[TWOIAF Spoilers] R+L=J without spoiler tags v.2

[UnmaskedLurker]

I would argue that if the Kingsguard was ordered to guard Jon (who, in the theory that he's trueborn, is the heir to the throne at the point Ned shows up, even if we accept that they knew that Aerys had declared Viserys his heir), then they should not be making the judgment call to abandon their sworn duty to go run off with Viserys, unless he undoes those orders. In this theory, they were likely ordered by Rhaegar, a member of the royal family, and for whatever reason, it doesn't seem that Aerys ordered anything otherwise regarding them. It's not their call to make to abandon said member of the royal family.

That's one thing that makes me think Jon would be trueborn, because while (as far as I'm aware), the Kingsguard could be made to guard bastards or mistresses, it's shakier that they'd keep guarding a bastard while the new King is alive. Maybe they would if ordered though...I don't know the precedent there. But if Jon is trueborn, I absolutely think the Kingsguard not only could have but should have continued to do their duty and guard the member of the royal family they were ordered to guard, until Viserys (or whoever his regent is) tells them otherwise.

This also assumes that Viserys was even being considered the "King in Exile" at this point, as opposed to "the 8 year old boy is running away and abdicating the throne". I don't know the answer to that. The answer of "the Kingsguard does not flee" could suggest they weren't viewing this as the rightful king is going to be returning. We can argue over whether that's a call the Kingsguard should be making, but it's still entirely possible that was their viewpoint.

I think you are missing a few important points. There are three KG. One could go to Viserys with the others left behind if there is some doubt about who is king. But to leave 3 with Jon and 0 with Viserys if they thought Viserys was or might be king makes no sense. While one could argue that Rhaegar's orders survive his death--they don't survive changed circumstances to this extent--that would be irrational. And how could Viserys order them to guard him--if none of them go to him, he has no way to communicate orders to them. Again, if they believe Viserys to be king, at least one needs to go to him even if two stay behind. And at that point Viserys was on Dragonstone, not yet Essos. So the idea that he had abdicated and was not returning makes no sense. If the KG gather an army and win Westeros back for him, he'll come back. Otherwise, he has to live in exile. What do you think they were planning to do with Jon if they thought Jon was King? I assume go into exile until they could raise an army to take back Westeros. I probably am not convincing you, but I still maintain the statement that the KG do not flee is a nonsense statement if going to Viserys would be going to the king. It would be guarding the king and not fleeing. It is only fleeing if the KG believe that Jon and not Viserys is actually king.

[KyleLitke]

I think you are missing a few important points. There are three KG. One could go to Viserys with the others left behind if there is some doubt about who is king. But to leave 3 with Jon and 0 with Viserys if they thought Viserys was or might be king makes no sense. While one could argue that Rhaegar's orders survive his death--they don't survive changed circumstances to this extent--that would be irrational. And how could Viserys order them to guard him--if none of them go to him, he has no way to communicate orders to them. Again, if they believe Viserys to be king, at least one needs to go to him even if two stay behind. And at that point Viserys was on Dragonstone, not yet Essos. So the idea that he had abdicated and was not returning makes no sense. If the KG gather an army and win Westeros back for him, he'll come back. Otherwise, he has to live in exile. What do you think they were planning to do with Jon if they thought Jon was King? I assume go into exile until they could raise an army to take back Westeros. I probably am not convincing you, but I still maintain the statement that the KG do not flee is a nonsense statement if going to Viserys would be going to the king. It would be guarding the king and not fleeing. It is only fleeing if the KG believe that Jon and not Viserys is actually king.

I actually don't disagree that it's somewhat of a nonsense statement, if you take it as "Viserys has fled, and we do not flee". But it can also be taken as "We were ordered to guard this child, it is our duty, and we do not flee that duty".

As for their plans, we simply don't have that information. For starters, they had absolutely no idea that Lyanna was going to die. She could very well have survived, in which case it may have been her decision what to do with Jon. Perhaps the order was simply "Guard Lyanna until she gives birth to this member of the royal family (by the theory that they were married)". Perhaps at that point something would have changed and they could have justified going after Viserys or at least sending one of them.

I should also point out that, if Jon is trueborn and the Kingsguard were aware that Aerys and Aegon were dead (which I assume they knew, if they also knew Viserys was on Dragonstone), I think it's entirely possible they did think Jon was the heir. I don't buy the idea that the GC of 233 set an absolute precedent that everyone was aware of that meant Viserys was the automatic heir. I think Aerys named Viserys the heir over Aegon, not that a precedent made that automatically the case. The Kingsguard may not have known, especially if their source of information is from Dorne (say...Ashara Dayne?). They might not support Jon over Viserys, but it would have been in their interests not to tell anyone that Viserys was made heir over Aegon.

Come to think of it, is there any precedent for a situation such as this? Jon hadn't been born yet when Aerys died (or, at least, I assume that's the case, unless Lyanna's bed of blood wasn't childbirth related, and she had given birth awhile before). Even if Jon is Rhaegar's trueborn son, would he inherit over Viserys? He can't inherit right when Aerys died because he hadn't even been born yet, so Viserys would have inherited. Jon wouldn't have overridden that upon being born, would he? Is there any precedent for an elder sibling dying before the birth of a son, and how that effects the inheritance of a younger sibling?

[ARYa_Nym]

.

BearQueen87 is right. I think that Lyanna could have been kidnapped, but I don't doubt her ability to get away and/or abort if she didn't consent to being with Rhaegar. TWOIAF has only strengthened all the Arya/Lyanna parallels, and under no circumstances do I see Arya staying abducted.

I'm sure if Lya had a guard with her, they were killed. But if she was indeed KOLT, and if she ran around Winterfell the way that canon says she did, I can't imagine her not being able to give her guards the slip. This is a young girl forbidden all training at arms who actually won a round at a tourney.

Slipping away from people's grasp was probably relatively easy for Lyanna... which is why I just can't understand readers who think Rhaegar kidnapped her against her will, then forced her to have sex until she conceived. I don't even think Robert believes that himself... the remark "how many hundreds of times?" to me smacked of jealousy, not just outrage...

I don't think she was kidnapped but I think she easily could have been held in captivity.

She was good at jousting but that is separate from being good with a sword. She had no official training so she is no match for men who have training. Beating a boy under 10 (Benjen) is not proof of prowess. I don't think she was good with a sword at all actually. That would be a parallel with Arya. She isn't actually that good and is unable to kill a man based on being better with a sword. In a battle she needed others there or else she would have been killed.

Arya got away from the Hound after other people injured him. She got away from the BWB because she was kidnapped by someone else. She got away from Roose by manipulative cunning. If you count Yoren he was also killed by other people.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

If there was as much schism between Rhaegar and Aerys as the books suggests, then it could very well be that by the time Rhaegar left for the Trident there are some like Arthur Dayne who already have total allegiance to Rhaegar. They at this point consider Aerys no long of sound mind and therefore his orders do not need to be followed.

If that this is case they would probably consider any declaration by Aerys of Viserys as his heir as a rambling of a madman and can be ignored, in which case Rhaegar's child remains the lawful heir in their eyes.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I actually don't disagree that it's somewhat of a nonsense statement, if you take it as "Viserys has fled, and we do not flee". But it can also be taken as "We were ordered to guard this child, it is our duty, and we do not flee that duty".

As for their plans, we simply don't have that information. For starters, they had absolutely no idea that Lyanna was going to die. She could very well have survived, in which case it may have been her decision what to do with Jon. Perhaps the order was simply "Guard Lyanna until she gives birth to this member of the royal family (by the theory that they were married)". Perhaps at that point something would have changed and they could have justified going after Viserys or at least sending one of them.

I should also point out that, if Jon is trueborn and the Kingsguard were aware that Aerys and Aegon were dead (which I assume they knew, if they also knew Viserys was on Dragonstone), I think it's entirely possible they did think Jon was the heir. I don't buy the idea that the GC of 233 set an absolute precedent that everyone was aware of that meant Viserys was the automatic heir. I think Aerys named Viserys the heir over Aegon, not that a precedent made that automatically the case. The Kingsguard may not have known, especially if their source of information is from Dorne (say...Ashara Dayne?). They might not support Jon over Viserys, but it would have been in their interests not to tell anyone that Viserys was made heir over Aegon.

Come to think of it, is there any precedent for a situation such as this? Jon hadn't been born yet when Aerys died (or, at least, I assume that's the case, unless Lyanna's bed of blood wasn't childbirth related, and she had given birth awhile before). Even if Jon is Rhaegar's trueborn son, would he inherit over Viserys? He can't inherit right when Aerys died because he hadn't even been born yet, so Viserys would have inherited. Jon wouldn't have overridden that upon being born, would he? Is there any precedent for an elder sibling dying before the birth of a son, and how that effects the inheritance of a younger sibling?

I think we have made our points. As far as the issue of Aerys dying before Jon being born--I can only tell you that in the real medieval times, what would happen is that there would be no coronation until the baby was born and lived. For example, under an English rule where a daughter inherits but only if no sons, if there is only a daughter, they would wait for the birth and if a boy, he becomes king and if a girl, her older sister becomes queen. But no one is "king" or "queen" prior to the birth. I think we can assume it would basically work the same in Westeros, but of course we cannot be sure.

[Aslerys]

I always thought that the kidnapping thing was a matter of perspective, I'm almost sure Lyanna run away with Rhaegar but let's imagine things from other perspective: Lord Tully sent men looking for Lyanna after she went missing, those poor soldiers found her with the crown prince, they obviously are not going to fight him so they might have ask the prince if she can return with them, Rhaegar refuses and a kidnapping is born.

After all, someone must have seen Rhaegar and Lyanna together, otherwise Brandon wouldn't have known that Rhaegar was the one to blame.

[Anath]

If there was as much schism between Rhaegar and Aerys as the books suggests, then it could very well be that by the time Rhaegar left for the Trident there are some like Arthur Dayne who already have total allegiance to Rhaegar. They at this point consider Aerys no long of sound mind and therefore his orders do not need to be followed.

If that this is case they would probably consider any declaration by Aerys of Viserys as his heir as a rambling of a madman and can be ignored, in which case Rhaegar's child remains the lawful heir in their eyes.

Yet in Ned's dream, Gerold Hightower laments that they were not at the Trident to keep Aerys on his throne. They knew better than anyone that he was a madman but Ned seems to think he was the madman they had sworn vows to. Being sorry for not keeping Aerys on his throne doesn't fall in line with any reasoning that he was no longer their king, in their hearts at least. And if he was their king, his choice of heir was the valid one.

Come to think of it, it's interesting that none of them shows any regret over Rhaegar's death. For people who were supposedly so fond of him, they don't seem to care that their friend and bright hope for the future had died. It would be natural for them to say, If we were at the Trident, Rhaegar would still be alive. But they didn't. They only spoke of Aerys and duty, and how they did not flee.

By the time of Rhaegar's death, they might have been quite disenchanted with him but of course, their duty, whatever it was, wouldn't let them flee, no matter their personal feelings.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Ned was unaware of the internal schism, he's an unreliable narrator

[Anath]

Ned was unaware of the internal schism, he's an unreliable narrator

Everyone here seems to think that he's taken the general gist and symbolism of the scene just fine, though. He doesn't need to be aware of the internal schism to know it was strange that they weren't at the Trident. Or are we supposed to take his words literally only when he remembers the three men saying, "The Kingsguard does not flee?" Very selective.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

It was a fever dream, not an actual flashback. We don't know how much of that is an accurate account of what took place and how much is just his impression of what happened.

[BearQueen87]

It was a fever dream, not an actual flashback. We don't know how much of that is an accurate account of what took place and how much is just his impression of what happened.

It's an old dream and they were in the dream as they had been in life. And the only thing Ned think is odd about it is that he should have it after so long, but not the dream itself. This is not to say it doesn't have "dream" like stuff, but Ned doesn't think the dream itself is odd. To him, what is going on, makes sense.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

It's an old dream and they were in the dream as they had been in life. And the only thing Ned think is odd about it is that he should have it after so long, but not the dream itself. This is not to say it doesn't have "dream" like stuff, but Ned doesn't think the dream itself is odd. To him, what is going on, makes sense.

Yes, the gist of the dream reflects what happened, the 3 vs 7 battle at the tower. But trying to infer the political loyalties and ramifications of the KG vis a vis the internal schism between Rhaegar and Aerys, something Ned had very little knowledge of, from that dream, is to me a fruitless task.

To put it in a simpler way, I don't think we can rely on that dream to determine the allegiances of the 3 KG.

[Lord Varys]

The fact that it is an old dream does not necessarily mean it covers the events accurate in many points - or any but the facts that are actually confirmed to have occurred in real life (i.e. the people who were there).

In fact, we should assume that Ned did not really hold the three knights in such high esteem when he arrived that tower and killed them. From Lord Cregan, we how the average Stark usually judges treacherous kingslayers and poisoners. That explains his reaction over Jaime's and Tywin's deeds.

However, we have no reason to believe that Ned looked through the whole Lyanna-Rhaegar-thing until he finally spoke to her. And that would have been after the knights had been killed. There is also no reason to believe that Ned particular liked Rhaegar until he heard the truth about whatever was going on between them from Lyanna (the book clearly suggests that all the Starks were pissed when Rhaegar crowned Lyanna).

Thus Ned may have blamed the three knights by extension for Rhaegar's crimes, a judgment that may have led to the eventual fight.

I still strongly oppose the idea that Ned really asked those ritualistic questions - as if he really had any sort of personal connection to those guys - and that they casually answered in this way. Not to mention the fact that it would pretty damn unlikely that the news about the recent developments in KL, as well as the whereabouts and non-KG protection of Rhaella and Viserys, would have reached them before Ned (at best, they could have heard about Rhaegar's death).

But if Ned, after discovering his mistake, came to regret what happened there, he may have construed those knights as stalwart Kingsguard, opposite to the bad example of Jaime Lannister.

[RumHam]

But if Ned, after discovering his mistake, came to regret what happened there, he may have construed those knights as stalwart Kingsguard, opposite to the bad example of Jaime Lannister.

Yeah. That guy who gave up his sword when the Dornish killed Daeron is a shining example of knighthood compared to Jaime.

[The Scabbard Of the Morning]

Yeah. That guy who gave up his sword when the Dornish killed Daeron is a shining example of knighthood compared to Jaime.

Throwing a 7 year old kid out of the window is kind of hard to top, when it comes to who is most lacking in chivalry.

[Gala]

I think this part is very true.

And very ironic considering how much of a womanizer Brandon was.

I have a sudden thought. Do you remember Barristan saying something about Ashara's troubles during Harrenhal tourney? That turn to Stark for a help, what if she was dishonoured (not with her consent) in some way and the tail was it was Rhaegar, for example, or other Targ (Aerys?) and Brandon was told that. He definitely was a womanizer, but the only victim of his womanizing that we know still loves him, so her consent is unquestionable. There is a difference between rape and sex on mutual consent, even though both things can be considered dishonouring. I presume that's why he could overreact.

[Gala]

Sure. But it wasn't over his sister's person per se, more STARK honor.

And Oberyn wasn't defending MARTELL so much as he was actually defending Elia her very self. (and her children)

I disagree! Ned, for example, gave a shit about Lyanna's honour during his history recalling, he loved his sister dearly and wanted to protect her, too. To safe her. Brandon, probably, wanted that too, they are just different people, different people different reactions. I have two brothers too and they are exactly like Brandon and Ned - one is overreactive (and very protective) and the other is much more cold. As far as we know, Brandon and Lyanna were very close. The same way Oberyn and Elia were close. No difference here. Doran stopped Oberyn from doing exactly what Brandon Stark did.

[Gala]

In the Reeds flashback story Elia was described as fair. Lyanna's looks weren't mentioned probably because Howland didn't look at her like that.

I don't find Lyanna's account to be off. The wild looking aligns with Kevan calling her a wild beauty. The boyish part would be true. She likely was boyish looking. Arya is still child like looking and is already 12 and Lyanna would have been 13 or 14 at the tourney so not much older.

ETA: Sansa comparably and I'm guessing Catelyn seemed to go through puberty earlier and develop faster. By ACoK she was already starting to look womanly. Arya is the same age now but still hasn't flowered and her body is boyish or prepubescent female and not manly or womanly. So basically at the time of the tourney Lyanna might have still looked like a little boy or girl.

Oh and in her latest chapter Arya seemed to think:

Spoiler

That she will grow breasts in a year or two so 13 or 14.

The one giving the account is biased towards the Lannisters but not necessarily Elia so that person could just prefer Elia's delicate features and Lyanna's boyishness could turn them off.

Oh, and this account adds more fuel to me for me not to believe when it's said Lyanna's personality is what attracted people or she had something. No one talks about her personality or seems to even care about it and no one says she has a certain something that caught the eye.

Anyways, I don't believe that Rhaegar secretly had Dorne or Elia's support.

I am inclined to think that the beauty does not play the major role, but the character of the person. I think all the girls - Elia, Lyanna, Ashara and Cersei or even Catelyn- were pretty, all in their way. And I agree that people prefer different- some would prefer Elia's delicateness and some (as we can see, most of the boys and young men) preferred Ashara's flirting beauty. I just think that the person's character is more important here. Elia was never described as a beauty queen even by her own brothers-they called her gentle and feeble in health (was it Oberyn or Doran recalling that she was ill most of her childhood, even almost died and that she had a feeble health and was delicate). Word "delicate" was used quite often to describe her and it is quite eloquent word. I presume Elia was a very very very good person and gentle delicate woman (imho, the best for Rhaegar by description, but his heart decided differently), but she didn't have that "wild" thing Oberyn or any other Martell has (Quentyn is quite simple, for example, while Arianna is "wild"), or Lyanna had. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. She was simple, "pale" comparing to girls like Ashara or Cersei, even more simple if comparing to Lyanna (if we presume that she indeed was tKoLT). Anyway, I don't think she wasn't pretty. She was just simple. By description, she was a perfect lady - no wildness, willfulness or stubbornness here - any lord would want for a wife.

[Kingmonkey]

I cant help wondering why the hell did Lyanna (if she was not kidnapped) not send a raven to her brothers and say "Im fine guys, I ran away with the man I love etc etc etc". Could have stopped so many people dying.

This is a tricky question. Best answer I can come up with is this.

[BearQueen87]

Amazon shipped my book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I may be doing a dance right now

This is a tricky question. Best answer I can come up with is this.

AHAHAHAHHAH

Sooo sunny. I don't mind passing my time in the prince's tower at all! Really it's a joy here, with those pretty red mountains in the background, eating the yummy Dornish cuisine!