissed the claims of children and infants.

Yeah, see that's why I threw in that last Targ bit. I knew there were examples but it's not the normal way.

I did not say Aerys has disinherited anyone, I said that - assuming only Rhaegar died during the war, and Aerys II had won in the end (say, because Tywin had joined Aerys, and had crushed Robert with the help of the Tyrells) - he would most likely have disinherited all of Rhaegar's children in favor of Viserys.

Why though? If Aerys II is still alive and so is Aegon then Aerys remains king and can raise Aegon to be his heir.

ETA: and let's say you're right and Aerys might have done that. The 3KG at the ToJ would not have known that had happened (disinherited Rhaegar's kids) meaning they still at least think that Jon is king.

[MtnLion]

And as things turned out, Lyanna's child could only have become king if the remaining Targaryens - Rhaella and Viserys - would have recognized and accepted him.

That is not a decision that the three at the tower can make, they must defend him if he is legitimate, or go to Viserys if he is not. THey can split their forces, too, and Lord Commander Hightower decides against it.

[sj4iy]

Tell that Aerion's infant son, Rhaenys Targaryen, or Laenor Velaryon. Not to mention Aegon II, who was passed over by his own father.

The laws of succession are wax in the hands of the powerful. And Great Councils have twice dismissed the claims of children and infants.

I did not say Aerys has disinherited anyone, I said that - assuming only Rhaegar died during the war, and Aerys II had won in the end (say, because Tywin had joined Aerys, and had crushed Robert with the help of the Tyrells) - he would most likely have disinherited all of Rhaegar's children in favor of Viserys.

He could have done that.

And as things turned out, Lyanna's child could only have become king if the remaining Targaryens - Rhaella and Viserys - would have recognized and accepted him.

A royal child which has not been recognized by anyone in the royal family would have had no chance whatsoever to claim the throne. Aegon VI can claim the throne because everyone knows that such a prince existed, but the idea that a hidden prince shows suddenly up claiming that he is another son of the dead Crown Prince from a wife who is also dead, the chances are zero that this prince would be accepted. Especially not if the child is an infant, and the second marriage of that prince the very cause of civil war which tore the Realm apart. No one would have wanted or liked the living embodiment of Rhaegar's love for Lyanna.

So tell me, where does it say Rhaegar was disinherited? Where does it say that Aerys named Viserys heir? Where does it say that Rhaegar named Viserys heir?

You're trying to add conditions into this that have no basis. Without some sort of stated exception to the rule, Jon is heir if he is Rhaegar's legitimate son by all known laws of Westeros. It's really as simple as that, and the KG would not make it complicated.

[BearQueen87]

That is not a decision that the three at the tower can make, they must defend him if he is legitimate, or go to Viserys if he is not. THey can split their forces, too, and Lord Commander Hightower decides against it.

Yes, this is something that I feel gets overlooked quite often. If there was really a question of whom to protect, one of the KG (just one!) would have hightailed it to Dragonstone.

[mambru]

Big fucking, if. If my aunt had had balls she would have been my uncle. We know that after the tourney Ned and Lyanna are at Winterfell, and that winter has returned. It is after the winter that Catelyn's and Brandon's wedding date is set, and Littlefinger challenges. That would be about the time that Ned returns to the Eyrie, too. Lyanna and Rhaegar are many miles apart, and Lyanna is with her family, and IF Rhaegar and Lyanna had anything to do with each other AFTER the tourney her family would know about it.

Tsk, language. So you think that after Rhaegar gave her the wreath, there was NO agreement between them to have a relationship at all, and that Lyanna went home resolved to marry Robert and think no more about it until a year later, after she's heard about the joyous birth of the heir, Rhaegar pops out from behind a tree and says, "Hi, remember me? The wreath guy? My wife's uterus just prolapsed and I love you. We must run off and leave your betrothed and your family and my family without a word, so we can engender a Savior together," and Lyanna immediately thinks this a good idea.

From a psychological point of view, I think that's just not likely. There HAD to have been more groundwork laid for such a huge decision. And "as for IF Rhaegar and Lyanna had anything to do with each other AFTER the tourney her family would know about it," that would only be true if they corresponded through raven mail - which is impractical, because you can't write a proper love letter on those tiny little bits of paper.

If you read any of the medieval-type romances regarding the pursuit of illicit romantic love, secret letters are usually passed through trusted couriers or servants between the lovers, often under the noses of respected family members. Can't see why it couldn't possibly have happened here - Lysa used a similar trick for getting a message to Catelyn, after all.

[Alia of the knife]

It's funny, though, when you say that. Because when Ned actually praises Arthur specifically to Bran, what he says, essentially, is: "Sure, Arthur Dayne was the greatest knight! He almost killed me!"

Which is basically praising his martial skill, not his wonderful chivalry, kindness to the weak...that is, non-martial qualities, which includes complex situations that may not involve swordplay.

Ned's not a complex man. He sees what he expects to see. And IMO, what he saw at his last glimpse of Arthur was Arthur at his finest martial moment...fighting with 3 men against 7 battle-hardened veterans, and almost winning. That shows supreme skill, AND supreme courage - which is a part of the honorable attributes of the KG. Because he sees those qualities most desirable to an ideal KG in Arthur, he assumes that Arthur has ALL the attributes of honor besides courage that an ideal knight should possess. And that may not be so.

Compare Ned's view of Jaime. Through Ned's eyes, we see a rookie pisher who undoubtedly lacks the martial skill of Dayne, and at his young age, even some of the other KG. Nor does he deploy any of the skill he does possess to defend his king. He kills his sworn king and relaxes on the throne until Ned comes in. Ned sees a blackguard who lacks courage - who attacked his king, and waited to do it till there was no danger to himself in doing it, so in Ned's eyes he can't plead to breaking his vow and striking down Aerys to avoid the greater evil Aerys might do. So he immediately condemns Jaime in his mind as the Absolute Opposite of Dayne's shining ideal - and there in Ned's mind he stays till the end.

We KNOW Ned was wrong in a great deal about young Jaime...we know that the situation was more complicated and less absolutely Evol than Ned understands it. IMO, it's likely that Ned may have underestimated Dayne's dark side as well - perhaps in equal proportion.

And I love Ned, but his loving Robert for still "loving" and remembering Lyanna, as well as killing Lady to appease Cersei has always baffled me. :shocked:

[sj4iy]

Yes, this is something that I feel gets overlooked quite often. If there was really a question of whom to protect, one of the KG (just one!) would have hightailed it to Dragonstone.

That's how I feel, too. They had the ability to guard the tower AND guard Viserys, and they decided against it.

[Anath]

Yes, this is something that I feel gets overlooked quite often. If there was really a question of whom to protect, one of the KG (just one!) would have hightailed it to Dragonstone.

And if there wasn't? If, with Viserys still not their official king, they decided that Rhaegar's last order - and no Rhaegar or Aerys to reverse it - had to take precedence? GRRM's formulated his reply it in a way that strongly hints the KG staying at the ToJ is linked to Rhaegar and not the rules of succession. It makes sense that in a period of a brief lack of officia king they'd cling to their order. In this case, none of them could have gone to Dragonstone because Rhaegar ordered all of them to stay at the ToJ.

[Lord Varys]

The three Kingsguard at the tower clearly had been given the order to protect it at all costs. Rhaegar most certainly gave them such an order, and the whole 'We swore an oath' thing is vague enough - if take it literally, which I don't - could be a hint to that, as well as to their belief that the child in the tower is the new king. If Rhaegar had commanded them to guard the tower, they would have done so, because they had sworn to obey - and had also reason to believe that this oath either extended to Rhaegar, or made consciously the decision to obey Rhaegar, too, not only Aerys.

But I very much doubt that the three Kingsguard had decided that the child in the tower was their new king, and had already sworn an oath to him, or set up a regency of sorts.

We don't even have confirmation yet that Lyanna's child had already been born when Ned arrived. I'd find it much more interesting, personally, if Ned's arrival and the ensuing fight caused Lyanna to go in early labor, which then led to her death. That would be much more tragic if she had been dying for days already.

By and large, the line of succession is only clear from father to eldest son - i.e. from the king to his recognized heir (the Prince of Dragonstone). It is much less secure when we are talking about the grandchildren or the great-grandchildren of the king (e.g. Rhaenys vs. Viserys, Aenys' children vs. Maegor, Maekar's surviving sons vs. Maekar's grandchildren).

I'm not sure if we can assume that the Kingsguard knew that Rhaella and Viserys were on Dragonstone. Who would have told them that? Certainly no one send a raven to the Tower during the short time between the Trident and the Sack, when Aerys sent his wife and son there, and after the Sack no one would have been able to inform them - nor does it make sense that Rhaella contacted Ser Gerold from Dragonstone.

If there is a thing that may be Ned's construct in that 'old dream' then it may be the knowledge all the people in there possessed at the time. Knowledge would have been the thing all of them lacked - if they had had it, they could have used it, to prevent the hostilities.

[BearQueen87]

And I love Ned, but his loving Robert for still "loving" and remembering Lyanna, as well as killing Lady to appease Cersei has always baffled me. :shocked:

I love Ned too and I reject any idea that he's not a complex man. I think Ned is very complex. He's not just "honorable man who does honorable things" full stop. He is honorable but he has also been keeping secrets and telling lies to his wife, his children, his best friend, his King, and the realm. He's haunted by his past and the burden of truth he carries. Ned wants to believe that Robert is still the boy he grew up with and not the man he became. He has, perhaps, some bitter feelings toward his eldest (and dead) brother. He's conflicted over the fact that he got Cat and WF when they were never meant for him. He's inexperienced in playing the Game of Thrones but he's thrust into the middle of it all and goes from doing great things (fighting the murder of children) to flailing and trusting the wrong people. He makes decisions based on honor instead of personal gain.

[BearQueen87]

The three Kingsguard at the tower clearly had been given the order to protect it at all costs. Rhaegar most certainly gave them such an order, and the whole 'We swore an oath' thing is vague enough - if take it literally, which I don't - could be a hint to that, as well as to their belief that the child in the tower is the new king. If Rhaegar had commanded them to guard the tower, they would have done so, because they had sworn to obey - and had also reason to believe that this oath either extended to Rhaegar, or made consciously the decision to obey Rhaegar, too, not only Aerys.

But I very much doubt that the three Kingsguard had decided that the child in the tower was their new king, and had already sworn an oath to him, or set up a regency of sorts.

But the 3KG never decide who the new King is. Succession and laws do. And by the common succession laws (barring any complications and mitigating circumstances) Jon, if legit, is Aerys' heir.

[MtnLion]

It's funny, though, when you say that. Because when Ned actually praises Arthur specifically to Bran, what he says, essentially, is: "Sure, Arthur Dayne was the greatest knight! He almost killed me!"

Ned says that all of the seven Kingsguard were once a shining example to the world. Not all of them were great swordsmen, but all of them would die to protect their king. Sadly, they are no longer that, he tells Bran.

[sj4iy]

And if there wasn't? If, with Viserys still not their official king, they decided that Rhaegar's last order - and no Rhaegar or Aerys to reverse it - had to take precedence? GRRM's formulated his reply it in a way that strongly hints the KG staying at the ToJ is linked to Rhaegar and not the rules of succession. It makes sense that in a period of a brief lack of officia king they'd cling to their order. In this case, none of them could have gone to Dragonstone because Rhaegar ordered all of them to stay at the ToJ.

A "king" doesn't need to be "official" for the KG to guard him. Do you think they just left Joffrey to his own devices after the death of Robert until he was 'officially' crowned? Or Tommen? Of course not. We've also seen that historically, a Lord Commander CAN crown a king- what a coincidence, the Lord Commander of the KG just happened to be there.

[MtnLion]

The three Kingsguard at the tower clearly had been given the order to protect it at all costs. Rhaegar most certainly gave them such an order, and the whole 'We swore an oath' thing is vague enough - if take it literally, which I don't - could be a hint to that, as well as to their belief that the child in the tower is the new king. If Rhaegar had commanded them to guard the tower, they would have done so, because they had sworn to obey - and had also reason to believe that this oath either extended to Rhaegar, or made consciously the decision to obey Rhaegar, too, not only Aerys.

Why do you want to change the Kingsguard vow? Because it doesn't match your argument or desires?

His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."

[sj4iy]

Why do you want to change the Kingsguard vow? Because it doesn't match your argument or desires?

Yeah, I don't see LC Hightower 'swearing' any oaths to Rhaegar.