R+L =J v.135

[sj4iy]

Yes, it's so nonsensical that other posters within this very thread are saying that what I said isn't nonsensical or BS. But only I'm the nonsensical one who needs convincing and is spouting BS, despite not being the only person saying what I said.

Which means that you just don't like it when I say something, regardless of what it is that I say. Otherwise you'd be calling out all these people too who said what I said and saying that they're spouting nonsense and BS as they are literally saying what I said is possible.

Seriously. You're a troll. You troll this thread and people still don't get it. This post just proves it, but people still continue to try to earnestly debate despite all evidence to the contrary. You've said just about every nonsensical thing in the book just to be argumentative with others. You've never once agreed with anyone on anything...that's what trolls do. So stop the self-righteous act as if we haven't called you on this before...because we have.

[Lord Varys]

Come on, guys. This coronation thing is not all that important. I remember that Robert married Cersei a year after his ascension, but this could still mean that his wedding was also part of larger formal coronation ceremony - which could explain why Yandel claims Robert's first act as king was to wed Cersei Lannister. This could then also be the event in which he handed out the rewards - giving Dragonstone to Stannis (which can only have happened after Stannis had taken it) and Storm's End to Renly. It is reasonable to assume that this occurred before Cersei had had acquired influence at court, as she most certainly would have insisted that Robert name her eldest son 'Prince of Dragonstone' in the Targaryen fashion and keep Storm's End to give it eventually to their younger children.

The fact that Robert was crowned in one way or the other - he may have even had three coronations, as we know he made his claim known some time before the Trident, so it is possible that the rebels crowned Robert king before Rhaegar was even dead.

No idea why this is even contested. A King on the Iron Throne without a coronation is no king at all. We learn this specifically from Aegon I, Aenys I, Jaehaerys I, Aegon II and Rhaenyra, and Jaehaerys II. All those kings have coronations mentioned.

And Renly, Stannis, Joffrey, and Tommen all had coronations, too, although there were not covered by POVs.

The feast Jaime seems to remember cannot really have occurred mere days after the Sack - unless we consider this whole thing a 'corpse feast'. It is clear though that Robert ascended the Iron Throne when he arrived at KL, and pardoned Varys, Pycelle, and Jaime around that time. But this does not mean that a big coronation ceremony was arranged then. Unless we have no evidence to the contrary I go with the assumption that a real coronation occurred later. But this is not really an important point, or is it?

Kingsguard stuff:

I'm really stunned where this absolute knowledge about the interpretation of the Kingsguard vow comes from. This thing is not as clear to me as it is apparently to others. Where does this knowledge come from that the oath a KG swears to King X automatically extends to the King Y without formal renewal and recognition, and that this automatic extension also supersedes the last commands the previous king/heir/royal guy in charge has given them?

It is also an interpretation that the knights at the tower stayed there due to some specifics of the vows to protect the king. I interpret this in a less convoluted way. 'The Kingsguard does not flee' could mean that the Kingsguard does not run/shy away from its responsibility. 'We swore a vow' could mean 'we stand true' as we swore a vow which includes obedience which, in turn, explains why we stand here and are ready to give our lives to fulfill the last command of the guy in charge - how ridiculous it may be to prevent a reunion between brother and sister/nephew.

In my opinion, Ned thinks fondly of these guys because they lived up to what a true knight of the Kingsguard should do. Remain dutiful until the very end. It is not important whether they died protecting a child they believed should be king, a prince of the blood, or even a royal bastard. I don't believe that Lyanna's child is a bastard, but from the KG stuff alone we can't deduce that he is trueborn without the shadow of a doubt, either. Imagine if Aegon IV (or later Daeron II) had a assigned a KG to Daemon Blackfyre or one of his other bastards for all his life, to protect him 'as if he was the king'. It would be entirely possible that Rhaegar would issue a similar command, especially if he believed that the child was 'special' and 'important', and the KG came to believe the same thing he did (which should be a given for at least both Oswell and Arthur).

But let's illustrate this:

I'm a Targaryen king, and there is a KG knight in my service. And I give him a very specific order like 'Go to place x, stay there, and guard it with your life until you die.' If this guy now thinks he is not honor-bound to fulfill this order even after my premature death on the next day he is lucky that I'm dead because I'd have had his head for disobedience if he had done such a thing while I was alive.

Or another example:

I'm a king, and I've chosen my heir (the eldest son) as successor, but I also know that he is a jerk and will most likely kill his little brother after he becomes king. Thus I give the order to a Kingsguard knight to take this prince into his care, guard him with his life even after I'm dead and my other son is the new king. Would it now be honorable or proper for this KG to abandon the royal prince I entrusted into his care and go to the new king to protect him now?

I could also issue such a command to all seven of my KG, and then they would have been honor-bound to obey my command rather than hurrying back to protect the new king after my death (or myself, as I'm somehow without protection if there are no KGs scuttling around). The new king could always name new KGs.

Rhaegar could easily have ordered all three knights to protect the tower - and then they would have not been free to send one of their own to Dragonstone after Rhaegar/Aerys' death.

The KG has no right to question or interpret or twist the commands of the king, and they have also no right to refuse to obey an order if the king - if he was mad, or trying to make a point in a discussion - decided to sent all the KG away to protect somebody else.

But perhaps we are looking at this whole thing from the wrong perspective:

What if Rhaegar refused to leave the tower and return to KL to lead the Targaryen army, and Ser Arthur and Ser Oswell supported in that - until Ser Gerold suggested that he, Arthur, and Oswell stay there to protect Lyanna in Rhaegar's place? Thus the whole complicated situation evaporates somewhat, since the knights would now deliberately have taken on the commitment to guard Lyanna rather than being forced to do this by Rhaegar. Then they would have had no motivation to leave the tower even after they learned the news about Rhaegar and Aerys.

And a last word on the dream:

I really can't take the episode seriously as a real-life conversation. You can imagine this whole thing as a funny comic strip if you add the things Ned and the others must have thought (and should have said) in thought bubbles over their heads. That would be hilarious.

'Wait, why is he talking about where we have not been? What does he even want here?' 'Why is he not asking about his sister or asking us to let him pass.' 'Shouldn't he hate us/be angry because we helped abduct his sister and cause a war?' 'Shouldn't he hate us because we are complicit in the abduction and rape of his sister, or have at least shamed House Stark by assisting Rhaegar in breaking a marriage contract?' 'Why isn't anyone trying to reach a peaceful solution to this mess?'

In my opinion, one can make a good case that Ned's mind did retroactively create this tragic/scenario when he finally learned what was actually going on rather than a 1:1 recollection of the dialogue. The ritualistic exchange of words about where the knights were not may also be a way how he thinks about Jon's true heritage by not actively raising the topic, not even in his dreams.

Finally, Ned's interpretation of the interpretation of the KG vow other KG made is not valid evidence to prove or support anything. Just as my interpretation of the interpretation somebody else gives of something does not mean that I know what I'm talking about.

[Ygrain]

snip

My lord is surely jesting.

I haven't sworn any vow but I am a teacher and I bear responsibility for my students. At no time, no class may be left unsupervised. Either the classes have to be joined or the available teachers have to split, but but it is unthinkable that in case of an emergency, teachers simply stay with their originally assigned classes and do not make sure that someone goes to the unattended class. Not going to an unattended class even though we had the capacity (like, there were three of us) would be considered a serious dereliction of duty and repercussions would follow. It doesn't matter whether the class is safe, whether there are other adult people around or whether reaching the kids would be time-consuming. What matters is that the duty must be fulfilled.

[Alia of the knife]

Come on, guys. This coronation thing is not all that important. I remember that Robert married Cersei a year after his ascension, but this could still mean that his wedding was also part of larger formal coronation ceremony - which could explain why Yandel claims Robert's first act as king was to wed Cersei Lannister. This could then also be the event in which he handed out the rewards - giving Dragonstone to Stannis (which can only have happened after Stannis had taken it) and Storm's End to Renly. It is reasonable to assume that this occurred before Cersei had had acquired influence at court, as she most certainly would have insisted that Robert name her eldest son 'Prince of Dragonstone' in the Targaryen fashion and keep Storm's End to give it eventually to their younger children.

The fact that Robert was crowned in one way or the other - he may have even had three coronations, as we know he made his claim known some time before the Trident, so it is possible that the rebels crowned Robert king before Rhaegar was even dead.

No idea why this is even contested. A King on the Iron Throne without a coronation is no king at all. We learn this specifically from Aegon I, Aenys I, Jaehaerys I, Aegon II and Rhaenyra, and Jaehaerys II. All those kings have coronations mentioned.

And Renly, Stannis, Joffrey, and Tommen all had coronations, too, although there were not covered by POVs.

The feast Jaime seems to remember cannot really have occurred mere days after the Sack - unless we consider this whole thing a 'corpse feast'. It is clear though that Robert ascended the Iron Throne when he arrived at KL, and pardoned Varys, Pycelle, and Jaime around that time. But this does not mean that a big coronation ceremony was arranged then. Unless we have no evidence to the contrary I go with the assumption that a real coronation occurred later. But this is not really an important point, or is it?

Kingsguard stuff:

I'm really stunned where this absolute knowledge about the interpretation of the Kingsguard vow comes from. This thing is not as clear to me as it is apparently to others. Where does this knowledge come from that the oath a KG swears to King X automatically extends to the King Y without formal renewal and recognition, and that this automatic extension also supersedes the last commands the previous king/heir/royal guy in charge has given them?

It is also an interpretation that the knights at the tower stayed there due to some specifics of the vows to protect the king. I interpret this in a less convoluted way. 'The Kingsguard does not flee' could mean that the Kingsguard does not run/shy away from its responsibility. 'We swore a vow' could mean 'we stand true' as we swore a vow which includes obedience which, in turn, explains why we stand here and are ready to give our lives to fulfill the last command of the guy in charge - how ridiculous it may be to prevent a reunion between brother and sister/nephew.

In my opinion, Ned thinks fondly of these guys because they lived up to what a true knight of the Kingsguard should do. Remain dutiful until the very end. It is not important whether they died protecting a child they believed should be king, a prince of the blood, or even a royal bastard. I don't believe that Lyanna's child is a bastard, but from the KG stuff alone we can't deduce that he is trueborn without the shadow of a doubt, either. Imagine if Aegon IV (or later Daeron II) had a assigned a KG to Daemon Blackfyre or one of his other bastards for all his life, to protect him 'as if he was the king'. It would be entirely possible that Rhaegar would issue a similar command, especially if he believed that the child was 'special' and 'important', and the KG came to believe the same thing he did (which should be a given for at least both Oswell and Arthur).

But let's illustrate this:

I'm a Targaryen king, and there is a KG knight in my service. And I give him a very specific order like 'Go to place x, stay there, and guard it with your life until you die.' If this guy now thinks he is not honor-bound to fulfill this order even after my premature death on the next day he is lucky that I'm dead because I'd have had his head for disobedience if he had done such a thing while I was alive.

Or another example:

I'm a king, and I've chosen my heir (the eldest son) as successor, but I also know that he is a jerk and will most likely kill his little brother after he becomes king. Thus I give the order to a Kingsguard knight to take this prince into his care, guard him with his life even after I'm dead and my other son is the new king. Would it now be honorable or proper for this KG to abandon the royal prince I entrusted into his care and go to the new king to protect him now?

I could also issue such a command to all seven of my KG, and then they would have been honor-bound to obey my command rather than hurrying back to protect the new king after my death (or myself, as I'm somehow without protection if there are no KGs scuttling around). The new king could always name new KGs.

Rhaegar could easily have ordered all three knights to protect the tower - and then they would have not been free to send one of their own to Dragonstone after Rhaegar/Aerys' death.

The KG has no right to question or interpret or twist the commands of the king, and they have also no right to refuse to obey an order if the king - if he was mad, or trying to make a point in a discussion - decided to sent all the KG away to protect somebody else.

But perhaps we are looking at this whole thing from the wrong perspective:

What if Rhaegar refused to leave the tower and return to KL to lead the Targaryen army, and Ser Arthur and Ser Oswell supported in that - until Ser Gerold suggested that he, Arthur, and Oswell stay there to protect Lyanna in Rhaegar's place? Thus the whole complicated situation evaporates somewhat, since the knights would now deliberately have taken on the commitment to guard Lyanna rather than being forced to do this by Rhaegar. Then they would have had no motivation to leave the tower even after they learned the news about Rhaegar and Aerys.

And a last word on the dream:

I really can't take the episode seriously as a real-life conversation. You can imagine this whole thing as a funny comic strip if you add the things Ned and the others must have thought (and should have said) in thought bubbles over their heads. That would be hilarious.

'Wait, why is he talking about where we have not been? What does he even want here?' 'Why is he not asking about his sister or asking us to let him pass.' 'Shouldn't he hate us/be angry because we helped abduct his sister and cause a war?' 'Shouldn't he hate us because we are complicit in the abduction and rape of his sister, or have at least shamed House Stark by assisting Rhaegar in breaking a marriage contract?' 'Why isn't anyone trying to reach a peaceful solution to this mess?'

In my opinion, one can make a good case that Ned's mind did retroactively create this tragic/scenario when he finally learned what was actually going on rather than a 1:1 recollection of the dialogue. The ritualistic exchange of words about where the knights were not may also be a way how he thinks about Jon's true heritage by not actively raising the topic, not even in his dreams.

Finally, Ned's interpretation of the interpretation of the KG vow other KG made is not valid evidence to prove or support anything. Just as my interpretation of the interpretation somebody else gives of something does not mean that I know what I'm talking about.

I think the KG duties vs. some of the precedants that some of the past KG have set also makes me not look at their presence at the TOJ as the sole reason to think Jon is trueborn and an heir to the IT.

And good point on Rhaegar giving Hightower an ultimatum on returning to KL, because that also makes sense in the context of Hightowers seeming frustration later on about not being by Aerys side and Martin confirming that Rhaegar "ordered" the KG to guard Lyanna.

Not really a fan of the KG myself, because I think they exemplify the gradual "politicization" of their roles despite what they initially started out to be and applied the "rules" as they went. Some like Selmy and Hightower followed the rules, Selmy for his own honor, and Hightower because he was a "true" believer, while the likes of Cole thought it right to overstep the kings wishes supposedly for the "betterment of the realm," (however, I think it was because of a bitter heart).

Martins character actions via historical parallels regarding the "messiness" of Medieval succession are reflected also in Aerys actions regarding Viserys vs. Aegon.

It reminds me to some degree of the struggle between Henry II, (his mother was Empress Maltilda who fought with her cousin, Stehpen of Blois over her birthright which is very much like tPaTQ), and his wife Eleanor of Acquitaine, (which is why it would be interesting to know more about Rhaella), who the latter encouraged her sons to rebel against Henry, led by Henrys heir, the Crown Prince.

Henrys youngest son, who would later become king John, was also his fathers favorite.

One of the principle reasons for the rebellion was that he had so many sons, he was trying to find land for them, hence Martins statement that sometims having too many sons could be problem.

As for Ned, going back to the statement in the WB that Ned "was no more happy than his brother," about the crowning of Lyanna, but was more restrained, also makes me take his thoughts, dreams, etc., with a grain of salt.

In manys ways to me, Ned is an enigma, and trying to crack the "Ned Code," could be a dicey thing.

[Alia of the knife]

Off to work, so I leave you with apparently one of Danys "dragons" on a Florida golf course.

He is a twelve/thirteen foot alligator, and not the largest they've seen, which is why I will never live in Florida because he's a monster. :stunned:

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIGM_AJV.l8Acas0nIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByN2RnbHFoBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMw--?p=12+foot+alligator+on+florida+golf+course&vid=c18a30d58bc762b19e9287df05f1f1c2&l=1%3A19&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVQ.348160267581%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aol.com%2Fvideo%2Fhuge-13ft-alligator-takes-over-florida-golf-course%2F518704235%2F&tit=Huge+13ft+Alligator+Takes+Over+Florida+Golf+Course&c=2&sigr=12mj37plm&sigt=11i456req&sigi=11l807dgf&age=0&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&hsimp=yhs-fullyhosted_003&hspart=iry&tt=b

I like especially the "strict policy on not feeding the animals."

Really?

[Mithras]

Off to work, so I leave you with apparently one of Danys "dragons" on a Florida golf course.

He is a twelve/thirteen foot alligator, and not the largest they've seen, which is why I will never live in Florida because he's a monster. :stunned:

I like especially the "strict policy on not feeding the animals."

Really?

Looks like Rhaegal.

[Alia of the knife]

Looks like Rhaegal.

He is a beautiful creature, but good lord.

Apparently its mating season as well, so you better get of the way. I have a couple of cousins who live in Florida, and there is a reason you don't have a pet door. :bawl:

[Lord Varys]

Ygrain,

the point there is that your students cannot have your head for disobedience. A king or Prince of Dragonstone can/could. A monarch does not argue with his servants/subjects unless he wants to - and if he gives an order you obey (especially if you have sworn to obey).

If a kings wants to risk his own life and commands his KG to stand down, they do stand down. Just as Selmy did, when Robert faced the boar.

Sure, the KG can (re-)interpret the orders they are given until they mean the exact opposite of what the king actually said, and they can also rationalize that decision. And they can also always choose not to follow an order, of course. But that would not be the honorable thing to do, nor does it seem to be something the three knights at the tower did. Jaime and Ser Criston Cole most certainly did. In fact, Cole may even be complicit in Viserys' murder, if Alicent poisoned him. He was way too close to her in the night of the coup.

In the scenario at the tower, the three knights may have been permanently assigned to Lyanna and her (unborn) child. Not sure if it would have been proper for them to decide 'Well, Rhaegar said we all three should stay here, but I guess nobody gets hurt if I go'. Especially not if they ended up believing that the child must be protected at all costs because it was 'special'. Prophecy stuff has to be considered as well in all of that, and our great interpreter Ned wouldn't know about any of that - perhaps the guys did actually swear an additional oath to protect the third head of the dragon?

[RumHam]

It is Ned's judgment not just of Jaime, but of the three he faced at the tower of joy that we need to assess. I don't mean to make this really difficult, and I can put you back onto my ignore list, if you continue to refuse to reach any kind of understanding.

I just wanna say I love this "stick your fingers in your ears when someone doesn't see things your way" attitude. Don't ever change.

[Ygrain]

Ygrain,

the point there is that your students cannot have your head for disobedience. A king or Prince of Dragonstone can/could. A monarch does not argue with his servants/subjects unless he wants to - and if he gives an order you obey (especially if you have sworn to obey).

If a kings wants to risk his own life and commands his KG to stand down, they do stand down. Just as Selmy did, when Robert faced the boar.

Sure, the KG can (re-)interpret the orders they are given until they mean the exact opposite of what the king actually said, and they can also rationalize that decision. And they can also always choose not to follow an order, of course. But that would not be the honorable thing to do, nor does it seem to be something the three knights at the tower did. Jaime and Ser Criston Cole most certainly did. In fact, Cole may even be complicit in Viserys' murder, if Alicent poisoned him. He was way too close to her in the night of the coup.

In the scenario at the tower, the three knights may have been permanently assigned to Lyanna and her (unborn) child. Not sure if it would have been proper for them to decide 'Well, Rhaegar said we all three should stay here, but I guess nobody gets hurt if I go'. Especially not if they ended up believing that the child must be protected at all costs because it was 'special'. Prophecy stuff has to be considered as well in all of that, and our great interpreter Ned wouldn't know about any of that - perhaps the guys did actually swear an additional oath to protect the third head of the dragon?

But of course that the headmaster will - figuratively - have my head if I disobey or fail to carry out my duty. And duty is exactly what matters most here - were the KG of old shining examples of KGhood because they were afraid to lose their heads if they disobeyed, or because they had a strong inner drive to fulfill their duty no matter the cost?

Also, sorry but the context makes it clear that they are referring to the KG vow, not an additional one Even if they swore an additional vow to protect PTWP, that wouldn't exempt them from fulfilling the KG duty. They might, of course, choose to prioritize and and place the protection of PTWP above their KG duties, but only at the cost of becoming oathbreakers to the KG vows - in which case the emphasy they put on being KG wouldn't make any sense, nor would Ned name Dayne as a paragon of KGhood.

Kinda like if I went to save the president at the cost of abandoning my students - though I'd theoretically follow a higher call, I'd still fail as a teacher (and I prefer even the worst of my students to the guy who occupies the chair, anyway).