R+L=J v.104

[sj4iy]

Alternatively,

A vow means to Ned: We vowed to Rhaegar that we would not let the rebels get their hands on his son, no matter what.

The text doesn't make either reading definitive, though frankly that infamous SSM is a point for the latter. It was shown in v103 that the KG have a specific ritual to allow them to get on with other duties away from the king so long as they have determined that the King is in safe hands such as the brother of one of the KG, so the line about Darry would allow (and even hint at) this reading even if Jon wasn't the king and Viserys was.

In short, "a vow" doesn't necessarily mean Kingsguard vows. Yes, it looks like a reference to the Kingsguard vows in that context, but remember that there's a major theme in the ToJ sequence of secret vows: what is it that Ned promised?

I think the key is that they 'swore a vow'. Ned said that he 'made a promise'. I think they mean two totally different things. The only 'vow' the KG would swear would be to the King, otherwise they might conflict with their original vows.

[Kingmonkey]

I think the key is that they 'swore a vow'. Ned said that he 'made a promise'. I think they mean two totally different things. The only 'vow' the KG would swear would be to the King, otherwise they might conflict with their original vows.

Look at the quote at the bottom of my post again. What vows did Ned take? He's not a KG. He's specifically thinking of his promises to Lyanna as vows.

[MtnLion]

Alternatively,

A vow means to Ned: We vowed to Rhaegar that we would not let the rebels get their hands on his son, no matter what.

Show me where Ned thinks that, or are you just expressing your wishful thinking, once again?

[BearQueen87]

Look at the quote at the bottom of my post again. What vows did Ned take? He's not a KG. He's specifically thinking of his promises to Lyanna as vows.

Ah, but is the vow and promise not the same: to defend Jon? The reasons might be different, but isn't it fundamentally the same vow/promise/thing sworn?

KG: we swore a vow to defend the King (Jon)

Ned: I made a promise to protect Lyanna's son (Jon)

[stateofdissipation]

Do you have an issue with Joffrey becoming The King when Robert died? Did Barristan say he needed to take a new oath to Joffrey or be with Joffrey because he was the king?

I have an issue with ignoring the part of Ned's understanding of the kinsguard that does not fit with your conclusion.

The kingsguard at the tower of joy were sworn to protect king Aerys.... they did not...

If you would like to throw in succession then do so...

The kingsguard at the tower of joy were sworn to protect king Aegon.... they did not..

At this point we have a textual comparison for the effectiveness of kingsguard at the tower of joy protecting the king

Jamie turned to Meryn Trant. "Ser you have been remiss in teaching our new brothers their duties."

"What duties," said Meryn Trant defensively.

"Keeping the king alive. How many monarchs have you lost since I left the city? Two, is it!" aSoS BG page 274

Did Barristan say he needed to take a new oath to Joffrey or be with Joffrey because he was the king?

Did Barriston stay with Tommen rather than Robert or Joffrey?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

It's not a case this thread has been loosing the regular contribution of 'beautiful minds' such as Lady Gwyn, Alia, Apple Martini, J. Stargaryen, theguyfromtheVale, Fire Eater and Ygrain.

The times they are a-changing. Sean Benn and GRRM let the cat out of the sack. And the thread(s) are running much too fast.

Often its when old king dies, however in some kingdoms a coronation has to first take place.

Quite a few countries (eta: Germany, Poland, Hungary, Rome-Italy) had for longish times elected their kings. There, sons sometimes followed their fathers, but it was no default, and most of the time they did not. The new king was king the moment he was elected. It was still important to achieve a higher level of legal sound-proof-ness once the king was also crowned and sat in oficial garments on the throne holding artifacts of his power, for everyone to behold. So if you could not rely on the news or the messengers, you could go see the king for yourself to settle all arguments. That was the intention the ceremony was done for.

Not in Westeros. Still, when uncertainty rules (Rhaegar's second son before Aerys' second son?) coronation and Viserys sitting the iron throne should have done the trick to make Viserys king instead of Rhaegar's-second son. Only in that chair Robert sat.

[mambru]

No. They are sworn to obey the KING. If the KING ordered them to obey the orders of Rhaegar, they are obeying the KING, not Rhaegar.

And? This isn't about 'common knowledge', this is about Ned's knowledge.

So you think Ned is the ONLY opinion that matters? So do you think the rest of Westeros believes that the Great Arthur Dayne had his thumb up his ass all through the war, doing stuff a KG is not supposed to be doing, while his king falls, and Viserys (the Targaryen heir as far as anyone know) flees KGless to Dragonstone? If so, why does everyone - everyone - speak of Dayne as the perfect KG - including those who weren't at the Tower of Joy? Why do Jaime and Barristan and everybody speak of him with such reverence, instead of looking down at him as the man who left Aerys abandoned and died guarding Rhaegar's slampiece when that wasn't his Kingsguard duty?

IMO, the simplest explanation is that everyone recognizes that it IS part of KG duty to guard Rhaegar's prisoner if Rhaegar's orders were to do so - and even to die obeying Rhaegar's orders. Therefore Arthur's life ended appropriately for a KG - giving his life to obey his last orders.

If you disagree, please explain to me why YOU think Arthur has such a positive reputation everywhere in Westeros, even though he didn't fight for Aerys, didn't go to Viserys, and you think he died protecting a baby king no one knows about - and therefore you think everyone should believe he died NOT obeying his KG duties.

[mambru]

MtnLion, I admire your fortitude :bowdown:

Were it not for you, I would have lost track of the endless (circular) discussion. Now, if only your brilliant conciseness had more emulators...

It's not a case this thread has been loosing the regular contribution of 'beautiful minds' such as Lady Gwyn, Alia, Apple Martini, J. Stargaryen, theguyfromtheVale, Fire Eater and Ygrain. Thank the gods (the old and the new), we still have Radio Westeros LOL

Good Lord, you sound like you're wringing your hands over Holy Rome falling to the barbarians. It's just a debate. Why is it wrong if a debate has an actual pro AND con side? Loftily holding above the fray does nothing to make one's opinions more plausible.

On that note, I'd like to propose that this be included in the User's Guide to the next thread:

Many have said that because Protecting The King is the First Duty, that means it's the primary Duty - and that the KG are allowed to break their Vow to Obey to keep that vow...and that the KG would HAVE to disobey Rhaegar's orders if they thought Viserys was the King, because it's supposedly the law that A King Cannot Be Left Without a KG.

But the books don't say that A King Cannot Be Left Without a KG. The books say the opposite: that a King CAN be left without a KG if he's with someone trustworthy...and the books don't set time limits on this arrangement or limits on what other circumstances might allow it.

Also, First Duty does not necessarily mean Prime duty, which supercedes all others. We have seen KG choose to Obey over Protect several times in the books, and be condoned for such behavior. We have never seen - not once - a KG Disobey commands so he could Protect the King, and be condoned for that behavior.

Therefore, it cannot be assumed as fact that the only reason the KG could possibly have been at the ToJ was to guard Baby King Jon. It is also possible that they were there to guard Lyanna at Rhaegar's orders - therefore it's possible they could be guarding Lyanna the wife and mother of Rhaegar's legitimate child, Lyanna the mother of Rhaegar's bastard, or Lyana with no child at all (though I agree that's unlikely)

Anyone want to add or edit?

[Kingmonkey]

Show me where Ned thinks that, or are you just expressing your wishful thinking, once again?

Huh? Wishful thinking about what, are you mixing me up with someone else? Please, let's try to avoid the ad hominem.

We're talking about interpreting Ned's dream, and what meanings Ned's subconscious is going to make of those words. Because we're not Ned, we don't know for sure. We are not told in the text what Ned understood by that line, we can only interpret and speculate. You put forwards one interpretation, I put forwards an alternative. Neither mine nor yours is explicit in the text.

[Kingmonkey]

Also, First Duty does not necessarily mean Prime duty, which supercedes all others. We have seen KG choose to Obey over Protect several times in the books, and be condoned for such behavior. We have never seen - not once - a KG Disobey commands so he could Protect the King, and becondoned for that behavior.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you could also say "We have never seen - not once - a KG disobey commands so he could protect the King and be condemned for that behaviour" too. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The first part of this paragraph is reasonable; the second may be technically correct, but it's veering dangerously close to an argument from ignorance.

[stateofdissipation]

Your only objection is to Ned remembering his companions as wraiths or shadows of mist, which equates to the fading of Ned's memory of their features over the fifteen years. It is called symbolism. Lawyers can't write literature, it is known.

ETA: It seems that you did not realize that all of those were quotes. :P

My objection is to an inaccurate and misleading use of quotes

The dream contains some historical information and some fantastic elements....In GRRM's words..(a comment about this dream) Our dreams are not always literal.--GRRM

http://www.westeros....he_Tower_of_Joy

Citing the dream as an source for literal information is not symbolism... it is a misrepresentation.

Using a quote that seems to confirm the dream is a literal account of the events while ignoring the quote that seems to confirm the dream is not literal... is misleading

Defense of the tactic is dishonest... and ignoring the author's statements on the subject (after citing it) is nonsensical...

I have no interest in discounting the dream or its accuracy. I have no interest in confirming the dream or its accuracy beyond what is in the text and SSMs.

I oppose inaccuracy and dishonesty.... If one chose to use the wraiths on horses of mist and knights in white cloaks with burning faces as proof that the events of the dream never happened, I would oppose that as well.

I was quite aware of the quotes used. However the quotes used did not support the poster's assertions.

[sj4iy]

So you think Ned is the ONLY opinion that matters? So do you think the rest of Westeros believes that the Great Arthur Dayne had his thumb up his ass all through the war, doing stuff a KG is not supposed to be doing, while his king falls, and Viserys (the Targaryen heir as far as anyone know) flees KGless to Dragonstone? If so, why does everyone - everyone - speak of Dayne as the perfect KG - including those who weren't at the Tower of Joy? Why do Jaime and Barristan and everybody speak of him with such reverence, instead of looking down at him as the man who left Aerys abandoned and died guarding Rhaegar's slampiece when that wasn't his Kingsguard duty?

I think Ned is the only character so far who was at the ToJ and can give us the information concerning Dayne's death, so yes, his opinion matter. Both Barristan and Jaime back up Ned's assertion about Dayne's honor, but neither of them can deny or confirm the details of Dayne's death like Ned can.

IMO, the simplest explanation is that everyone recognizes that it IS part of KG duty to guard Rhaegar's prisoner if Rhaegar's orders were to do so - and even to die obeying Rhaegar's orders. Therefore Arthur's life ended appropriately for a KG - giving his life to obey his last orders.

And I don't find it simple at all. It makes no sense to me that they would die guarding the mistress of the dead crown prince and his bastard while their king has just fled the country. It always sounded fishy to me that they would die obeying Rhaegar's orders when their king needed them the most, especially when they could guard the tower AND send someone to their king across the sea. Instead, all three died guarding a tower in the middle of nowhere while their king had to flee Dragonstone and set up in Essos. The one theory that explains why the KG are there, why they refuse to go to Viserys and why Ned thinks of them as the best of the best is that Lyanna and Rhaegar married and Jon was the legitimate heir to the throne. That would explain everything in a way that Jon being a bastard does not. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows...but to me, one makes no sense and the other makes perfect sense.

If you disagree, please explain to me why YOU think Arthur has such a positive reputation everywhere in Westeros, even though he didn't fight for Aerys, didn't go to Viserys, and you think he died protecting a baby king no one knows about - and therefore you think everyone should believe he died NOT obeying his KG duties.

No one knows the details of Arthur Dayne's death other than what Ned told them. For all anyone else knows, they simply died refusing to bow down to Robert. That's a pretty easy and believable explanation that would be accepted without question- especially coming from the honorable Ned Stark himself.

[sj4iy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you could also say "We have never seen - not once - a KG disobey commands so he could protect the King and be condemned for that behaviour" too. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The first part of this paragraph is reasonable; the second may be technically correct, but it's veering dangerously close to an argument from ignorance.

And when has any KG in the story been put the in the position of having to choose obeying an order over protecting their king?

If the King ordered a KG to kill him, what would they do?

[Lord Varys]

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the Kingsguard was obligated to search out a new king if a previous king (or prince) has given them another task.

Aegon II spent about a year in hiding on Dragonstone, without any KG protection whatsoever, if I'm not mistaken.

My take on the ToJ dream would be only to take at face value what is confirmed by other non-dream sequences. Say, for instance, who was there. I really don't see a any reason to assume that this also extends to content of the conversation Ned has with the knights in the dream.

If GRRM wanted to tell us through Ned what actually happened in detail, he would have allowed us to access Ned's actual waking memory, not his dreams...

[BearQueen87]

If GRRM wanted to tell us through Ned what actually happened in detail, he would have allowed us to access Ned's actual waking memory, not his dreams...

And ruin the #1 mystery of the series? Not likely. It's a mystery, GRRM wants us to piece together clues--not only for RLJ but for all the things--TPTWP, AAR, the nature of magic, The Others.

[sj4iy]

There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the Kingsguard was obligated to search out a new king if a previous king (or prince) has given them another task.

How is that not directly breaking their vow to protect him?

Aegon II spent about a year in hiding on Dragonstone, without any KG protection whatsoever, if I'm not mistaken.

The key word is 'hiding'. He was disguised. There is nothing about the KG not attempting to find him. Hightower, Dayne and Whent knew EXACTLY where Viserys was, yet made no attempt to go to him.

My take on the ToJ dream would be only to take at face value what is confirmed by other non-dream sequences. Say, for instance, who was there. I really don't see a any reason to assume that this also extends to content of the conversation Ned has with the knights in the dream.

I take it at face-value, as well.

If GRRM wanted to tell us through Ned what actually happened in detail, he would have allowed us to access Ned's actual waking memory, not his dreams...

Then he would have given away Jon's lineage immediately.

[stateofdissipation]

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

MtnLion's extended argument provides an answer to this question.... It is very different from the answer GRRM gave.

Is there a valid reason to accept MtnLion's answer over GRRM's answer?

Is there a valid reason to accept that MtnLion's argument is anything other than an answer to Shaw's question?

Without a valid reason on either of those two questions... there is no purpose in reviewing the subject any further.

[Lord Varys]

Yeah, of course, that was why he chose this way. But there may not only be true clues in there, there may also be some wrong hints or red herrings, too.

The dream may be some sort of 'double-bladed' clue...

And Jon's heritage was been pretty much confirmed in ADwD. Ashara is out of the race, and she was the only true 'rival mother' anyway. That is not a really big mystery in the series. There are lots of much more interesting (and convoluted) puzzles.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Is there a valid reason to accept MtnLion's answer over GRRM's answer?

Yes! You are misunderstanding George and his answer both.

George writes literature and he does so resourcefully and cunningly and craftily... ask him what the hidden gems in there are and he'll either answer "keep reading" or "no comment".

The book states a fever dream. When asked. George says, well, keep in mind it was a fever dream. He could have said "keep reading".

None of that furthers your argument.

If the dream did not contain a message, it would not have been in the book.

[BearQueen87]

Yeah, of course, that was why he chose this way. But there may not only be true clues in there, there may also be some wrong hints or red herrings, too.

The dream may be some sort of 'double-bladed' clue...

If the dream wasn't described as "old," that they had been in the dream "as they were in life," and that, when he wake up, the dream makes sense to NED, I'd be more inclined to agree. But...as it stands....

I admit that all this is interpretation and it could be that we're 100% wrong but when you take the TOJ and you add in other "king/prince in hiding" clues, all working together, it makes sense.

What we need...is bloody Winds