R+L=J v.119

[RumHam]

Sorry but this is not correct. Ned names Arthur as "the finest knight", true, but in the context of talking the qualities of Kingsguard, so he actually means "the finest knight (of the Kingsguard)".

I think when someone says “The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne" it's safe to say he thinks Ser Arthur Dayne is the finest knight he ever saw, not just of the Kingsguard.

[Ser Leftwich]

Sorry but this is not correct. Ned names Arthur as "the finest knight", true, but in the context of talking the qualities of Kingsguard, so he actually means "the finest knight (of the Kingsguard)".

I was taking being the "finest knight" to be acting in such a way to keep both the vows of knighthood and the vows of the KG. But point taken on the specific phrasing.

So for Ned, Arthur managed to figure out how to keep all his vows, whereas Jaime could not and Jaime took it way too far.

[Kingmonkey]

Ned knows of only one Kingsguard vow, and the three at the tower specify that it is the Kingsguard vow. That vow is singular, and it is to protect and defend the king, dying for him if need be. Yes, there are other promises, but only one Kingsguard vow.

Hold up a sec. What you are talking about is the first duty of the Kingsguard. We know it's not the only one. "The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not, serve his pleasure and defend his name and honor." These are all further vows (or if you prefer aspects of The Vow beyond "protect and defend the king") that the KG are sworn to.

The three at the KG do not specify that it's the Kingsguard vow to protect the King, otherwise this debate wouldn't exist, and there would be no question about R+L=legit J, as GRRM would have stated it in book 1. Many of us interpret that as being the vow referred to, but it is simply not true to say that it's specified.

[PrettyPig]

However, that still raises the question of why Ned took only seven men if he thought they'd have no chance to win the fight.

I think I am more curious as to why Ned brought these men.

ModestyLannister, I believe, some time ago made an interesting point concerning the geography of the North represented by these seven. The houses and the lands represented form an extremely solid western border: Wull, the northernmost, west of the mountains by the Bay of Ice, then Glover for Deepwood Motte in the northern wolfswood, then Winterfell and possibly House Cassel somewhere in the vicinity (not sure where those holdings are), then the Ryswells in the Rills between the Stony Shore & Barrowlands, then Dustin at Barrowton, and finally Reed in the Neck. Despite the loyalty of several houses east of Winterfell or bordering the Kingsroad (Cerwyn, Manderly, Hornwood), Ned brings no men from these houses. Why the western representation only?

Something else that stands out: in addition to again seeing the 7 and 3 pattern mentioned upthread, all 10 of the men at the tower can claim First Men descent. (Whent being the newest and most tenuous, but if that house goes back through the old river kings - is this confirmed in the World Book? - then yes.)

[MtnLion]

Is there a meaningful difference between a "vow" and a "promise"?

Here is Ned's description of a vow he received from Tobho Mott: "The direwolf is the sigil of House Stark, is it not? I could fashion a direwolf helm so real that children will run from you in the street," he vowed. Ned smiled.

Here is Ned's description of a promise he made to Lyanna: Promise me, Ned. The fever had taken her strength and her voice had been faint as a whisper, but when he gave her his word, the fear had gone out of his sister's eyes.

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."

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Sorry but this is not correct. Ned names Arthur as "the finest knight", true, but in the context of talking the qualities of Kingsguard, so he actually means "the finest knight (of the Kingsguard)".

Actually, I'd say it's the other way around - and Ser Leftwich's initial comment was correct. Bran asks Ned about the KG in the context of asking about knighthood in general. In other words, Bran was looking for a paragon of knightly excellence. Ned points him to Arthur Dayne:

[bran] had asked Lord Eddard 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. [2.21, BRAN]

[The Twinslayer]

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.

What I mean is that I don't see a difference between different parts of what the kingsguard say when they join. Barristan says "The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well . . ." Jaime tells Brienne that "The knights of the Kingsguard are sworn to keep the king's secrets. Would you have me break my oath?"

Are you saying that when it comes to protecting the king, they "swore" a "vow" but when it comes to obeying orders and keeping secrets they "swore" a "promise"? That would be some awkward phrasing.

[RumHam]

(Whent being the newest and most tenuous, but if that house goes back through the old river kings - is this confirmed in the World Book? - then yes.)

The only info we got about the history of the Whents is that they were a knightly house serving the Lothstons who then helped bring the Lothstons down.

[Kingmonkey]

Are you saying that when it comes to protecting the king, they "swore" a "vow" but when it comes to obeying orders and keeping secrets they "swore" a "promise"? That would be some awkward phrasing.

A sworn promise IS a vow. That's pretty much what the words mean.

[Ygrain]

Hold up a sec. What you are talking about is the first duty of the Kingsguard. We know it's not the only one. "The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not, serve his pleasure and defend his name and honor." These are all further vows (or if you prefer aspects of The Vow beyond "protect and defend the king") that the KG are sworn to.

The three at the KG do not specify that it's the Kingsguard vow to protect the King, otherwise this debate wouldn't exist, and there would be no question about R+L=legit J, as GRRM would have stated it in book 1. Many of us interpret that as being the vow referred to, but it is simply not true to say that it's specified.

While it is not the only one, it is the vow, the one defining them. As long as they keep this one, they are true to the very meaning of being Kingsguard. Keeping any other while breaking the first one makes it impossible to be an exemplary KG.

[PrettyPig]

The only info we got about the history of the Whents is that they were a knightly house serving the Lothstons who then helped bring the Lothstons down.

That's what I thought. I'm assuming First Men blood for the extinct riverlands houses (esp those that held Harrenhal post-Hoare) but could be totally wrong about that.

[MtnLion]

What I mean is that I don't see a difference between different parts of what the kingsguard say when they join. Barristan says "The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well . . ." Jaime tells Brienne that "The knights of the Kingsguard are sworn to keep the king's secrets. Would you have me break my oath?"

Are you saying that when it comes to protecting the king, they "swore" a "vow" but when it comes to obeying orders and keeping secrets they "swore" a "promise"? That would be some awkward phrasing.

Only awkward if you want to make it so. If you look at the SSM where GRRM talks about why the three Kingsguard were at that tower, He talks about the vow, then about promise to obey. The Kingsguard's first duty is to protect and defend the king, even Barristan says so. If revealing the king's secrets is necessary to protect the king, they will reveal the secrets.

[MtnLion]

A sworn promise IS a vow. That's pretty much what the words mean.

On his knees before King Aerys, Jaime swears his holiest vow to protect and defend his king, dying for the king if need be. Ned witnesses this, and Whent helping Jaime up afterwards, Hightower placing the white cloak about Jaime's shoulders. Jaime even says that he swore to "protect and defend the king". Do you have any references that indicate that the Kingsguard's vow is something else? Then how is Ned aware of the "vow" having some other meaning? This is pretty well layered into the story, and attempting to play word games is silly, in my opinion. Like refusing to acknowledge that "bed of blood" refers to birthing bed.

[Kingmonkey]

While it is not the only one, it is the vow, the one defining them. As long as they keep this one, they are true to the very meaning of being Kingsguard. Keeping any other while breaking the first one makes it impossible to be an exemplary KG.

I completely agree, but it doesn't really get us any further.

It's impossible to be an exemplary KG while breaking this, but it's a necessary rather than sufficient condition for being an exemplary KG. In the case of Arthur the Exemplar, he died alongside two other KG for the sake of the same vow ("WE swore a vow"), yet it is Arthur that Ned named, not Whent or Hightower. Thus there's something more to Arthur than this.

Secondly, while it is unquestionably the single most important and inflexible part of the KG vows, that does not prove conclusively that it is the vow being referred to. The simple fact that it's not the only vow means that until it's specified what the vow was, it might not have been the vow referred to. Thus the nature of the vow referred to is still up for debate, and conclusions drawn about it, even if they are very strong indeed, remain speculative. That was my original contention, and frankly I'm a little surprised anyone would contest it.

[Ygrain]

I completely agree, but it doesn't really get us any further.

It's impossible to be an exemplary KG while breaking this, but it's a necessary rather than sufficient condition for being an exemplary KG. In the case of Arthur the Exemplar, he died alongside two other KG for the sake of the same vow ("WE swore a vow"), yet it is Arthur that Ned named, not Whent or Hightower. Thus there's something more to Arthur than this.

Might well have something to do with Dayne being the last man standing and dying by Ned's hand.

Secondly, while it is unquestionably the single most important and inflexible part of the KG vows, that does not prove conclusively that it is the vow being referred to. The simple fact that it's not the only vow means that until it's specified what the vow was, it might not have been the vow referred to. Thus the nature of the vow referred to is still up for debate, and conclusions drawn about it, even if they are very strong indeed, remain speculative. That was my original contention, and frankly I'm a little surprised anyone would contest it.

It boils down to the protect versus obey argument. If the vow for which the KG stayed at ToJ is not the vow, they are in dereliction of it because Viserys has no KG, and thus cannot be exemplary KG. Plus again, the high respect for Dayne as a KG - quite impossible if he died for something else while his primary vow was not being fulfilled.

[Kingmonkey]

On his knees before King Aerys, Jaime swears his holiest vow to protect and defend his king, dying for the king if need be. Ned witnesses this, and Whent helping Jaime up afterwards, Hightower placing the white cloak about Jaime's shoulders. Jaime even says that he swore to "protect and defend the king". Do you have any references that indicate that the Kingsguard's vow is something else? Then how is Ned aware of the "vow" having some other meaning? This is pretty well layered into the story, and attempting to play word games is silly, in my opinion. Like refusing to acknowledge that "bed of blood" refers to birthing bed.

The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not, serve his pleasure and defend his name and honor.

No word games, just what it says on the page.

[MtnLion]

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.

The Kingsguard does not flee, then or now, because we swore a vow. It looks very straightforward to me. "We" the Kingsguard swore a vow to protect and defend the king, dying for him if need be, so we will not flee to Dragonstone to be with Prince Viserys and Queen Rhaella, as we would not have before King Aerys was slain.

[Kingmonkey]

Might well have something to do with Dayne being the last man standing and dying by Ned's hand.

Possible, but last man standing doesn't mean a whole lot, and Ned seems to be talking about honour and nobility more than prowess with a sword.

I will frankly be very surprised if there isn't more to Arthur than what we've seen so far. I think that's hinted at in this SSM:

Arthur Dayne has been presented as the quintessential chivalrous knight. How could he support the atrocities of Aerys, that even Jaime was horrified by?

Well... keep reading.

It boils down to the protect versus obey argument. If the vow for which the KG stayed at ToJ is not the vow, they are in dereliction of it because Viserys has no KG, and thus cannot be exemplary KG. Plus again, the high respect for Dayne as a KG - quite impossible if he died for something else while his primary vow was not being fulfilled.

Yes, it does somewhat boil down to the protect versus obey argument, and the reason that's still an argument is because it's still case unproven. You can claim one side has a much better argument than the other, but it's nonsense to claim it's conclusive. We just don't have enough information to be absolutely certain.

"Quite impossible" is just way too strong. The whole situation is simply more nuanced than that. Protecting the king is not the sole duty of a Kingsguard, and if they die in the pursuit of their duty while doing something other than protecting the king, does that have to make them less honourable? Viserys is half a hostile continent away, after all.

However we're assuming that they considered their duty to be to defend Jon, not Viserys. Even then, The Vow is not necessarily the Kingsguard vow to protect their king. From Ned's viewpoint at least, he'd hardly consider himself a threat to Jon. It may very well be that the 3KG and Ned were able to agree on keeping Jon safe, but that there were other considerations that they were NOT able to agree on.

[Kingmonkey]

The Kingsguard does not flee, then or now, because we swore a vow. It looks very straightforward to me. "We" the Kingsguard swore a vow to protect and defend the king, dying for him if need be, so we will not flee to Dragonstone to be with Prince Viserys and Queen Rhaella, as we would not have before King Aerys was slain.

Yes, it's good. It looks straightforward. I agree.

That's not the same thing as proven. It would hardly be a first for GRRM if the most obvious and clear interpretation turned out not to be correct, would it?

[PrettyPig]

There is also Jaime's assertation that the white cloak soiled him, not the other way around. Granted, this is Jaime, but I've come to realize that under all the smug superiority and ego, Jaime has a pretty solid moral code. It gets eclipsed by his ego a lot, and he is far too easily pulled away from it (esp by Cersei), but it's there. I think his disillusionment with the KG started a long time ago, perhaps when he joined and saw the reality instead of the fantasy - a reality that we as readers don't see yet because all we've been shown is the fantasy. Just like Jaime.