R+L=J v.136

[aquintus]

Not to specifically pick on you here, but this simply isn't true. All the World book says is that Viserys was the heir upon Rhaegar's death. It never says that Aerys named Viserys his heir, despite what multiple posters keep saying. People are assuming that Aerys named Viserys his heir over Aegon. But the World Book does not say this, it just says that Viserys was the heir after Rhaegar's death.

We don't know if Viserys was chosen, or if that was the normal succession (a second son succeeds before a grandson). We just know that Viserys was Aerys' heir when Rhaegar died.

If this is the case, it could easily just mean that the "common knowledge" was that Viserys was the heir since almost nobody knew about Jon or fAegon. As far as the world was concerned, Viserys was Aerys' heir after Aerys' died (rAegon was probably not considered because he either died before Aerys, or it was so close in time not to matter). Assuming that's true, then the World book isn't telling us anything we don't already know from the regular books.

[Ygrain]

Also, even beyond this, we have a situation in the books that already mirrors this situation - Robb's succession. Robb named Jon his heir, but since nobody (except for a few people) knows this, the realm assumes that Sansa or Rickon are the heirs to Winterfell and act accordingly. Nobody is going out of their way to track down if Robb named someone else his heir because, realistically, there's no point.

A good parallel. People often act as if there was a Westerosi website updating every ten minutes or so, or everyone put up every single detail of their life on the FB profile. That is not so, however, and people not being aware of crucial information, or unable to pass such information on, is the reality of GRRMth.

[Kingmonkey]

Not to specifically pick on you here, but this simply isn't true. All the World book says is that Viserys was the heir upon Rhaegar's death. It never says that Aerys named Viserys his heir, despite what multiple posters keep saying. People are assuming that Aerys named Viserys his heir over Aegon. But the World Book does not say this, it just says that Viserys was the heir after Rhaegar's death.

We don't know if Viserys was chosen, or if that was the normal succession (a second son succeeds before a grandson). We just know that Viserys was Aerys' heir when Rhaegar died.

Did you miss the bit about Ran confirming it? Err, no you didn't, you were the first person to reply to Rumham when he brought it up in the last thread.

[J. Stargaryen]

Yet it would make little sense to do it and not announce it, and Yandel mentions it in passing as if it was an established fact rather than some secret of history that required elaboration. If this wasn't widely known, wouldn't Yandel actually mention it rather than simply referring to Viserys as Aerys' "new heir" in passing?

Maybe the reason it hasn't been mentioned in the novels is simply because it didn't come up yet. Maybe it's a detail GRRM decided some way into the series.

It might have become well established later on, after the dust had settled. At the time though, who knows.

Anyway, I'm glad that Ran answered the question. Now we can have some meaningful discussion on the topic. I'm surprised by some of the defensiveness about the issue. I still think at the end of the series we're going to find out that what a lot of us have been arguing in here for years now is essentially correct. The ToJ dialogue suggests that the KG thought they were defending the king. But at this point in time, the path might not be as clear cut as it appeared prior to TWoIaF.

One of the narratives pushed pretty hard in the World book is the contentious relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar. With discussion of Aerys disinheriting his older son in favor of Viserys being mentioned. If that's the case, Rhaegar had good reason to think if he died before ascending the throne there was a good chance Aegon would fall behind Viserys in the line of succession. Not to mention any legitimate sons Viserys may eventually have. Could this be part of the reason Rhaegar sat out the majority of the war? Rhaegar seemed to believe his children were extremely important for the future of mankind, so securing their place in the succession might have become his top priority. If this is the case, then we can begin to imagine what it might have taken to lure him back to court. Something like a promise that his children would maintain their place in the succession, should something happen to him. Like a warhammer to the chest. For example.

If Hightower had been dispatched to find Rhaegar and deliver such a message, and knowing its contents, he might not believe that Aerys could go back on his word and alter the succession, after Rhaegar died.

Such an agreement might even explain why Aerys believed the Dornish betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident. From his point of view it would have looked like they got him to secure Aegon's place in the succession, second in line to be king, only to turn around and then help murder Rhaegar, who was first in line. Clearing the path for Dornish (and/or rebel faction) rule of the 7K, under the legitimacy of the Targaryen name. So Aerys retaliated by naming Viserys his heir to foil their 'plot'. It might even explain why he planned on taking Elia and her children down with him and the rest of KL. The Dornish had schemed to place Aegon on the throne, and had murdered Rhaegar to do so. Elia was his revenge. Aegon and Rhaenys dying would eliminate the potential Targaryen puppets.

[BearQueen87]

Yes, but it's a pretty fair assumption. Aerys did not trust the Dornish, which is why he was keeping Aegon hostage in the first place. Disinheriting him only weakens the Dornish hand if the Dornish know it has happened. What possible value would there be in keeping a secret of the change of heirs? I don't think even Aerys was mad enough to do it just to piss the Dornish off after they'd gone to the effort of assassinating him to make the half-Dornish Aegon king and the Dornish Elia queen mother.

A fair assumption perhaps if it were not for the evidence that Aerys was doing a whole slew of things in secret and private. And was, you know, Aerys. We're trying to find logic and clear headed thinking in a man who enjoyed burning people and thought the iron throne was killing him.

Not to specifically pick on you here, but this simply isn't true. All the World book says is that Viserys was the heir upon Rhaegar's death. It never says that Aerys named Viserys his heir, despite what multiple posters keep saying. People are assuming that Aerys named Viserys his heir over Aegon. But the World Book does not say this, it just says that Viserys was the heir after Rhaegar's death.

We don't know if Viserys was chosen, or if that was the normal succession (a second son succeeds before a grandson). We just know that Viserys was Aerys' heir when Rhaegar died.

Does...it? I really need a re-read

In other news, I may have the text wrong but Aerys would have had to make a decision to make Viserys his heir. It's not automatic. Neither is Aegon, apparently, but either way, there was some sort of choice.

[The Twinslayer]

In other news, I may have the text wrong but Aerys would have had to make a decision to make Viserys his heir. It's not automatic. Neither is Aegon, apparently, but either way, there was some sort of choice.

This is the point I was making. If Aerys had to make a choice, then Hightower knew that Aerys had to make a choice. He either knew what that choice was (Viserys was king) or he should have taken steps to find out (like sending one of the KGs to Dragonstone to ask Rhaella). Either way, it means that the succession was irrelevant to their reason for staying at the toj.

[The Twinslayer]

:agree: This point is one of the points I tried to make above. People who read the "side books" (Dunk&Egg, PatQ, etc.) knew much of this history before WOIAF came out. Nevertheless, prior to WOIAF, I do not believe anyone ever suggested that between the battle at the Trident and the death of Aerys (a relatively short period of time), Aerys named a different heir. Now perhaps Hightower knew more than we did at that time (we did not have WOIAF yet), but nevertheless, I just don't think it would occur to Hightower to think -- Gee, now that Rhaegar is dead, even though none of our sources have said anything about Aerys naming an heir, I better investigate whether he did. Also, keep in mind that by the time Hightower would have had reason to even consider investigating, Aerys is dead and the "rebels" have KL. How is he even going to investigate? He has the only surviving child of the prior heir. The king (Aerys) is dead. Long live the King (Jon).

The new information that we have from the world book is just how common it was for Targaryen kings to name an heir. But the basic idea that under these circumstances the leadership of House Targ would have to make a decision -- and the fact that Viserys was actually crowned on Dragonstone -- has been around for a long time. For example, in R+L=J version 57, I said:

After all, one of the major themes of these books relates to the problems caused by competing claims and the ways in which the rules change in times of upheaval. To say that when the dynasty is being overthrown, the king is being murdered by his own KG, the crown prince is losing the decisive battle of the war, the king's sister and their surviving minor son have fled the mainland, that these 3 KG would make up their own minds that a secret baby from an illicit union (stemming from a broken betrothal) is a no brainer to be the new king seems like a big stretch to me.

We are told that the worst KG are the ones who decide to play the Game of Thrones. The right call for the 3 KG at the TOJ was to honour Rhaegar's order and then transport Jon (and if she lived, Lyanna) to Dragonstone so that the succession could be decided by the leaders of House Targ.

The wrong thing to do would be to show up at Dragonstone with Jon and to tell Viserys that he has just usurped his secret nephew's crown.

[Lord Varys]

The question is not had the king to make a choice but would he make a choice. And every king whose heir predeceased him made such a choice and thus secured the succession by royal decree.

When Aemon died, Jaehaerys I named Baelon and eventually Viserys. Since Aerys I had no children of his own he named Rhaegel, Aelor, and subsequently Maekar.

It is highly unusual for the Targaryen monarchy to not have a named heir just as it is for any real world Western monarchy (with the Ottomans it was different). It is not just that there are legal guidelines the monarch also actually install and confirms the heir. For instance, becoming the Prince of Wales is still a big deal, you have to swear a vow of loyalty etc. to the monarch.

If you check the succession of the Targaryens - and of Westerosi nobility in general - then only the inheritance of eldest sons seem to work flawlessly. This is how things are supposed to work, and people rarely challenge that (for instance, Stevron Frey's status as heir to Twins was apparently ultimately accepted). But should your heir predecease you there has to be a decision to how proceed now.

After Rhaegar's death Aerys II had to decide who should become the new heir. And that he did. If we assume that the succession had been settled peacefully in a Great Council after the war, Viserys, Aegon, Lyanna's son, Rhaenys, Rhaella, and little Daenerys - had she already been born by then - would all have had a claim. As would have had Robert, as closest cousin to the Targaryen main branch.

The knights at the tower had every reason not to suspect that Aerys II would prefer Rhaegar's line over his own. And they had also no reason to assume that Aerys or Rhaella/Viserys would want to see the offspring of Rhaegar's polygamous marriage on the Iron Throne.

In fact, is there not a SSM suggesting that the knights may not have liked it to stay at the tower in the first place. I cannot but wonder if even Arthur and Oswell were happy with Rhaegar's decision to take, marry, and retreat with Lyanna into the wilderness. Presumably they went along because Rhaegar was their friend, and they were sworn to obey, but it is a stretch to assume that even they would jump to the conclusion 'He is the king now, no doubt!' when they learned of Rhaegar's, Aerys', and Aegon's death. They may have believed he could be king one day, or perhaps that he should be king, but I believe that until the dust had settled they would just have continued to protect him as a prince of the blood.

If I get this right, then a Kingsguard should be sworn to the old regime - orders given by the previous king and his representatives - until a new king is crowned or recognized. Then it is clear whom he is forced to follow now. When an heir is named, the situation is clear. Joffrey is Robert's confirmed and chosen heir, and thus Ser Barristan considers him to be the next king upon Robert's death.

I a situation like the knights at the tower found themselves in sorting out who the real king is should actually not be the top priority. Just as Ser Rickard Thorne would most likely not have singlehandedly crowned and proclaimed three-year-old Prince Maelor the true king after the death of Aegon II - if we assume that they had successfully hidden somewhere until the end of the war - we should not assume that the knights would have proclaimed Lyanna's son the new king. Especially not since the situation there was much worse with Lyanna's child - a secret marriage, possibly of dubious legality, and secret childbirth. All the court and the world would have is the word of some guys that this actually transpired and that the child is who they claim he is. I'm not sure if children born in such circumstances have any chance of becoming monarchs outside of fairy-tales.

[BearQueen87]

This is the point I was making. If Aerys had to make a choice, then Hightower knew that Aerys had to make a choice. He either knew what that choice was (Viserys was king) or he should have taken steps to find out (like sending one of the KGs to Dragonstone to ask Rhaella). Either way, it means that the succession was irrelevant to their reason for staying at the toj.

What steps should he have taken exactly? He's out in the middle of nowhere with two of his brothers, a sick lady, and a new born. He can't ride to Starfall, have them send a raven to KL asking, "hey, who did Aerys pick as successor? Just so I'm clear on all this" given that first they had to learn that Rhaegar and Aerys were dead, which would have been a VERY short amount of time before Ned arrived.

Also, really? Travel to DS to ask the queen and then....what? Travel back to the TOJ to tell his brothers? They don't have very effective means of travel or communication in Westeros.

So in that very short time in which they learned that R, Aerys, and Aegon are dead they all had a conversation and went with the best answer: it might not be automatic, but it's the more common choice that Jon would be heir, not Viserys. So, no, succession is not irrelevant to them staying at the TOJ. I'd say it's still a pretty big (if not THE) factor.

[Ygritte]

What steps should he have taken exactly? He's out in the middle of nowhere with two of his brothers, a sick lady, and a new born. He can't ride to Starfall, have them send a raven to KL asking, "hey, who did Aerys pick as successor? Just so I'm clear on all this" given that first they had to learn that Rhaegar and Aerys were dead, which would have been a VERY short amount of time before Ned arrived.

Also, really? Travel to DS to ask the queen and then....what? Travel back to the TOJ to tell his brothers? They don't have very effective means of travel or communication in Westeros.

So in that very short time in which they learned that R, Aerys, and Aegon are dead they all had a conversation and went with the best answer: it might not be automatic, but it's the more common choice that Jon would be heir, not Viserys. So, no, succession is not irrelevant to them staying at the TOJ. I'd say it's still a pretty big (if not THE) factor.

I think there's a distinct possibility they're finding out all this from Ned when he shows up. We know the dialogue is not completely literal. I suspect that even if there was communication earlier--and it sounds like there was little--it was even less frequent at the end of the war, when the realm was presumably in chaos and Lyanna in a state of medical emergency. So I can see Ned rocking up to the tower and being like, "Aerys is dead. The kids are dead. Go off to Dragonstone and give me back my sister." And the KG have to figure it all out on the spot.

There are a few possibilities with Ned:

-He doesn't know about the decree. Result: he can't tell the KG about it.

-He knows, but doesn't care, because Robert's king now and there's nothing for Jon or Viserys to be king of. Result: he doesn't tell them.

-He knows, but doesn't know yet that Lyanna had a kid, so he doesn't think it's relevant and doesn't realize why the KG are so insistent on blocking him. Result: He doesn't tell them, and only realizes the whole truth after all the KG are dead. This would seem a suitably GRRM way to do things. ;)

-He knows, and tries to use it as leverage, i.e. "Look, guys, just let me in. If she had a kid, he's not the heir. Aerys named Viserys the heir. Now get out of my way." Result: OK, now the KG have heard about it. They have a split-second decision to make. Do they believe the enemy's BFF when he tells them this? They already can't quite trust that he won't turn Jon over to Robert. Wouldn't this be an obvious way for Team Baratheon to trick them into handing him over? "Sure, Ned! Never mind! Guess he wasn't important anyway." I can't see them doing that.

(I'm not completely Team They Didn't Know--I think there's also a possibility they're playing the game and decided Aerys wasn't competent to make the decision or something--but I think They Didn't Know is extremely plausible.)

[Consigliere]

Like UnmaskedLurker pointed out upthread, the ToJ sequence suggests that the 3KG believed that they were protecting the rightful king. Why would they consider going to DS as "fleeing?" Why would they say that Willem Darry is a good man but also point out that he is "not of the Kingsguard?" Simply following their last order from Rhaegar is a rather poor explanation. Also, J. Stargaryen makes a really interesting point: That Martin could be adding another layer of tragedy to the KG deaths. They died believing that they were fulfilling their primary duty when in reality, thanks to Aerys, this was not the case.

[Ygritte]

Like UnmaskedLurker pointed out upthread, the ToJ sequence suggests that the 3KG believed that they were protecting the rightful king. Why would they consider going to DS as "fleeing?" Why would they say that Willem Darry is a good man but also point out that he is "not of the Kingsguard?" Simply following their last order from Rhaegar is a rather poor explanation. Also, J. Stargaryen makes a really interesting point: That Martin could be adding another layer of tragedy to the KG deaths. They died believing that they were fulfilling their primary duty when in reality, thanks to Aerys, this was not the case.

Yeah, I think the "not of the Kingsguard" is really important here. For whatever reason--they didn't know, they didn't think the decree was valid, they considered Rhaegar king, or any other reason--they believed they were defending the correct person while they were doing it.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Like UnmaskedLurker pointed out upthread, the ToJ sequence suggests that the 3KG believed that they were protecting the rightful king. Why would they consider going to DS as "fleeing?" Why would they say that Willem Darry is a good man but also point out that he is "not of the Kingsguard?" Simply following their last order from Rhaegar is a rather poor explanation. Also, J. Stargaryen makes a really interesting point: That Martin could be adding another layer of tragedy to the KG deaths. They died believing that they were fulfilling their primary duty when in reality, thanks to Aerys, this was not the case.

:agree: Thanks for the support. I believe that you and J.Star are on an interesting path. As J.Star pointed out, Hightower had to say something big to get Rhaegar to go to KL. Rhaegar knew a war was going on but made no attempt to help the Targs win the war. Then Hightower shows up and says something to get Rhaegar back. A vow to keep Aegon as heir if Rhaegar dies in battle could have been it. Whatever it was, however, I think it is clear that Hightower never thought there was a controversy on who was king -- he thought he was defending the king (Jon -- or whatever name Hightower knew him by which certainly was not Jon, but maybe Aemon, as I tend to think).

[FrozenFire3]

It's seems Targ (crown)princes have a certain tendency to secretly marry wild wolflings of the North, with a rich side-dish of Ice and Fire rhetoric ;)

Also,

Maester Yandel writes based on the historical record (... for the most part ... ), but that record is imperfect and often a matter of conjecture.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

What is also important, is the fact that the three KG might not have heard about Viserys being heir until after Jons birth and Aerys' death.. in which case it might just depend on how their source told them. Somehow, I doubt that anyone would tell the KG the tale as "King Aerys and Prince Aegon have been killed by the rebels, but fortunately, Prince Viserys, who had been named heir by the King before his death, is safely on Dragonstone." If whoever the source was to the KG (and if they actively sought out information, that might have been a different person each time) didn't know of any other male Targaryens but Viserys, and was to tell the KG about Aerys' death, Viserys would be the only logical heir, as far as that person would be aware. So why specifically mention it?

A specific mention to the KG would, I think, only have occurred if their source told before news of Aerys' death reached anyone..

On an unrelated note, do we know who were all present at the Siege of Storm's End (besides Mace, Lord Redwyne, Stannis, Renly, Patchface and Cressen)?

[Alia of the knife]

I think JS is on a good trajectory regarding the "processes."

But, it also raises some interesting questions about the Dornish as well. While loyal, it still doesn't mean they would sit by and "not take care of business" in regards to securing their place. And if Rhaegar looked not to be depended upon for that in regards to his behavior with Lyanna and given Dornish/Martell anger, again, Aerys might have been mad, but not wrong, and they did betray Rhaegar.

We have learned they are not above a certain viciousness themselves, (with the exception of the Lannisters, this generation of Stark, Martell and etc, seemed far removed from their ancestors), :bang:

[Kingmonkey]

Such an agreement might even explain why Aerys believed the Dornish betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident. From his point of view it would have looked like they got him to secure Aegon's place in the succession, second in line to be king, only to turn around and then help murder Rhaegar, who was first in line. Clearing the path for Dornish (and/or rebel faction) rule of the 7K, under the legitimacy of the Targaryen name. So Aerys retaliated by naming Viserys his heir to foil their 'plot'. It might even explain why he planned on taking Elia and her children down with him and the rest of KL. The Dornish had schemed to place Aegon on the throne, and had murdered Rhaegar to do so. Elia was his revenge. Aegon and Rhaenys dying would eliminate the potential Targaryen puppets.

This is very much the way my reading of the situation goes.

One of the interesting details we get from the TWOAIF stuff on the Rhaegar/Aerys rivalry is that there were two factions at KL backing these two individual Targs, but not necessarily for the sake of the individuals. Aerys' supporters were eager for him to adopt Viserys as his heir, believing that Aerys wouldn't last that much longer and loving the idea of a boy king they could control, for example. Prominent in the pro-Rhaegar camp are Lewyn Martell and the Dornish group that came to KL with Elia. We know from the "smells Dornish" comment that Aerys really didn't trust the Dornish, and may have come to see them as a bad influence on Rhaegar, manipulating him for their own benefit.

Aerys' scorced earth (city) policy, while Viserys is named heir and safe on Dragonstone and Rhaegar's Dornish wife and kids still in KL assures that the Dornish cannot win. However Aerys didn't burn the city down as soon as Viserys was on his way, he still hoped to find a way out of it. That's why I think it's unlikely the news of Viserys being named heir would not have been announced.

Wild speculation here, but there's a possibility of something unannounced that might have been enough to persuade Rhaegar out of the ToJ other than ensuring Aegon's succession. If Aerys was worried about Dornish scheming, suppose he had sent Hightower to find Rhaegar with an offer he couldn't refuse, and which would utterly undermine that Dornish scheming: royal legitimisation of his marriage to Lyanna.

[Kingmonkey]

I think there's a distinct possibility they're finding out all this from Ned when he shows up. We know the dialogue is not completely literal. I suspect that even if there was communication earlier--and it sounds like there was little--it was even less frequent at the end of the war, when the realm was presumably in chaos and Lyanna in a state of medical emergency. So I can see Ned rocking up to the tower and being like, "Aerys is dead. The kids are dead. Go off to Dragonstone and give me back my sister." And the KG have to figure it all out on the spot.

Good post, and I have to say I think it's extremely plausible that the 3KG were not as well informed of events before Ned's arrival as the ToJ dialogue implies. I think what we're dealing with is a quite non-literal interpretation of the meat of the discussion between Ned and the 3KG, something which says more about his opinion of them and his feelings about the events at the tower than what actually happened.

I really must get around to digging up and posting that essay I wrote about the ToJ dream as an otherworld journey and what it implies for the dialogue (waits for glare from BQ).

[BearQueen87]

Good post, and I have to say I think it's extremely plausible that the 3KG were not as well informed of events before Ned's arrival as the ToJ dialogue implies. I think what we're dealing with is a quite non-literal interpretation of the meat of the discussion between Ned and the 3KG, something which says more about his opinion of them and his feelings about the events at the tower than what actually happened.

I really must get around to digging up and posting that essay I wrote about the ToJ dream as an otherworld journey and what it implies for the dialogue (waits for glare from BQ).

*obligatory glare*

[SFDanny]

What does this new evidence mean? Part 3. And please look to Part 1, and Part 2

First a word on this "Team Protect" vs. "Team Obey" idea. I am not on any team. The only teams I root for are my local sports teams, and certainly not teams here in these discussions. This shouldn't be looked at, in my opinion, as a competition of scoring some kind of debating points, but rather as an attempt to figure this out collectively. Or at least that is what I'd like to root for. Also a word on the following. I realize much of this has been gone over a thousand times. I know I have since my first post in these threads way, way back in thread two, but I think it is helpful to go over it again, not only for new participants to the thread, but so that all of us get a chance to review old material we may not have thought of for a while, especially in the light of new revelations.

The Kingsguard Oath

We don't have the exact wording of the Kingsguard Oath given to us, unlike the oath of the Night's Watch, so we are at somewhat of a disadvantage. However, we do have explanations of the oath's meaning. First, though, a taste of what may be part of the oath, and a little history.

"Your Grace," he said at last. "The Kingsguard is a Sworn Brotherhood. Our vows are taken for life. Only death may relieve the Lord Commander of his sacred trust."

"Whose death, Ser Barristan?" The queen's voice was soft as silk, but her words carried the whole length of the hall. "Yours or your king's?"

"You let my father die," Joffrey said accusingly from atop the Iron Throne. "You're too old to protect anybody."

Sansa watched as the knight peered up at his new king. She had never seen him look his years before, yet now he did. "Your Grace," he said. "I was chosen for the White Swords in my twenty-tird year. It was all I ever dreamed, from the moment I first took sword in hand. I gave up my ancestral keep. The girl I was to wed married my cousin in my place, I had no need of land or sons, my life would be lived for the realm. Ser Gerold Hightower himself heard my vows ... to ward the king with all my strength ... to give my blood for his ... I fought beside the White Bull and Prince Lewyn of Dorne ... beside Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. Before I served your father, I help shield King Aerys, and his father Jaehaerys before him ... three kings." (AGoT 519-520) bold emphasis added

I think the bolded parts are Ser Barristan partially reciting his vows, and we also see Ser Barristan speak of just what the Kingsguard is, a Sworn Brotherhood of men who give up their rights to lands, marriage, and heirs to have the honor of guarding the king from harm. The latter part is confirmed in many places.

"Bran was going to be a knight himself someday, one of the Kingsguard. Old Nan said they were the finest swords in all the realm. There were only seven of them, and the wore white armor and had no wives or children, but lived only to serve the king. Bran hen all the stories. Their names were like music to him. Serwyn of the Mirror Shield. Ser Ryam Redwyne. Prince Aemon the Dragonknight. The twins Ser Erryk and Ser Arryk, who had died on one another's swords hundreds of years ago, when brother fought sister in the war the singers called the Dance of the Dragons. The White Bull, Gerold Hightower. Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. Barristan the Bold." (AGoT 65)

and,

"It was Visenya, not Aegon, who decided the nature of the Kingsguard. Seven champions for the Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, who would all be knights. She modeled their vows upon those of the Night's Watch, so they would forfeit all things save their duty to the king. And when Aegon spoke of a grand tourney to choose the first Kingsguard, Visenya dissuaded him, saying he needed more than skill in arms to protect him; he also needed unwavering loyalty." (TWoI&F 50) bold emphasis added

So, we not only know the structure of the Kingsguard and the reasons behind their formation and the origins of their oath, we also have the content of their oath explained to us in different places in the text. Notably, but not only, in this passage below of Ser Barristan's thoughts.

"The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not, service pleasure and defend his name and honor. Strictly speaking, it was purely the king's choice whether or not to extend Kingsguard protection to others, even those of royal blood. Some kings thought it right and proper to dispatch Kingsguard to serve and defend their wives and children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins or greater or lesser degree, and occasionally even their lovers, mistresses, and bastards. But others preferred to used household knights and men-at-arms for those purposes, whilst keeping their seven as their own personal guard, never far from their sides." (ADwD 737) bold emphasis added

Clearly, the oath sets forth a hierarchy of duties as laid out in Ser Barristan's thoughts. the first duty is paramount. This is further explained by Jaime's lesson to Tommen's Kingsguard.

"Ser Meryn." Jaime smiled at the sour knight with the rust-red hair and the punches under his eyes. "I have heard it said that Joffrey made use of you to chastise Sansa Stark." He turned the White Book around one-handed. "Here, show me where it is in our vows that we swear to beat women and children."

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

"Henceforth you will temper that obedience. My sister is Queen Regent. My father is the King's Hand. I am the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. Obey us. None other."

Ser Meryn got a stubborn look on his face. "Are you telling us not to obey the king?"

"The king is eight. Our first duty is to protect him, which includes protecting him from himself. Use that ugly thing you keep inside your helm. If Tommen wants you to saddle his horse, obey him. If he tells you to kill his horse, come to me." (ASoS 757) bold emphasis added

Jaime it telling us that the first duty is not called so because it happens to come first in the oath, but that it is paramount. All other considerations and vows must be weighed in regard to this duty. Yes, Ser Meryn is supposed to obey his young king's orders, but not when it comes to orders that put his safety in danger. When confronted with an apparent contradiction between two parts of the oath, Jaime tells him to use his head, make a choice that puts the king's safety first. Combining both quotes from Jaime and Selmy really makes it a clear as can be. There is a hierarchy of vows within the oath, and the first duty comes first. That both men speak of the first duty surely tells us something of their teacher, the Lord Commander Ser Gerold Hightower, and what he thought was his first duty.

Some amount of using our own heads must come with that understanding of what Jaime and Ser Barristan are telling the reader. No, it doesn't mean, for instance, when Jaime is left to guard Aerys for the two weeks or more when he has that as his sole duty, that he must never sleep, eats and drinks only in the presence of the king, or cannot go to the latrine, etc. He must entrust others, not of the Kingsguard, under his direction to do guard the king when he is unable. Note, again how in the same chapter what Jaime asks of his sworn brothers.

"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.. (ASoS 754) bold emphasis added

What does this mean in guarding the king? Well one thing it means is that normally we would expect at least one member of the Kingsguard responsible for guarding the king's safety to be with the king even if he is not on duty 24 hours a day. Which leads to the very unique situation we see in the example Twinslayer cites during the smuggling out of Aegon II as he is recovering from his severe wounds suffered in his fight with the Queen-Who-Never-Was.

"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, and been conceal amongst a bad of codfish on a fishing skiff in the care of a bastard knight with kin on Dragonstone. Once she learned the king was gone, the Clubfoot reasoned, Rhaenyra was sure to send men hunting after him ... but a boat leave no trail upon the waves,a nd few hunters would ever think to look for Aegon on his sister's own island, in the very shady of her stronghold." (Dangerous Women 778)

Here we see the extreme opposite of the ritual Jaime and Tommen's kingsguard go through. There they leave Tommen safely in the care of others for a few hours at most. Here two members of the Aegon II's Kingsguard follow the orders of a member of the king's small council giving over the king to him - not knowing where the king will be taken - all to ensure that they cannot give away where he is hidden if captured. While the circumstance couldn't be farther apart, in both situations they are doing what is best to guard the king. Neither of those circumstances, however, are anything like the situation confronting the Kingsguard face at the tower of joy.

At the tower we have three kingsguard who are confronted with a contradiction between two different parts of their oaths. They have been ordered by Rharegar to guard Lyanna, and perhaps her child as well, and now find their oaths tell them at least one of their number should be going to Dragonstone to guard Viserys. That is the imperative of their first duty. Viserys needs not just a sworn brother by his side to fulfill the first duty of their oaths, he also needs one of their number by his side to help the king in every other way the oath entails. To not do so is an abandonment of not only their vows, but of a eight-year-old boy and his mother, their queen. it is true, that when they do this Rhaella and Viserys have immediate protection with loyalists forces on Dragonstone, with Ser Willem, as their personal guardian. However, he doesn't substitute for what Hightower can bring to Viserys, and, frankly it should be the Lord Commander who is on his way there, while Dayne and Whent can continue guarding Lyanna. That he is not, screams betrayal. As surely as Selmy's choice does the same. A choice that Ser Barristan tells us could make him "die a traitor's death" (ASoS 652.) Why did he make such a choice?

"You protected my father for many years, fought beside my brother on the Trident, but you abandoned Viserys in his exile and bent your knee to the Usurper instead. Why? And tell it true."

"Some truths are hard to hear, Robert was a ... a good knight ... chivalrous, brave ... he spared my life, and the lives of many others ... Prince Viserys was only a boy, it would have been year before he was fit to rule, and ... forgive me, my queen, but you asked for truth ... even as a child, your brother Viserys oft seemed to be his father's son, in ways that Rhaegar never did."

"His father's son?" Dany frowned. "What does that mean?"

The old knight did not blink. "Your father is called 'the Mad King" in Westeros. Has no one ever told you?"

"Viserys did." The Mad King. "The Usurper called him that, the Usurper and his dogs." The Mad King. "It is a lie."

"Why ask for the truth," Ser Barristan said softly, "if you close your ears to it?" He hesitated, then continued. "I told you before that I used a false name so the Lannisters would not know that I joined you. That was less than half of it, Your Grace. The truth is, I wanted to watch you for a time before pledging you my sword. To make certain that you were not ..."

"... my father's daughter?" If she was not her father's daughter, who was she?

"... mad," he finished. But I see no taint in you." (ASoS 810-811) bold emphasis added

Ser Barristan abandons Viserys in violation of his oath because he doesn't want to serve another mad king. He even goes so far as to tell Daenerys that he watched her for signs of madness before he was willing to pledge her his sword. That he regrets his decision is clear, but his reservations about serving another mad monarch are certainly understandable as well. Given Aerys's history and the fact the rest of the Kingsguard would surely have noticed the same similarities between Aerys and Viserys it is not a leap to assume this factors into the choice Dayne, Hightower, and Whent make at the tower.

I use the word "choice" here on purpose. For a choice it is. This is not a question of just deciding to obey their last order over the first duty. It is a question of forsaking the essence of their first duty for what maybe the essence of their knightly vows to protect the innocent. A mixture of Ser Barristan's choice with that of Ser Duncan's, perhaps? That they have Rhaegar's orders that tell them to guard Lyanna, and that they all have a regard for Rhaegar that they don't have for Aerys, and seemingly for Viserys too, helps to bolster the choice they make, and they may think a child of Lyanna and Rhaegar is a better choice for the throne than Viserys, but it is a choice nonetheless to abandon their oaths, and abandon Viserys. These kinds of choices are a recurring theme when it comes to the Kingsguard, and with knightly vows as well.

"So many vows ... they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. it's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other." (ACoK 599)

And the same can be said of the Night's Watch's oath as well.

"Three times the gods saw fit to test my vows. Once when I was a boy, once in the fullness of my manhood, and once when I had grown old. By then my strength was fled, my eyes dim, yet that last choice was a cruel as the first. My ravens would bring the news from the south, words darker than their wings, the ruin of my House, the death of kin, disgrace and desolation. What could I have done, old, blind, frail? I was helpless as a suckling babe, yet still it grieved me to sit forgotten as they cut down my brother's poor grandson, and his son, and even the little children ..."

<snip>

"Aemon ... Targaryen?" Jon could scarcely believe it.

"Once," the old man said. "Once. So you see, Jon, I do know ... and knowing, I will not tell you stay or go. You must make that choice yourself, and live with it all the rest of your days. As I have." His voice fell to a whisper. "As I have ...." (AGoT 553-554) bold emphasis added

So with this new information, I think we have to assume Dayne, Hightower, and Whent knew about their duty to Viserys, and chose to not do it in favor of protecting Lyanna, and, I think more importantly to them, to Lyanna's child if she had one. The fate of Elia and her children would not befall them if the three men could do anything, including laying down their own lives to protect them.

Now, we come to the last part of these posts. What has always been used, including by me, to bolster the claim the heir to the throne is at the tower is Ned's own esteem of the three kingsguard. That will be the subject of my next post.