R + L = J v. 126

[sj4iy]

If Ned has no problem telling the king that Wylla is Jon's mother, then there's no reason for him to not tell anyone else...including Jon.

[markg171]

If Ned has no problem telling the king that Wylla is Jon's mother, then there's no reason for him to not tell anyone else...including Jon.

Is Robert a part of Ned's family? Does Robert live with Ned's family? Does telling Robert serve to cause stress on his family and separate the family instead of unifying it? If you answered "no" to all these questions, you're a winner!

I mean, that's before we even get to the fact that Ned had already told Robert who he fathered Jon on years ago. He can't exactly turn around 15 years later and try and play dumb when Robert tries to remember who Ned had fathered a bastard with.

[IceFire125]

Is Robert a part of Ned's family? Does Robert live with Ned's family? Does telling Robert serve to cause stress on his family and separate the family instead of unifying it? If you answered "no" to all these questions, you're a winner!

I mean, that's before we even get to the fact that Ned had already told Robert who he fathered Jon on years ago. He can't exactly turn around 15 years later and try and play dumb when Robert tries to remember who Ned had fathered a bastard with.

Who cares!! stop obsessing how Ned naively feels for Robert, Ned was desperately trying to find good in Robert all his arc up until his death bed.

It's funny that you want us to NOT care for who Jon's Mother is/was, and here you are harping about Robert is of any relevance now, pfftt, dude's a plot device for Ned's inner thoughts more than anything he has done in all of Ned's chapters.

[RGBeyondAsshai]

Rhaegar, Jorah and Daryl face down Zombies!

I would watch that. :)

[markg171]

Who cares!! stop obsessing how Ned naively feels for Robert, Ned was desperately trying to find good in Robert all his arc up until his death bed.

It's funny that you want us to NOT care for who Jon's Mother is/was, and here you are harping about Robert is of any relevance now, pfftt, dude's a plot device for Ned's inner thoughts more than anything he has done in all of Ned's chapters.

... None of what I said had anything to do with Robert, and everything to do with Jon Snow's mother. The only conclusion I can come to is that you're just throwing up smokescreens at this point.

[BearQueen87]

Is Robert a part of Ned's family? Does Robert live with Ned's family? Does telling Robert serve to cause stress on his family and separate the family instead of unifying it? If you answered "no" to all these questions, you're a winner!

I mean, that's before we even get to the fact that Ned had already told Robert who he fathered Jon on years ago. He can't exactly turn around 15 years later and try and play dumb when Robert tries to remember who Ned had fathered a bastard with.

Sure, but the entire conversation is incredibly stilted and awkward. It's a huge change from the ease with which the two men were talking just beforehand. And then Ned cuts Robert off and begs him to move on.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

If Ned has no problem telling the king that Wylla is Jon's mother, then there's no reason for him to not tell anyone else...including Jon.

On the contrary. Ned is The Overlord. He needs not tell anyone and prefers that. Robert, now Robert is Ned's very own overlord, so he has to tell him something, when hard pressed, and so he does.

Jon on the other hand is a beloved family member and worthy of nothing but the truth, so Ned does prefer not to tell more lies than what's inevitable. Other than that, he postpones (show Ned) the telling of the truth.

[sj4iy]

On the contrary. Ned is The Overlord. He needs not tell anyone and prefers that. Robert, now Robert is Ned's very own overlord, so he has to tell him something, when hard pressed, and so he does.

Jon on the other hand is a beloved family member and worthy of nothing but the truth, so Ned does prefer not to tell more lies than what's inevitable. Other than that, he postpones (show Ned) the telling of the truth.

Oh, I was responding to the argument that Wylla really IS Jon's mother "because Ned says so". If Wylla really were Jon's mother, and Ned sees no issue with telling the king, then it's unbelievable to me that he would keep that from Jon himself.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Oh, I was responding to the argument that Wylla really IS Jon's mother "because Ned says so". If Wylla really were Jon's mother, and Ned sees no issue with telling the king, then it's unbelievable to me that he would keep that from Jon himself.

OIC. Stupid me...

[BearQueen87]

Going back to Patchface for a second. Does anyone else wonder if the fool might give some RLJ hints in TWOW? That's a pretty common thing in plays, ect: the fool who knows more than others. Patcheface might not realize what he's doing, but it would interesting to read some little RLJ hints while he's dancing around Mel.

[RumHam]

It should also be noted that Jaime is not called "kingslayer" simply because he killed a king but rather that he killed the king he was sworn to protect. I suspect that if Aerys was killed by someone else (non KG), that person would not have been labelled "kingslayer".

While Jaime is looked down upon because he was in the Kingsguard when he did it, it's not a requirement to be called a Kingslayer. Tyrion get's called that a few times

“They do not know me,” [[Jaime] said to Steelshanks as they rode through Cobbler’s Square.

“Your face is changed, and your arms as well,” the northman said, “and they have a new Kingslayer now.”

But I also don't think it's odd that Gregor is never called that. (Who's gonna have the balls to say that to Gregor anyway.) Even if Aegon was the heir, he doesn't just automatically become king when Aerys dies. He has to be recognized and affirmed as king. He's the heir, but shit can and did happen. Nobody considers Aemon Blackfyre one of the pretenders just because Daemon died before he did.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Is Robert a part of Ned's family? Does Robert live with Ned's family? Does telling Robert serve to cause stress on his family and separate the family instead of unifying it? If you answered "no" to all these questions, you're a winner!

I mean, that's before we even get to the fact that Ned had already told Robert who he fathered Jon on years ago. He can't exactly turn around 15 years later and try and play dumb when Robert tries to remember who Ned had fathered a bastard with.

Still, non of those are reasons not to tell Jon, when Jon leaves for the Wall (or when Jon is told he will go to the Wall).

And Ned not saying a word also causes stress and serves to separate Ned and Cat. Catelyn says so herself. Ned not telling her the name might hurt even more than him telling her a name would.

[Mithras]

Going back to Patchface for a second. Does anyone else wonder if the fool might give some RLJ hints in TWOW? That's a pretty common thing in plays, ect: the fool who knows more than others. Patcheface might not realize what he's doing, but it would interesting to read some little RLJ hints while he's dancing around Mel.

“Maester Cressen, we have visitors.” Pylos spoke softly, as if loath to disturb Cressen’s solemn meditations. Had he known what drivel filled his head, he would have shouted. “The princess would see the white raven.” Ever correct, Pylos called her princess now, as her lord father was a king. King of a smoking rock in the great salt sea, yet a king nonetheless.

“Will it get cold now?” Shireen was a summer child, and had never known true cold.

“In time,” Cressen replied. “If the gods are good, they will grant us a warm autumn and bountiful harvests, so we might prepare for the winter to come.” The smallfolk said that a long summer meant an even longer winter, but the maester saw no reason to frighten the child with such tales.

Patchface rang his bells. “It is always summer under the sea,” he intoned. “The merwives wear nennymoans in their hair and weave gowns of silver seaweed. I know, I know, oh, oh, oh.”

Shireen giggled. “I should like a gown of silver seaweed.”

“Under the sea, it snows up,” said the fool, “and the rain is dry as bone. I know, I know, oh, oh, oh.”

“Will it truly snow?” the child asked.

“It will,” Cressen said. But not for years yet, I pray, and then not for long. “Ah, here is Pylos with the bird.”

Shireen gave a cry of delight. Even Cressen had to admit the bird made an impressive sight, white as snow and larger than any hawk, with the bright black eyes that meant it was no mere albino, but a truebred white raven of the Citadel. “Here,” he called. The raven spread its wings, leapt into the air, and flapped noisily across the room to land on the table beside him.

“I’ll see to your breakfast now,” Pylos announced. Cressen nodded. “This is the Lady Shireen,” he told the raven. The bird bobbed its pale head up and down, as if it were bowing. “Lady,” it croaked. “Lady.”

I am really struggling with these quotes. Cressen was supposed call Shireen a princess but he forgot, and the raven repeated it. The reference to gowns of silver seaweed seems like related to the Grey King.

On the crown of the hill four-and-forty monstrous stone ribs rose from the earth like the trunks of great pale trees. The sight made Aeron’s heart beat faster. Nagga had been the first sea dragon, the mightiest ever to rise from the waves. She fed on krakens and leviathans and drowned whole islands in her wrath, yet the Grey King had slain her and the Drowned God had changed her bones to stone so that men might never cease to wonder at the courage of the first of kings. Nagga’s ribs became the beams and pillars of his longhall, just as her jaws became his throne. For a thousand years and seven he reigned here, Aeron recalled. Here he took his mermaid wife and planned his wars against the Storm God. From here he ruled both stone and salt, wearing robes of woven seaweed and a tall pale crown made from Nagga’s teeth.

[sj4iy]

OIC. Stupid me...

Definitely. Trying to use logic 'round here? What were you thinking?!

[BearQueen87]

[snip]

Hmm. I can only spitball some things. On the hand, you can cite advanced age in Cressen and force of habit. But OTOH, he might be old but he certainly hasn't lost his mental faculties. Not to say that Cressen is delibertly giving hints, but perhaps GRRM is.

Out of curiosity, any references to Lyanna being a silver lady or grey lady...something like that?

[Mithras]

Hmm. I can only spitball some things. On the hand, you can cite advanced age in Cressen and force of habit. But OTOH, he might be old but he certainly hasn't lost his mental faculties. Not to say that Cressen is delibertly giving hints, but perhaps GRRM is.

Out of curiosity, any references to Lyanna being a silver lady or grey lady...something like that?

I don't know that but there is also the mention of bountiful harvests by Cressen. That might be related to the references to Jon as the Harvest God who was sacrificed for bountiful harvest.

[Kingmonkey]

Welp, I reckon it's about time I posted the third and final part of my excercise: TWOIAF states that Aerys named Viserys his heir. Discuss.

Part 3 is, I suppose, the meat, and is rather more in depth than the other two parts. Time to get down to that troublesome question of how the events at the ToJ might make sense if the hypothesis is true. Once more, I refer you back to my rules of engagement in part 1. See also part 2 on the Dornish Question.


The Viserys Problem part 3: Dream Parallels.

Nobody doubts that the first duty of the Kingsguard is to protect the king, but can we really draw the conclusion that this means that if Viserys was the heir, at least one of the 3KG was bound to go to Dragonstone? If I'm going to follow this Visery-as-heir reasoning to its logical conclusion, I need to explain the behaviour of the 3KG at the ToJ.

It must first be acknowledged that the 3KG may simply have been unaware of such a declaration, but I don't like this idea. With the obvious caveat that Ned's dream is not literal, it does at least appear that the 3KG are aware of events up to the lifting of the siege of Storm's End. For the reasons I gave in part 2, I consider it unlikely that such an announcement would not have been made. If the purpose of disinheriting Aegon was to weaken the Dornish position, it would be a necessary part of the political manoeuvring for that to be if not widely known, then at least known to the principles.

Thus what this theory needs is a believable reason for the 3KG to stay at the ToJ rather than going to Dragonstone. The first point to make here is that we only need to show that the position of the 3KG is arguable. There is reason to suspect that the 3KG were not entirely on the same page at the ToJ. Hightower seems most loyal to Aerys, telling Jaime they must obey rather than question the king, while Arthur and Whent are clearly part of Team Rhaegar. There's an interesting line in the world book about Rhaegar's supporters:

Prince Rhaegar’s support came from the younger men at court, including Lord Jon Connington, Ser Myles Mooton of Maidenpool, and Ser Richard Lonmouth. The Dornishmen who had come to court with the Princess Elia were in the prince’s confidence as well, particularly Prince Lewyn Martell, Elia’s uncle and a Sworn Brother of the Kingsguard. But the most formidable of all Rhaegar’s friends and allies in King’s Landing was surely Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning.

Most formidable swordsman, for sure, but the context implies something more political. We should assume that Dayne, at least, is up to his neck in Rhaegar's schemes, and has been bringing political influence to bear. We might speculate that the betrothal of Allyria Dayne to Beric Dondarrion stems ultimately from a building of trust and alliance between House Dayne and some of the marcher lords, traditional enemies of the Dornish. When we consider the question of strategic control of access to Dorne, two houses stand out: Dondarrion at the Boneway, and Caron at the Prince's Pass -- suspiciously close to the Tower of Joy.

We can easily imagine the conversation at the ToJ when news came. Hightower might have been all for going to Dragonstone at once, but Dayne was Rhaegar's man, and wouldn't have liked that idea one bit. Thus, we don't have to show that there is no reason for the 3KG to leave the tower, we need to show that Dayne would have been able to argue the case for staying successfully. Hightower, we get the impression, was something of a stickler for the rules, and Dayne's likely approach would be an appeal to precedent.

We have two examples of the Kingsguard leaving the king unguarded. Interestingly, in both of these examples, there is a direct parallel to the situation at the end of Robert's Rebellion.

"Sers," Jaime said in a formal tone when all five had assembled, "who guards the king?"

"My brothers Ser Osney and Ser Osfryd," Ser Osmund replied.

"And my brother Ser Garlan," said the Knight of Flowers.

"Will they keep him safe?"

"They will, my lord."

"Be seated, then." The words were ritual. Before the seven could meet in session, the king's safety must be assured.

It is often objected that this ritual is only for the Kingsguard meeting together, thus being only briefly out of the presence of the King, and wouldn't apply in the rather more drastic situation facing the 3KG at the tower. It's a fair point, but let's look at the situation less literally and consider the parallels.

The 3KG are at this point the entirety of the surviving Kingsguard (apart from Barristan, hors d'combat and now playing for the other team), together in one place. In the meeting, all three knights mentioned as guarding the king in the place of the Kingsguard are brothers to a member of the kingsguard. Ser Willem Darry is the brother to Jonathan Darry, and thus is also a brother's brother.

"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 line "Ser Willem is a good man and true" is a rather odd one, and often rather glossed over when people try to understand this dream. Why do they say this to Ned? It's a brief, abrupt exchange between the parties, and this line stands out in giving more detail than appears necessary. Whent stops to comment on the qualities of a man who isn't present - directly paralleling the idea that when the Kingsguard are not present, members of the Kingsguard are required to vouch for the Brother's brother protecting him.

When we look at the dialogue, we see it's divided into a set of challenges; Ned is not really casually commenting on where he believed they would be, he is challenging them to answer why they were not there. The format of the dialogue is, as has been pointed out many times before, oddly ritualistic. They refuse to give a direct answer ("We were not there", "Far away"), and then boast things would have gone differently if they had been. The challenge as to why they are not with Viserys is the only time the 3KG break from this pattern. Instead of giving the "We were not there" type response, they validate the man who has gone to perform that task instead. In terms of the Kingsguard meeting ritual, they could be seen to be justifying why they didn't have to be there. We can almost see in the dream dialogue an echo of a debate between the 3KG, as if as well as talking to Ned, they are treading over old ground in their own discussions of where they should be and what they should be doing.

We don't have to assume that this specific ritual was literally in play at the ToJ to see a rather strong parallel if Viserys was in fact Aerys' successor:

• A king has just been killed, and is succeeded by a boy king
• The (surviving) Kingsguard are all in one place
• The defence of the boy king is performed by (a) brother's brother(s).
• A ritual dialogue ("The words were ritual.")
• A validation of the man/men protecting the king by the absent KG.

The second example of an absent Kingsguard is from The Princess and the Queen.

We now know much and more that the queen did not. It was Lord Larys Strong, the Clubfoot, who spirited the king and his children out of the city when the queen’s dragons first appeared in the skies above King’s Landing. So as not to pass through any of the city gates, where they might be seen and remembered, Lord Larys led them out through some secret passage of Maegor the Cruel, of which only he had knowledge.

It was Lord Larys who decreed the fugitives should part company as well, so that even if one were taken, the others might win free. Ser Rickard Thorne was commanded to deliver two-year-old Prince Maelor to Lord Hightower. Princess Jaehaera, a sweet and simple girl of six, was put in the charge of Ser Willis Fell, who swore to bring her safely to Storm’s End. Neither knew where the other was bound, so neither could betray the other if captured.

And only Larys himself knew that the king, stripped of his finery and clad in a salt-stained fisherman’s cloak, had been concealed amongst a load of codfish on a fishing skiff in the care of a bastard knight with kin on Dragonstone.

This example directly contradicts the suggestion that the first duty of the Kingsguard demands that they must always ensure there is a member of the Kingsguard with the king. In this case, it was presumably felt that his safety was better assured by stealth than arms; it was his safety that was paramount, not the presence of the Kingsguard. Instead, the two Kingsguard who left King's Landing with him went their separate ways to guard his children and heirs. Aegon II was on Dragonstone without Kingsguard protection for half a year; at no point did either of the two Kingsguard feel that their vows demanded that they must go to Dragonstone to protect him rather than continuing their duty to protect the heirs.

Again, we see a direct parallel if Viserys was the king. In both cases, the King has fled from King's Landing to Dragonstone, but the Kingsguard aren't with him. Interestingly, if we follow this parallel, the obvious conclusion is that the 3KG must have been guarding Viserys' heir. There are two other passages that are worth bringing up here.

Then as now, the Sworn Brotherhood of the Kingsguard consisted of seven knights, men of proven loyalty and undoubted prowess who had taken solemn oaths to devote their lives to defending the king’s person and kin.

"Then as now", sound familiar? In Ned's dream, Arthur's response to the question of the Kingsguard's vow and their absence from Dragonstone is "Then or now", providing both a textual and contextual parallel to TPaTQ. This introduction to the Kingsguard specifies that they devote their lives to defending the king's person and kin.

King Aegon II had fled. So had his children, the six-year-old Princess Jaehaera and two-year-old Prince Maelor, along with the knights Willis Fell and Rickard Thorne of the Kingsguard.

In TPaTQ, two members of the Kingsguard are described as fleeing – yet in Ned's dream, "The Kingsguard does not flee." This is the line immediately following "Then or now", which seems to be inviting us to draw a parallel. This of course highlights an obvious flaw in Gerold Hightower's claim – of course the Kingsguard would flee if the king was fleeing and ordered them to go with him. So why does Hightower tell Ned this, when history says otherwise?

Going back to the patterned response of the 3KG's dialogue mentioned earlier, this is the boast section. They would not have defeated the rebels at the trident, they would not have kept Aerys on the Iron Throne, and they do (did) flee. Each boast is false, but it tells Ned of their confidence, and their adherence to the Kingsguard's duties even if all seems hopeless. Now, just as with "We were not there" and "far away", they are telling Ned (and us) here that they were not breaking their vows, but rather had another duty to perform – at the Tower of Joy – and they are not going to flee from that duty, whatever the cost. The point is that Fell and Thorne would have said they were not fleeing; the king and his family were fleeing, and the Kingsguard were accompanying them. Viserys fled, and had the Kingsguard gone to Dragonstone to be with him, they would not have been fleeing, they would have been doing their duty and accompanying him – then as now.

In terms of a debate at the ToJ before Ned's arrival, it's easy to see these arguments winning out. Hightower is, it seems, an honourable man and a stickler for duty. However, at this juncture duty is unclear. Viserys may be Aerys' named heir, but he hasn't actually been crowned yet, and Hightower would not be determined to go to Dragonstone, he would be determined to whatever seemed right. Dayne, on the other hand, would have real reason to argue against Dragonstone; he wouldn't want to go to Dragonstone to support Viserys, effectively conceding defeat to Aerys, rather than following Rhaegar's plan. He has the advantage of precedent to quote, he has the advantage of arguing for following the orders they had been given rather than making their own, and he has the advantage of caring personally what the outcome of the debate should be. I suspect we will find that he was a rather more intelligent man than slow, dependable Hightower, too. Hightower might have been the man with authority, but he doesn't have a dog in the race and only needs to be persuaded that staying is the right thing to do. The Dragonstone option wouldn't stand a chance.

Conclusion: The idea that Viserys might have been named as heir does not demand that the Kingsguard leave the ToJ to go and protect him. There are two parallels that indicate this, one a very direct example of a king on Dragonstone without Kingsguard protection, while the Kingsguard protect the heirs to the throne, the other that the king can be considered safe when he's protected by a Brother's brother who's worth has been validated by members of the KG. If the 3KG are assuming the duty of protecting the king's kin, they are not obliged to go to Dragonstone to be with a king who it is reasonable to consider is secure for the moment, by the clear precedent of Aegon II.

When it comes to the old protect vs. obey debate, people have often suggested that protect would demand that at least one of the 3KG head to Dragonstone. Yet it turns out that the duty of protect can sometimes mean protecting the heirs while the king is safe on Dragonstone. Thus protect vs. obey may simply be a moot point; a strong case can be made for staying at the ToJ whichever side of protect vs. obey you are on -- and it seems likely that Dayne would have made that case.

If we accept this parallel, then by extension, the obvious conclusion is that as the 3KG were absent from Dragonstone and the kings side, they must have had a very good reason, such as guarding the king's kin. The parallel implies something a little more than that too – the fact that the Fell and Thorne were specifically guarding the king's heirs adds weight to the theory the Jon would be next in line after Viserys – and thus that he was considered legitimate.

[Black Crow]

An interesting argument but how do you square it with their declarations of loyalty to Aerys rather than Viserys?

[Black Crow]

Out of curiosity, any references to Lyanna being a silver lady or grey lady...something like that?

None that I can recall, and what's more likely to be significant is the frequent use in folklore of the term "grey lady" to denote a ghost, and in this case we later have the horrified reaction of Val who declares that Shireen is already dead.

[Mladen]

Out of curiosity, any references to Lyanna being a silver lady or grey lady...something like that?

None that I can recall, and what's more likely to be significant is the frequent use in folklore of the term "grey lady" to denote a ghost, and in this case we later have the horrified reaction of Val who declares that Shireen is already dead.

Hmmm... We can go by association here. Catelyn named Jon's mother a "ghost", grey is Stark color, Lyanna is the only woman with the statue in Winterfell crypts, and Jon is drawn to those crypts, so some sort of argument can be made.