Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ygrain

R+L=J v.117

Recommended Posts

In response to "did everyone at Starfall lie to Edric, their lord?"

Seriously.... Do we suddenly believe that they sat a seven year old boy at a table and discussed big secrets with him?

Well if everyone at Starfall knows the truth, but is telling Edric a lie, what do you think happens when a servant gets dismissed? Everyone's just going to trust that they won't tell anybody?

There can't be dozens of people at Starfall who know the truth. It would never stay a secret. The better idea is that few people know the truth, if there is any. It's not a secret if an entire noble household knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are doing the "duty to obey" vs "vow to protect the King" again?

If Rhaegar had ordered Dayne, Hightower and Whent to kill Aerys would they have done it?...no...because their vow is more important than any order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, the first thing he told Arya was "btw, I know who is Jon's mom!".

You think it's odd that he told Arya, Jon's half brother, that he knows who his mother is? You don't think someone who meets someone else would try and find something in common between the two of them and try and start a conversation? What do Edric and Arya have in common? Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are doing the "duty to obey" vs "vow to protect the King" again?

If Rhaegar had ordered Dayne, Hightower and Whent to kill Aerys would they have done it?...no...because their vow is more important than any order

The reason why Jaime is so hated is because he killed the king. It's the highest treason, especially for someone who swore a vow to protect the royal family. There's nothing to suggest that any Kingsguard would just kill the king if they were ordered to. So I don't see how this has anything to do with the fact that Whent says that they are at the TOJ because they swore a vow not to flee. They never say they are doing their duty, they explain their presence as the fact that swore not to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair... markg171 is technically in compliance with your request. He's not defending RLJ. If what you'd really like is for nonbelievers to stop posting to the thread, that is probably something you should put in the standard OP. Otherwise, the only people defending RLJ are those who insist on responding to the objections. (And there are some legitimate objections that keep coming up.)

Um, I'm not saying that he can't post in here. I wouldn't say that. I'm saying that these things that are coming up aren't revelatory. It's not like we haven't touched on in a bazillion times. It's not like he's saying stuff that people haven't been tossing around forever. Not like any of us are going to change our minds. Might as well talk about something else

The Kingsguard do whatever they're told to do, no matter how honourable they are. And why ignore the fact that we have Gerold Hightower, who was there, doesn't have a problem sitting back watching Aerys host a trial by combat of one of the Lords Paramount against fire, while the Lord Paramount's son and heir strangles himself to death?

The Kingsguard at the TOJ say right there in Ned's dream why they're there: they swore a vow not to flee. If Rhaegar told them to stay, they will stay. They say they were told to stay, not that they're doing their duty to the king.

No. They say they swore a vow, a vow that they swore THEN (when the became KG) as they have now. What's the vow that the KG swear? To protect the king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are doing the "duty to obey" vs "vow to protect the King" again?

Cue mantras.

Though honestly - if the presence of the KG is a clue that a legitimate Targaryen king was nearby, then we really ought to be talking about young Aegon, and how/when he was routed to the TOJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cue mantras.

Though honestly - if the presence of the KG is a clue that a legitimate Targaryen king was nearby, then we really ought to be talking about young Aegon, and how/when he was routed to the TOJ.

Except Aegon wasn't there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, I'm not saying that he can't post in here. I wouldn't say that. I'm saying that these things that are coming up aren't revelatory. It's not like we haven't touched on in a bazillion times. It's not like he's saying stuff that people haven't been tossing around forever. Not like any of us are going to change our minds. Might as well talk about something else.

How about something in the OP, like: "Please do not raise objections to the theory. We've already addressed your issue. We're tired of talking about it ad nauseum." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, I'm not saying that he can't post in here. I wouldn't say that. I'm saying that these things that are coming up aren't revelatory. It's not like we haven't touched on in a bazillion times. It's not like he's saying stuff that people haven't been tossing around forever. Not like any of us are going to change our minds. Might as well talk about something else

No. They say they swore a vow, a vow that they swore THEN (when the became KG) as they have now. What's the vow that the KG swear? To protect the king.

They are very clearly saying that they did not flee THEN (when Viserys went to Dragonstone) and that they will not flee NOW (with Eddard here for his sister). And that they are not fleeing because they swore a vow.

And how does a vow to protect the king mean that they MUST fight Eddard? Eddard is there for Lyanna. They swore nothing to defend her in their Kingsguard vows, but if Rhaegar ordered them to stay there and guard Lyanna, then they must.

Everything fits to say that they were obeying orders, not doing their duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about something in the OP, like: "Please do not raise objections to the theory. We've already addressed your issue. We're tired of talking about it ad nauseum." :)

Because that sounds bitchy? Look, I'm not saying that people can't object to RLJ or even to RL = Legit J. I'm saying that it's been done to death so instead of people thinking that they are presenting new evidence (which they never are) maybe ask "why do you think XYZ" and have it explained and then they go from there. Literally, all of this has been done before. It's the same quotes, the same "evidence" over and over. Barristan's quotes, the vow, the TOJ scene, over and over. I think a majority of the regulars here would love to talk about something else instead of doing The KG, legitimacy, and even just RLJ in general.

How did you confirm that?

Oh easy, I read the books. :) (i've read your theory. we've talked about it. I don't buy it)

They are very clearly saying that they did not flee THEN (when Viserys went to Dragonstone) and that they will not flee NOW (with Eddard here for his sister). And that they are not fleeing because they swore a vow.

And how does a vow to protect the king mean that they MUST fight Eddard? Eddard is there for Lyanna. They swore nothing to defend her in their Kingsguard vows, but if Rhaegar ordered them to stay there and guard Lyanna, then they must.

Everything fits to say that they were obeying orders, not doing their duty.

Go read MntLion's essay then come back and talk to me. And yes they swore a vow---but what vow? The only vow the KG swear when they take their white cloak: to guard the damn king.

We swore a vow THEN (when we became KG)

as now (when we must defend the babe in the tower who is king)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go read MntLion's essay then come back and talk to me. And yes they swore a vow---but what vow? The only vow the KG swear when they take their white cloak: to guard the damn king.

We swore a vow THEN (when we became KG)

as now (when we must defend the babe in the tower who is king)

Interpretation is not fact.

So many vows…they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretation is not fact.

So many vows…they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.”

And what is the unbolded part of that quote right before the part you put in bold?

"defend the king"

I'm also not saying that interpretation is fact. I'm asking the person read the other side of the evidence before discussing this since it has literally been done to death in RLJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretation is not fact.

So many vows…they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It’s too much. No matter what you do, you’re forsaking one vow or the other.”

The fact is that Ned thinks the former KG shining examples of what it takes to be KG, and names Arthur Dayne as a paragon of KGhood. That is only possible if Dayne died true to his KG vow, and the core part of the vow, the first duty per Barristan, is to protect the king. If Dayne followed Rhaegar's order while leaving the king unprotected, then he was not a shining example of KG.

ETA: I am trying to say that if you remain chaste, win no glory, obey every order and keep the secrets but DON'T protect the king, you can hardly be considered a shining example of KG - whereas if you break any of the former but still protect the king (or even break them to protect the king) and give your life for his, then you are an admirable KG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that sounds bitchy? Look, I'm not saying that people can't object to RLJ or even to RL = Legit J. I'm saying that it's been done to death so instead of people thinking that they are presenting new evidence (which they never are) maybe ask "why do you think XYZ" and have it explained and then they go from there. Literally, all of this has been done before. It's the same quotes, the same "evidence" over and over. Barristan's quotes, the vow, the TOJ scene, over and over. I think a majority of the regulars here would love to talk about something else instead of doing The KG, legitimacy, and even just RLJ in general.

Oh easy, I read the books. :) (i've read your theory. we've talked about it. I don't buy it)

Go read MntLion's essay then come back and talk to me. And yes they swore a vow---but what vow? The only vow the KG swear when they take their white cloak: to guard the damn king.

We swore a vow THEN (when we became KG)

as now (when we must defend the babe in the tower who is king)

It's like you're being purposely dense and ignoring any evidence that I posted. How can you possibly look at this

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold

Which talks about fleeing, and come to the conclusion that they are talking about how they swore a vow when they donned the white cloak. They're clearly talking how they didn't flee when Viserys did and aren't now, and Whent explains it's because they swore a vow

"Ser Merwyn, I have heard it said that Joffrey made use of you to chastice Sansa Stark. Here, show me where it is in our vows that we swear to beat women and children" - Jaime

"I did as His Grace commanded me. We are sworn to obey." - Meryn

Prince Doran took a ragged breath. "Dorne still has friends at court. Friends who tell us things we were not meant to know. This invitation Cersei sent us is a ruse. Trystane is never meant to reach King's Landing. On the road back, somewhere in the kingswood, Ser Balon's party will be attacked by outlaws, and my son will die. I am asked to court only so that I may witness this attack with my own eyes and thereby absolve the queen of any blame. Oh, and these outlaws? They will be shouting, "Halfman, Halfman" as they attack. Ser Balon may even catch a quick glimpse of the Imp, though no one else will."

Areo Hotah would not have believed it possible to shock the Sand Snakes. He would have been wrong.

"Seven save us," whispered Tyene. "Trystane? Why?"

"The woman must be mad," Obara said. "He's just a boy"

"This is monstrous," said Lady Nym. "I would not have believed it, not of a Kingsguard knight."

"They are sworn to obey, just as my captain is," the prince said. "I had my doubts as well, but you saw how Ser Balon balked when I suggested that we go by sea. A ship would have disturbed all the queen's arrangements."

It's noted many times that they swear to obey, no matter how dishonourable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is the unbolded part of that quote right before the part you put in bold?

"defend the king"

I'm also not saying that interpretation is fact. I'm asking the person read the other side of the evidence before discussing this since it has literally been done to death in RLJ

That's fine but there has to be an acknowledgement that obeying order is also an integral part of the Kingsguards duty's and Ned would have admired that as well. Closing yourself to one possibility is no way to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like you're being purposely dense and ignoring any evidence that I posted. How can you possibly look at this

Which talks about fleeing, and come to the conclusion that they are talking about how they swore a vow when they donned the white cloak. They're clearly talking how they didn't flee when Viserys did and aren't now, and Whent explains it's because they swore a vow

It's noted many times that they swear to obey, no matter how dishonourable

But tell me this one thing: What does "fleeing" mean in this context? What (or rather, whom) are they abandoning by fleeing?

And why didn't they split up their forces to both protect Viserys (or Aegon, if that floats your boat) and follow their order by Rhaegar (not the king, btw...)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair... markg171 is technically in compliance with your request. He's not defending RLJ. If what you'd really like is for nonbelievers to stop posting to the thread, that is probably something you should put in the standard OP. Otherwise, the only people defending RLJ are those who insist on responding to the objections. (And there are some legitimate objections that keep coming up.)

Just out of curiosity, what exactly are those legitimate objections?

I'm fine with people who disagree and want to discuss it over. I'm even fine with people who have a different theory and want to debate.

I dislike people who refuse to be swayed by a mountain of evidence and are merely in this thread to antagonize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh*



Fine. I'll go get MntLion's essay.



And then you can read it and come back and talk. Because of course they are sworn to obey and not to flee THEIR KING. Seriously. Dude. All I'm asking is that you READ the other side. And stop acting like this isn't something we've done a million times before. You aren't telling us anything we don't already know or have dealt with. You aren't going to convince us of anything. Just like we aren't going to convince YOU. THIS is why I'm asking that maybe we talk about something else because again...done. to. death.



http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/117116-rl-j-v105/?p=6228116



http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/117842-rlj-v-107/?p=6281332


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the claims of being unable to post certain things.



In all seriousness, while my perception has always been that this thread probably errs on the side of being pro-Rhaegar/Targaryen, I think its fair to say that so long as most arguements are well thought out, while debated, they are still welcomed.




There are many that have disagreements about different aspects of R+l=J.


I'm one that does not necessarily think that Lyanna did go willingly with Rhaegar while at the same time she still loved Rhaegar,(both factors need not be mutually exclusive).


The unconventional nature of Lyanna lends her character to not being the typical Westorosi female who swoons over the "silver prince" because he "graced" her with his "favor," wants to be a princess, or even queen in the way most of the other traditional characters, both male and female, seek such ambition.


Especially regarding her actions and the themes of "Stark honor," which we see was the reason she might have been tKotLT to begin with, might have been the characteristic that attracted Rhaegar, and makes her the outlier and the "unknown variable" to any plans Rhaegar had that caused him to become distracted from Project Harrenahal.



Having said all that, I am persuaded that Rhaegar was a decent man, and give him the benefit of the doubt that in terms of Martins themes of "conflicts of the human heart," that Rhaegar was a man who all his life probably did his duty until perhaps for the first time in his life, it came into conflict with what he wanted as we see later in his statetment about changes that should have been made and roads not taken.



But, I am also prepared in terms of Lyanna, despite the emphasis on Stark honor that the Stark tendency to not marry the people they are supposed to, (i.e., Robb, Arya and Frey, allusions to Brandon, possibly were the ones who broke the pact of Ice and Fire), Lyanna will also have decided that she would take the same path instead of doing her duty.


(Honestly, Westeros should put a special clause in just for the Starks that when they get married, they really have to show up at the alter).



However, the one thing I am sure of is that Jon is the fruit of R+L and that he is legitimate, at least as far as Rhaegar and Lyanna were concerned.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×