R+L=J v.136

[Alia of the knife]

The question there is:

Did Hightower actually search for Rhaegar, or had somebody else - Varys? - already located where Rhaegar was or heard rumors about his whereabouts. Lyanna and Rhaegar did not teleport to the tower, people would have seen their party and eventually news about that may have reached.

And we still don't know why Rhaegar was in that tower and not somewhere else. It may have had some meaning for him.

JS,

so you go with 'Viserys was Aerys' heir but not Prince of Dragonstone' then? We don't know whether this was always part of the story but it is canon now, and we have to look at the other facts with this facts in mind.

George has long ago made it clear that there was no clear succession in Westeros just guidelines. But people do not seem to want to hear this kind of stuff. Was Tyrion Tywin's recognized heir? I don't think so.

If you ask me then there is no clear line of succession for the Iron Throne unless the king makes such a line. That is by naming and choosing an heir. Aenys, for example, was (presumably) Aegon's eldest son. But this alone did not make him Aegon's successor. He was also Aegon's chosen heir, the son he kept closely by his side and took to all his progresses. There was no doubt that Aegon wanted Aenys to succeed him. Every other smooth succession - Jaehaerys-Viserys, Aegon III-Daeron I, Daeron I-Baelor I, Viserys II-Aegon IV, Aegon IV-Daeron II, Aerys I-Maekar I, Aegon V-Jaehaerys II, and Jaehaerys II-Aerys II - went this way because the king had chosen a successor.

But just because the children of the chosen successor were technically this guy's heirs does not necessarily mean that their grandfather the king or other people think likewise. Depending on the age of those grandchildren they may not be able to rule for themselves at once - which would make it reasonably to give the crown to a younger son with experience.

And this is essentially the rule in Westeros. The succession of all those long reigning kings - Edrick Snowbeard, the Gardener kings, etc. - was not clear simply because there was no absolute law regulating the succession. At least not a law that everyone considered to be binding.

Alia,

fair enough ;-). I recently actually had a clash with reality when I realized that not everyone memorizes the Targaryen family tree automatically. I really am somewhat strange...

Ygrain,

but your analogy says that a king cannot change this alleged first duty from, say, 'guard myself with your life' to 'guard my wife, children, mistresses, bastards, cousins etc. with your life' despite the fact that we know that kings have extended KG protection extended kin and family?

Let's imagine Summerhall:

The palace is burning. Flames are everywhere. Duncan and Jenny, and all their children (if they had any) are already dead. Aegon V is trapped beneath a burning beam. Aerys and Rhaella are trapped behind a fire on the other side of the hall. Dunk stands in the middle and Egg cries out to him: 'Go! You must save my granddaughter. Rhaella and Aerys will bring forth the prince that was promised.' 'I've sworn an oath, Your Grace. The first and foremost duty of a Kingsguard is, as every man, woman, and child knows, to protect the king. You are the king anointed by the very gods above us. Thus you cannot command me to save others while you yourself are in mortal danger.'

The point I'm making is that a Kingsguard is never just a Kingsguard. They are knights and human beings first and we should consider the possibility that they just stayed at that tower because they wanted to (obey Rhaegar's wishes). What do we know? Perhaps Lyanna forbid them to go? She was a princess-by-marriage, and if Lyanna was there of her own free will Rhaegar may have named all the three knights her sworn shields. I imagine only a higher authority could have changed that again - i.e. a new king. But whilst they were not with such a king they could not ask him to assign them to him, or could they.

Again, it is not clear whether a Kingsguard automatically is sworn to defend a new king. I imagine when things are murky you chose your king. The knights may have chosen Jon as their king over Viserys or they may have chosen to not think about that and just do their duty as it was last defined: Protect Lyanna and her (unborn) child.

JS again,

I'm pretty much in agreement with the whole theory in this thread. I'm just interpreting clues differently and I'm expecting that new information will eventually explain why the knights were at the tower. George has already hinted at that they may have not exactly liked to stay there, did he not? ADwD already confirmed that Jon is indeed Rhaegar's son by Lyanna for everyone who has eyes to see it. And the final confirmation came with the leaked original outline. I'm as surprised (and actually quite disinterested) in discussing the arguments of people challenging the theory in earnest. It can be fun though to try to test certain aspects of it. But that's not what I'm doing here. I just think that vows and their interpretation by various characters as well as rather rigid view of the Kingsguard are vastly overstressed.

If I had to bet I'd say it is about 4:1 in favor that Rhaegar was indeed married to Lyanna - I imagine this was why the whole Targaryen polygamy was introduced in the first place - but I'd not be disappointed if they had not been married. After all, it is not shame to be 'a bastard' - at least not in the real world. And even bastards can become kings in Westeros so this would not necessarily cause a huge problem. Certainly not a bigger than joining the NW.

I imagine that future information will shed more light on the three knights and their relationship to Rhaegar and I expect that it is more likely that we'll learn why they did what he asked rather than that we'll learned that 'they stayed true to the true king'. But perhaps I'm dead wrong there.

Lol, you aren't strange, and you could have a lot worse hobbies. Besides, I'm depending on you and Rhaenys Targaryen.

[J. Stargaryen]

JS,

so you go with 'Viserys was Aerys' heir but not Prince of Dragonstone' then? We don't know whether this was always part of the story but it is canon now, and we have to look at the other facts with this facts in mind.

No. I say that him being sent to DS had nothing to do with DS being the traditional seat of the heir. Viserys and Rhaella were sent to DS as a precaution against the coming siege and inevitable fall of KL.

Given how protective Aerys was of Viserys, do you think there's any chance he would have sent him to DS just to claim his seat?

George has long ago made it clear that there was no clear succession in Westeros just guidelines. But people do not seem to want to hear this kind of stuff. Was Tyrion Tywin's recognized heir? I don't think so.

Tyrion thought CR was supposed to be his.

If you ask me then there is no clear line of succession for the Iron Throne unless the king makes such a line.

This is kind of an ambiguous statement. I think there is essentially a default line, which follows male primogeniture. But sure, a king can name who he pleases as his heir. And his lords can also decide if they agree with that choice after the fact.

[SFDanny]

SFDanny,

I'd not really describe Aerys' attitude towards the Dornish as 'racism'. He himself was descended from Mariah Martell, and had actually brokered the Elia-Rhaegar match - presumably part of the reason was that she was one of the few Targaryen cousins of noble birth available at that time. Brienne was not really an option, I guess ;-).

His attitude towards Rhaegar and his children by Elia should be more seen in light of his illness/madness and the sudden mood swings. First naming Jaime to the KG and then fearing him. Fearing that Tywin wants to kill him but being unable to fire him, etc. His mistrust of Rhaegar may have played a role as well. Suspicion manifesting itself in stuff that had nothing to do with anything. 'Dornish smell? Come on Aerys, take a bath...'

I don't really care if you'd prefer the term "bigotry," or perhaps "prejudice" or any of a dozen other terms, but call it what you will it is clear Aerys believes the "Dragons" are superior than "lesser men." His belief in his superiority over others combines with his paranoid madness to push him to this decree. The action exemplifies all of this.

[Lord Varys]

I'd say things only go smooth when there is a widely recognized and accepted heir. And he should be mostly chosen from the king's closest family members, obviously.

But when there is no recognized heir even the eldest son of a king would just have 'a claim' in the situation we find ourselves in the present-day of the series. A very strong claim, yes, but not a claim that could not be challenged (more or less easily). Think about young son against experience uncle (Aegon vs. Maegor) or mad/lackwit elder son against a younger brother.

Back in the second century there were no precedents against male primogeniture. This is why Aegon IV could not disinherit Daeron without causing a civil war. But the third century created four precedents against male primogeniture (Aegon V, Jaehaerys II, Viserys III, and Robert I).

Renly could not have been as popular as he was if male primogeniture was really the default custom people should always fall back to if they don't know what to do. He almost casually challenges the claims of Cersei's children - which considers to be legitimate - as well as Stannis. Retroactively this tells us a lot about how people considered claims.

Usually the eldest son is also the recognized heir. But this does not always have to be the case. And if it is not - say, in Prince Duncan's case - then this guy should face quite a lot of opposition or difficulty should he still push his claim after his father's death. We know of no lord or king who threw his eldest son out of his house/castle, publicly denounced and disinherited him, and forced him to find his own place in the world. I imagine a prince treated like shit by his father would never have the following to push his claim after his father's death. Not to mention that a king could just declare his trueborn son a bastard to get rid of him.

As to Tyrion:

He demanded that his father publicly name him and recognize him as his heir. Which means that he wasn't officially heir to Casterly Rock. Not the heir Tywin chose. Just because Tywin hadn't named an heir doesn't mean Tyrion is this heir by default. I could easily see Ser Kevan successfully challenging Tyrion's claim - especially if Tywin had told Kevan to do just that should he die a premature death and Jaime still be a member of the KG. I'm pretty sure Tyrion would not have won that argument.

SFDanny,

well, I'd call it a symptom of his madness. I'm not sure we should assume that Aerys had a consistent political agenda in his last years. Aerys clearly suffers from a Targaryen superiority his 'traditionalist parents' may have instilled in him. But then, Jaehaerys and Shaera appear to be the most Valyrian of Aegon's children so something like that would have been expected.

Perhaps we should also consider the pressure of prophecy in Aerys and Rhaella's lives. Yes, they had to continue the dynasty but according to a prophecy their father believed they also had to conceive the savior of the world (or at least somebody who would then conceive that person, or his distant ancestor - born from their line can mean anything, really). But this thing would clearly have reinforced the Targaryen superiority complex even more. Aerys grew up in time in which the dragon blood of House Targaryen really became important again - with Summerhall and everything connected to it.

But on the day Aerys agreed to the match he most have had a 'Dorne is great' day. Else the whole marriage would not have happened.

[teej6]

This is kind of an ambiguous statement. I think there is essentially a default line, which follows male primogeniture. But sure, a king can name who he pleases as his heir. And his lords can also decide if they agree with that choice after the fact.

In ACOK, Big Walder tells Little Walder that "The sons of the first son come before the second son." Aerys as king could chose his next heir but you're right the default practice in Westeros was primogeniture.

[Ser Creighton]

Oh god is this still going on, oh well. So just looked at one my old theories, and saw someone had posted a funny little inverse that never really gets talked about. What are the two catch phrases people say to Dany and Jon?

Jon: You know nothing.

Dany: It is known.

Just thought it was funny.

So from what I understand of Aerys and this new information. It is known and nobody knows anything about it. I say Martin stuck well within his themes.

[J. Stargaryen]

I'd say things only go smooth when there is a widely recognized and accepted heir. And he should be mostly chosen from the king's closest family members, obviously.

But when there is no recognized heir even the eldest son of a king would just have 'a claim' in the situation we find ourselves in the present-day of the series. A very strong claim, yes, but not a claim that could not be challenged (more or less easily). Think about young son against experience uncle (Aegon vs. Maegor) or mad/lackwit elder son against a younger brother.

Back in the second century there were no precedents against male primogeniture. This is why Aegon IV could not disinherit Daeron without causing a civil war. But the third century created four precedents against male primogeniture (Aegon V, Jaehaerys II, Viserys III, and Robert I).

All claims can be challenged, even default ones. I never said that male primogeniture guaranteed anything. :)

Renly could not have been as popular as he was if male primogeniture was really the default custom people should always fall back to if they don't know what to do. He almost casually challenges the claims of Cersei's children - which considers to be legitimate - as well as Stannis. Retroactively this tells us a lot about how people considered claims.

There's a difference between what people should do according to custom or law, and what they will do according to their ability to get away with it. Renly was popular because he was well liked. And I suspect the Tyrells liked him because they knew they could manipulate him to be their puppet king.

As to Tyrion:

He demanded that his father publicly name him and recognize him as his heir. Which means that he wasn't officially heir to Casterly Rock. Not the heir Tywin chose. Just because Tywin hadn't named an heir doesn't mean Tyrion is this heir by default. I could easily see Ser Kevan successfully challenging Tyrion's claim - especially if Tywin had told Kevan to do just that should he die a premature death and Jaime still be a member of the KG. I'm pretty sure Tyrion would not have won that argument.

I think we're just trading facts here. Tyrion attempted to assert his right to CR, based on male primogeniture. Tywin denied him that right because he could. Just to be clear, I don't think "default" is the same as "official."

In ACOK, Big Walder tells Little Walder that "The sons of the first son come before the second son." Aerys as king could chose his next heir but you're right the default practice in Westeros was primogeniture.

Exactly. I think that people who benefit from systems will try to enforce them. And people who don't will occasionally try to subvert them.

[GravyFace]

Maybe I initially read the books too simply, but I always just assumed Viserys was Aerys' heir and not Aegon. It's not some complicated scheme imo, it just boiled down to this: Viserys was sent to a safe location, and Aegon wasn't. Nevermind the title that comes along with Dragonstone and what it represents, what's important is that it was safe (for the time being). If Aery's had any hope for his line continuing, then he would send his heir and family (that he wanted to see survive) somewhere safe.

Jaime told us Aerys was even planning on burning the entire city down, so why on earth would he keep Aegon there? He kept him there because Aegon wasn't his heir, and he didn't care whether he truly lived or died. He didn't need Aegon to keep Dorne in line, he only needed Elia. So if he thought of Aegon as his heir then he would've been sent away.

I don't know, I just don't see why it had to be explicitly stated somewhere that Viserys was Aerys' heir after the death of Rhaegar. Sending Viserys away and keeping Aegon in KL basically implies that.

[sj4iy]

Oh god is this still going on, oh well. So just looked at one my old theories, and saw someone had posted a funny little inverse that never really gets talked about. What are the two catch phrases people say to Dany and Jon?

Jon: You know nothing.

Dany: It is known.

Just thought it was funny.

So from what I understand of Aerys and this new information. It is known and nobody knows anything about it. I say Martin stuck well within his themes.

/end thread

[sj4iy]

Maybe I initially read the books too simply, but I always just assumed Viserys was Aerys' heir and not Aegon. It's not some complicated scheme imo, it just boiled down to this: Viserys was sent to a safe location, and Aegon wasn't. Nevermind the title that comes along with Dragonstone and what it represents, what's important is that it was safe (for the time being). If Aery's had any hope for his line continuing, then he would send his heir and family (that he wanted to see survive) somewhere safe.

Jaime told us Aerys was even planning on burning the entire city down, so why on earth would he keep Aegon there? He kept him there because Aegon wasn't his heir, and he didn't care whether he truly lived or died. He didn't need Aegon to keep Dorne in line, he only needed Elia. So if he thought of Aegon as his heir then he would've been sent away.

I don't know, I just don't see why it had to be explicitly stated somewhere that Viserys was Aerys' heir after the death of Rhaegar. Sending Viserys away and keeping Aegon in KL basically implies that.

No, it doesn't.

Keeping Aegon implies that you want him as a hostage, thus ensuring the loyalty of your Dornish allies. Sending Viserys means that you have wisely split up your heirs just in case something happens. Sending Aegon to Dragonstone means that he ISN'T a hostage. Keeping Viserys doesn't really give you any benefit.

[J. Stargaryen]

Maybe I initially read the books too simply, but I always just assumed Viserys was Aerys' heir and not Aegon. It's not some complicated scheme imo, it just boiled down to this: Viserys was sent to a safe location, and Aegon wasn't. Nevermind the title that comes along with Dragonstone and what it represents, what's important is that it was safe (for the time being). If Aery's had any hope for his line continuing, then he would send his heir and family (that he wanted to see survive) somewhere safe.

Jaime told us Aerys was even planning on burning the entire city down, so why on earth would he keep Aegon there? He kept him there because Aegon wasn't his heir, and he didn't care whether he truly lived or died. He didn't need Aegon to keep Dorne in line, he only needed Elia. So if he thought of Aegon as his heir then he would've been sent away.

I don't know, I just don't see why it had to be explicitly stated somewhere that Viserys was Aerys' heir after the death of Rhaegar. Sending Viserys away and keeping Aegon in KL basically implies that.

Because that's not how male primogeniture works. And you could just as well argue that there was no need to name Viserys heir ahead of Aegon if he expected Aegon to bed dead in 2-3 weeks anyway. The situation would have resolved itself.

We're also specifically told in the books that Aegon wasn't sent to DS because Aerys was using him as a hostage to keep Dorne in line.

[GravyFace]

No, it doesn't.

Keeping Aegon implies that you want him as a hostage, thus ensuring the loyalty of your Dornish allies. Sending Viserys means that you have wisely split up your heirs just in case something happens. Sending Aegon to Dragonstone means that he ISN'T a hostage. Keeping Viserys doesn't really give you any benefit.

But he doesn't need Aegon as a hostage. Dorne would've remained loyal even if he only had Elia as a hostage.

I just don't think its all that complicated that he wanted to split his heirs or insure loyalty. When it comes to life or death, it's not a complicated mind game, its just either alive or dead. You keep everyone you want to survive in a safe place. As mad as Aerys was, I'm sure he still wanted to see the Targaryen line continue and to keep the people he wanted to see survive somewhere safe. He wanted Viserys to live and he wanted Rhaella to live. If he thought of Aegon as his heir in any capacity, then he would've wanted the same for him.

[markg171]

Personally I think that is a story GRRM is sitting on and we'll get why Hightower was able to find R so easily in WOW (Rhaella, Elia, Ashara, other human told him?)

Yup. It's definitely odd how Rhaegar can be missing for months... and then Hightower goes out and finds him almost immediately? Maybe there was some kind of conspiracy where people pretended not to know where Rhaegar was, with Hightower being forced to actually find Rhaegar seeing as he's a KG and couldn't disobey Aerys like the others could? Or Rhaegar was already on his way home and Hightower simply ran into him? Or like you say, someone in the know told Hightower where to look?

Either way, there's more to the story than "Hightower went looking for Rhaegar and miraculously found him almost immediately"

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Personally I think that is a story GRRM is sitting on and we'll get why Hightower was able to find R so easily in WOW (Rhaella, Elia, Ashara, other human told him?)

But we don't know how fast Hightower found him, do we?

[SFDanny]

What this new evidence means (part 2) Also of interest may be Part 1 and Part 3

Do Dayne, Hightower, and Whent know?

We can't be sure the extent of what they know. We have much too little to go on here. What we really have to judge this with is Ned's dream sequence, and some common sense. So let's once again look at the contents of Ned's dream. We know this is a dream, and Martin has cautioned us not to take it all literally. Some of the dream obviously is not real. Ned dreams of his companions as wraith-like figures instead of real men. Obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. He also dreams of Lyanna calling his name which just maybe a reflection of Vayon Poole's calling to him from the waking world that intrudes into his dream. All of which doesn't mean the rest of the dream doesn't reflect reality.

"I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them.

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

"Woe to the Usurper if we had been," said Ser Oswell.

(AGoT 354)

Ned tells the three he thought they would be with Rhaegar on the Trident to protect him and fight for the continuance of the Targaryen dynasty. Hightower only says "yes, we weren't there" - implying they had other duties that kept them from being there. Whent remarks tells us he knows of what happened there - the defeat of the Targaryen army under Rhaegar and the crown prince's death there being the obvious and most important part of those events - and he boasts that the three would have changed the course of the battle.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with golden word, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

Again Ned wonders why they weren't where he expected knights of the kingsguard to be - in King's Landing protecting their king. Ser Gerold's only response is that the events Ned describes would not have happened if they had been at King's Landing. More importantly he shows no surprise in hearing of the events in King's Landing.

"I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege," Ned told them, "and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them."

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne.

Ned agains says he thought to see these men someplace else than he finds them. The obvious implication being that if they were not at the Trident, or King's Landing, then he thought they would be doing important duty trying to take Robert's home and the Stormlands away from him and the rebels. Ser Arthur, again shows no surprise, and tells Ned they would not have surrendered if they had been there.

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

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

"But not the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee."

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

Again we see the same pattern of Ned's statement/ question being followed by no surprise on the part of the kingsguard who seem to know as well as Ned that Viserys is on Dragonstone and Ser Willem is with him and Queen Rhaella. Note that all of this is verified from other sources in the books. If Ned is imagining this conversation, then it is a conversation that reflects reality in each question he asks, each statement he delivers. Does it reflect reality in what the Kingsguard would have known? This is where we have to use a little common sense.

These men have been placed here on a mission by orders from either Aerys or Rhaegar. Aerys makes no sense or they would not be in Dorne with the most valuable hostage he could have. No, Lyanna would be occupying a room in King's Landing - next to Elia or in the black cells, take your pick - if Aerys could get his hands on her. That leaves Rhaegar as the source of the orders. But that doesn't mean the three would simply stay in the Prince's Pass without trying to find out what is going on in the war. They need to know if the whole rebel army is headed their way, and they need to know if their cover is blown to others as well. Any Aerys loyalist who would turn Lyanna over, or the Martells, spring to mind as examples of who those others might be that they want to avoid. They need support to live in the tower and they need information coming in to tell them if they have to move. These men are not fools. They are seasoned military veterans who know what the have to do to stay hidden, and what they need to do to get the information they need to stay alive and complete their mission.

They obviously have to have a support network outside of the three and Lyanna herself, and we know from the use of the word "they" to describe who found Ned beside Lyanna's dead body that at least one person, and likely more were there with them. So, let us assume they have a method or methods of keeping up with information, to the degree possible, with what is going on in the war. That would explain why they do not seem surprised at all by the questions and statements Ned makes to them and the information contained in them. But what is contained in them, and what is left out?

Ned talks to them of the Battle of the Trident, but leaves out Rhaegar's death or the deaths of others like Darry and Martell, and Ser Barristan's near fatal wounds. He talks of the sack, but leaves out the murders of Elia and her children. And he leaves out the decree. All important information to understand the actions of the three men. Yet, we assume that even though in the dialogue Ned recounts in his dream it doesn't mention things like Rhaegar's death or the murders, that the Kingsguard must know about these things anyway because they are widely known news. The decree should be widely known as well, if it is handled in the normal manner we would expect. How can we assume then they know about some of these widely known facts and not others that are tied up in the same events?

Sorry, it makes no sense to assume the one and reject the other only because we don't see it spelled out in the dialogue. I think we have to assume the Kingsguard knew about all of these issues from whatever network they are getting it from, and change our minds if we find out they did not know any of the specific details. That at least must be our working hypothesis to start with in analyzing this material. Rejecting only the knowledge of the decree, based on the lack of specific mention of it in the conversation above, becomes a convenient way of ignoring facts that don't fit a theory, rather than building a theory based on all the facts available. In conclusion, I have to return to my opening point here, while we don't have enough information to rule out any specific knowledge on the part of the three men, we must assume they have all of the generally available knowledge current at the time.

To the next point, in his last statement to the three Kingsguard, Ned as much as says "then why aren't you on Dragonstone guarding Prince Viserys instead of blocking my way to my sister?" The response is "we are not fleeing to Dragonstone or anywhere else because we swore a vow." The question becomes what vow is Ser Gerold talking about? That will be the subject of my next post.

edited to provide links

[Alia of the knife]

Oh god is this still going on, oh well. So just looked at one my old theories, and saw someone had posted a funny little inverse that never really gets talked about. What are the two catch phrases people say to Dany and Jon?

Jon: You know nothing.

Dany: It is known.

Just thought it was funny.

So from what I understand of Aerys and this new information. It is known and nobody knows anything about it. I say Martin stuck well within his themes.

I like it. :)

[Alia of the knife]

What this new evidence means (part 2)

Do Dayne, Hightower, and Whent know?

We can't be sure the extent of what they know. We have much too little to go on here. What we really have to judge this with is Ned's dream sequence, and some common sense. So let's once again look at the contents of Ned's dream. We know this is a dream, and Martin has cautioned us not to take it all literally. Some of the dream obviously is not real. Ned dreams of his companions as wraith-like figures instead of real men. Obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. He also dreams of Lyanna calling his name which just maybe a reflection of Vayon Poole's calling to him from the waking world that intrudes into his dream. All of which doesn't mean the rest of the dream doesn't reflect reality.

Ned tells the three he thought they would be with Rhaegar on the Trident to protect him and fight for the continuance of the Targaryen dynasty. Hightower only says "yes, we weren't there" - implying they had other duties that kept them from being there. Whent remarks tells us he knows of what happened there - the defeat of the Targaryen army under Rhaegar and the crown prince's death there being the obvious and most important part of those events - and he boasts that the three would have changed the course of the battle.

Again Ned wonders why they weren't where he expected knights of the kingsguard to be - in King's Landing protecting their king. Ser Gerold's only response is that the events Ned describes would not have happened if they had been at King's Landing. More importantly he shows no surprise in hearing of the events in King's Landing.

Ned agains says he thought to see these men someplace else than he finds them. The obvious implication being that if they were not at the Trident, or King's Landing, then he thought they would be doing important duty trying to take Robert's home and the Stormlands away from him and the rebels. Ser Arthur, again shows no surprise, and tells Ned they would not have surrendered if they had been there.

Again we see the same pattern of Ned's statement/ question being followed by no surprise on the part of the kingsguard who seem to know as well as Ned that Viserys is on Dragonstone and Ser Willem is with him and Queen Rhaella. Note that all of this is verified from other sources in the books. If Ned is imagining this conversation, then it is a conversation that reflects reality in each question he asks, each statement he delivers. Does it reflect reality in what the Kingsguard would have known? This is where we have to use a little common sense.

These men have been placed here on a mission by orders from either Aerys or Rhaegar. Aerys makes no sense or they would not be in Dorne with the most valuable hostage he could have. No, Lyanna would be occupying a room in King's Landing - next to Elia or in the black cells, take your pick - if Aerys could get his hands on her. That leaves Rhaegar as the source of the orders. But that doesn't mean the three would simply stay in the Prince's Pass without trying to find out what is going on in the war. They need to know if the whole rebel army is headed their way, and they need to know if their cover is blown to others as well. Any Aerys loyalist who would turn Lyanna over, or the Martells, spring to mind as examples of who those others might be that they want to avoid. They need support to live in the tower and they need information coming in to tell them if they have to move. These men are not fools. They are seasoned military veterans who know what the have to do to stay hidden, and what they need to do to get the information they need to stay alive and complete their mission.

They obviously have to have a support network outside of the three and Lyanna herself, and we know from the use of the word "they" to describe who found Ned beside Lyanna's dead body that at least one person, and likely more were there with them. So, let us assume they have a method or methods of keeping up with information, to the degree possible, with what is going on in the war. That would explain why they do not seem surprised at all by the questions and statements Ned makes to them and the information contained in them. But what is contained in them, and what is left out?

Ned talks to them of the Battle of the Trident, but leaves out Rhaegar's death or the deaths of others like Darry and Martell, and Ser Barristan's near fatal wounds. He talks of the sack, but leaves out the murders of Elia and her children. And he leaves out the decree. All important information to understand the actions of the three men. Yet, we assume that even though in the dialogue Ned recounts in his dream it doesn't mention things like Rhaegar's death or the murders, that the Kingsguard must know about these things anyway because they are widely known news. The decree should be widely known as well, if it is handled in the normal manner we would expect. How can we assume then they know about some of these widely known facts and not others that are tied up in the same events?

Sorry, it makes no sense to assume the one and reject the other only because we don't see it spelled out in the dialogue. I think we have to assume the Kingsguard knew about all of these issues from whatever network they are getting it from, and change our minds if we find out they did not know any of the specific details. That at least must be our working hypothesis to start with in analyzing this material. Rejecting only the knowledge of the decree, based on the lack of specific mention of it in the conversation above, becomes a convenient way of ignoring facts that don't fit a theory, rather than building a theory based on all the facts available. In conclusion, I have to return to my opening point here, while we don't have enough information to rule out any specific knowledge on the part of the three men, we must assume they have all of the generally available knowledge current at the time.

To the next point, in his last statement to the three Kingsguard, Ned as much as says "then why aren't you on Dragonstone guarding Prince Viserys instead of blocking my way to my sister?" The response is "we are not fleeing to Dragonstone or anywhere else because we swore a vow." The question becomes what vow is Ser Gerold talking about? That will be the subject of my next post.

(Per Martin), and especially regarding Hightower, the vow to guard Lyanna?

[BearQueen87]

But we don't know how fast Hightower found him, do we?

Not yet :) I have faith that book 6 will shed some light there

[sj4iy]

But he doesn't need Aegon as a hostage. Dorne would've remained loyal even if he only had Elia as a hostage.

I just don't think its all that complicated that he wanted to split his heirs or insure loyalty. When it comes to life or death, it's not a complicated mind game, its just either alive or dead. You keep everyone you want to survive in a safe place. As mad as Aerys was, I'm sure he still wanted to see the Targaryen line continue and to keep the people he wanted to see survive somewhere safe. He wanted Viserys to live and he wanted Rhaella to live. If he thought of Aegon as his heir in any capacity, then he would've wanted the same for him.

Wrong again.

The heir to the throne vs his mother...who is more important to Dorne? They would not have been pleased by Elia being a hostage, but if it came down between Aegon or Elia, the choice is simple.

[The Twinslayer]

What this new evidence means (part 2)

To the next point, in his last statement to the three Kingsguard, Ned as much as says "then why aren't you on Dragonstone guarding Prince Viserys instead of blocking my way to my sister?" The response is "we are not fleeing to Dragonstone or anywhere else because we swore a vow." The question becomes what vow is Ser Gerold talking about? That will be the subject of my next post.

You may find the answer here, in The Princess and the Queen, where the circumstances are similar. King's Landing has fallen and the king has lost his throne. The players are King Aegon II, Ser Larys Strong (the Master of Whispers), Ser Rickard Thorne and Ser Willas Fell of the Kingsguard, a bastard knight, King Aegon's son and heir (Prince Maelor), and King Aegon's simple daughter (Princess Jaehaera).

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 Willas 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.

So what does this tell us? First, that the notion that at least one Kingsguard has to be with the king at all times is a myth. A simple order from the Master of Whispers is sufficient to convince two Kingsguard to leave Aegon II in the care of some bastard knight.

Second, orders are orders and the Kingsguard follow them. Here, Larys is playing the role that Rhaegar played at the toj.

Third, look carefully at what Ser Willas Fell did. He was ordered to take Princess Jaehaera, "a sweet and simple girl of six," to safety and he not only obeys, he takes a new oath that he will do it. This is important for three reasons: he is obeying the order, he is swearing a new vow, and he is doing it to protect someone who, according to the whole basis on which her father has claimed the throne, cannot inherit the throne (since Aegon II's claim is based on the notion that a woman cannot sit the Iron Throne).

So what does this tell us about the vow that Dayne, Whent and Hightower swore? It could simply be a reference to the part of the Kingsguard vow that requires them to obey Rhaegar's orders. Or it could be that, like Willas Fell, they swore to carry out a mission that involved protecting someone who, like Jaehaera, may or may not have been in line for the throne.