R+L=J v.136

[RumHam]

Only, at the time of the confrontation, the madman is a goner. Their supposed king is a boy in need of every help he can get. It is him that they forsake when - if - they follow Rhaegar's order, and there is no excuse for them not to.

It doesn't really matter who the king is, unless as Lord Varys suggests they renew their oaths each time a new king ascends. If anything the king they're forsaking being Viserys gives them more wiggle room, because he's not actually the king of the Seven Kingdoms.

And, fulfilling a duty is perfectly clear cut - either you are doing it, or not. They are not doing their first KG duty and it is not being done by any other KG, unless there is a king right there at the tower.

But again, Ned's "shining lesson" statement is not proof that he was in awe of their dedication to their first duty above all else.

[Ygrain]

It doesn't really matter who the king is, unless as Lord Varys suggests they renew their oaths each time a new king ascends. If anything the king they're forsaking being Viserys gives them more wiggle room, because he's not actually the king of the Seven Kingdoms.

Well, that's exactly what we see happen - when Robert dies, the KG loyalty automatically transfers to Joffrey.

But again, Ned's "shining lesson" statement is not proof that he was in awe of their dedication to their first duty above all else.

Pray, what does it mean, then? If something is first duty, it automatically goes above anything else. If you do not attend to the duty of your life, how are you then a pinnacle of knighthood?

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Only, at the time of the confrontation, the madman is a goner. Their supposed king is a boy in need of every help he can get. It is him that they forsake when - if - they follow Rhaegar's order, and there is no excuse for them not to. And, fulfilling a duty is perfectly clear cut - either you are doing it, or not. They are not doing their first KG duty and it is not being done by any other KG, unless there is a king right there at the tower.

So much this, they even explain it to Ned

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

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

“But not of the Kingsguard,”

Willem Darry is not a King's Guard, they would be expose their Oath breaking by saying this IF they didn't believe that Lyanna's child was the rightful Heir.

but then they mention the vow...

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

You do not mention how you are breaking your vow by not guarding the King and then bring up your vow to guard the King. It doesn't make any sense.

[RumHam]

Well, that's exactly what we see happen - when Robert dies, the KG loyalty automatically transfers to Joffrey.

I'm not sure if they swear new oaths or not. I lean towards not, but maybe like the coronation it's something that's done even though they're already expected to be loyal to the new king. In circumstances where there is more than one person putting for a claim it gets more complicated. There's also a big difference between the loyalty transferring to the king's acknowledged heir and to a bastard/kid born of a polygamous marriage that nobody knows about.

Pray, what does it mean, then? If something is first duty, it automatically goes above anything else. If you do not attend to the duty of your life, how are you then a pinnacle of knighthood?

I would say that Jamie is pretty great for what he did, killing the Mad King and saving King's Landing from burning. Obviously in doing so he betrayed his first duty, but I still might call him a "shining lesson to the world" if I was a person who talked like that.

[SFDanny]

No way it is public news, no one knows about it, at present. If Ned had known about it, would he name Viserys prince? Would the Kingsguard knowing about it allow Ned naming Viserys prince pass, without comment? No. The three Kingsguard do not know of any such decree. Even if the decree had been made, the council can ignore it and follow the laws as established. I see no point in continuing to discuss a decree that has no bearing on the topic.

The finest knight I (Ned) ever knew was Ser Arthur Dayne, he was a member of the Kingsguard that was a shining example to the world. Ned might abhor children being murdered, and he might congratulate any man who honored an order to protect a child with his life if he knew about the order, right? Ned knows about the vow, and it quote what he expresses about it in red in my analysis of the tower of joy scene. Ned has precisely one reason to think of these fine knights as a shining example to the world, they say they are honoring their vow, and Ned knows their vow is to protect their king with their very lives.

You did well on the coronation, it was immediate, Ned was present, and Jaime begged forgiveness which was granted, angering Ned. The children and Elia were presented to Robert, wrapped in Lannister crimson cloaks to conceal the blood. Crimson is not going to conceal blood that is not fresh. So, consider that when attempting to divine the time frame for the coronation. You fall down by suggesting that there is another one. There is no suggestion of a second coronation for Robert, and likely the next partay is Cersei's wedding.

Yes, in both cases regarding Ned and the Kingsguard calling Viserys with the honorific "prince" instead of king. Ned is being diplomatic, but as a rebel leader he has no reason to recognize Viserys as king of anything, much less Westeros. But even if he did, we have no way of knowing when the coronation ceremony takes place for Viserys on Dragonstone. The heir apparent is still a prince until crowned. So to with the kingsguard, but in addition, if the have made their choice to abandon Viserys in favor of the child in the tower, then they have absolutely no reason at all to call him king.

Regarding the kingsguard's knowledge of Aerys's decree. we have nothing that points to their ignorance of it. Contrary to your assertion the change of heirs to a king is normally a very public event. We have nothing to suggest this was not the case here, and we have everything to suggest that this is Aerys's way of punishing Dorne for his belief they betrayed Rhaegar, and in fitting with Aerys's view of the Dornish as lesser people than the Targaryen "dragons." He does not want a half-dornish prince taking over his throne when he has a "full-blooded" son that can replace him. How would he show his righteous royal anger by hiding his decree punishing Dornish betrayals? He wouldn't, and there is no evidence, certainly not the use of the word "prince" by Ned Stark that shows he did.

Again, as to the Kingsguard, not knowing, I've said, and stated in my opening post on the subject, that I believe we can't rule out the possibility. However, it makes no sense to assume they didn't know based on the conversation between Ned and the trio. First, because of the very likely public nature of the decree and their general knowledge of events shown in their responses to Ned, and because they are responding to Ned, not volunteering information he doesn't bring up. For Ned we know he wouldn't bring up the decree even if he, as is likely, knows about it. It is irrelevant to Ned because Ned firmly believes Aegon is dead. So, regardless of if he knows of the decree or not, Ned thinks Viserys is the Targaryen claimant to the throne when he talks to the Kingsguard. This is evident in his question to the trio about how he thought they would be on Dragonstone. Dayne, Hightower, and Whent respond to Ned's statements/questions and not to things he doesn't say. The topic of the decree doesn't come up, and there is no reason we should think that it should have.

Lastly to your first paragraph, the decree IS the topic of our dicussion. It is the new information we get in this new book. It makes no sense not to discuss how new material effects the theories we have long held. Refusing to do so only makes us appear more interested in holding on to old positions than to looking for the truth.

To your points in the second paragraph, let me point out that we have no way of knowing what Ned thought concerning Jon's legitimacy or his illegitimacy. His thoughts of Jon after going to visit Robert's bastard girl in King's Landing may indicate he thought of Jon as Rhaegar's bastard. If so, he certainly can't base his view of the trio on whether of not they fulfilled their duty fighting to their deaths to carry out their first duty to protect their new king in the tower. We don't know what Lyanna told him, only that Lyanna got him to promise her some things on her deathbed. Those promises may well be limited to "take my son and raise him as your own", and "bury me in Winterfell". There is nothing to tell us she told him she and Rhaegar married. No one else at the tower was like to tell him. So, does Ned's knowledge of the Kingsguard oath, as an outsider to that sworn brotherhood, tell us he must have known by just the presence of the Kingsguard at the tower that they were there because of their first duty? No, I think not. I think Ned's admiration of these three men is understood by their sacrifice to protect others in the tower, whether or not he reaches the conclusion that Jon is Rhaegar's heir or just his bastard. The question of the first duty is critical in understanding the decision the Kingsguard made, but it is not necessarily needed in understanding what Ned's view of them is.

Thank you for the words on the coronation. It has been a bit of a crusade over quite a few years to correct the mistake people often make about the timing of the coronation. Not everyone connects the quotes I listed that show when it occurred. I do not agree that we can rule out a second coronation. There is precedent for this with Aegon the Conqueror, and it may be for the same reason Robert could decide to have a second ceremony. We don't know if the High Septon participated and anointed Robert in the ceremony. If not, it would make sense to have another when the over cautious faith was assured the war was really over. We should remember there are forces still loyal to the Targaryen cause, at least to a certain degree, when Robert is crowned. It would be an explanation to the "first act" phrase in The World of Ice & Fire. A open mind to the possibility is all I advocate.

[Ygrain]

I'm not sure if they swear new oaths or not. I lean towards not, but maybe like the coronation it's something that's done even though they're already expected to be loyal to the new king. In circumstances where there is more than one person putting for a claim it gets more complicated. There's also a big difference between the loyalty transferring to the king's acknowledged heir and to a bastard/kid born of a polygamous marriage that nobody knows about.

There may be a ceremony but the transfer is automatic. When Robert dies, Barristan titles Joffrey as "young king" and says that his place is with him.

Knowledge isn't required to make a marriage valid. Gods know, and that is sufficient.

I would say that Jamie is pretty great for what he did, killing the Mad King and saving King's Landing from burning. Obviously in doing so he betrayed his first duty, but I still might call him a "shining lesson to the world" if I was a person who talked like that.

Well, I don't think that doing the necessary always constitutes a shining example, especially if it comes at a cost of breaking something that defines you.

You do not mention how you are breaking your vow by not guarding the King and then bring up your vow to guard the King. It doesn't make any sense.

Indeed.

[RumHam]

There may be a ceremony but the transfer is automatic. When Robert dies, Barristan titles Joffrey as "young king" and says that his place is with him.

This we agree on. Again things are less clear when there are multiple claimants and the person in question's existence a secret to the world at large. I still say it's not for the Kingsguard to decide who the king is.

Knowledge isn't required to make a marriage valid. Gods know, and that is sufficient.

We seem to disagree on what makes a valid marriage. It's open to debate, and we've done that in the past I don't really want to rehash the polygamy debate. So I'll just say that it's hardly a given that the rest of the kingdom would accept Jon as the Targaryen heir. Especially since Viserys and Rhaella were still on Dragonstone, and he was appointed heir and then crowned and all.

Here's something I asked you in another thread and never got an answer to:

Here's another question, what if Jon had died before/while being born? I'd imagine the infant mortality rates in Westeros are not good. Then the three Kingsguard would be in a awkward position. I mean he wasn't king while in the womb right? So why did they decide to defend him, and not Viserys who had been crowned on Dragonstone? If you believe their loyalty was to the family and not the crown, you would think they'd follow Aerys and Rhaella's wishes about who the next king should be.

Well, I don't think that doing the necessary always constitutes a shining example, especially if it comes at a cost of breaking something that defines you.

You're certainly entitled to feel that way. It's a complex issue with no easy answer. That's why I think it's iffy to make assumptions about who is king based on the Kingsguard's presence at the tower. The three Kingsguard viewing Jon as their king is a possible explanation, but it's actually not the only one.

[Ser Creighton]

Brand new.

Do you think if you could smell the new thread it would smell like a new car? Or this just oil change number 136? Or maybe carwash number 136? And it smells like vanilla, from those packets they throw uner the seat to cover up the actual smell?

[Ygrain]

This we agree on. Again things are less clear when there are multiple claimants and the person in question's existence a secret to the world at large. I still say it's not for the Kingsguard to decide who the king is.

And what should it matter to the KG what the world knows or not? They know. Also, there are no multiple claimants - there is a dead king, there are his heirs, and an usurper. If there is no decree changing the succession line, or they are unaware of it, the custom is the default.

We seem to disagree on what makes a valid marriage. It's open to debate, and we've done that in the past I don't really want to rehash the polygamy debate. So I'll just say that it's hardly a given that the rest of the kingdom would accept Jon as the Targaryen heir. Especially since Viserys and Rhaella were still on Dragonstone, and he was appointed heir and then crowned and all.

This is not about polygamy. I am disputing your claim that lack of general knowledge somehow lessens the validity of a marriage because it is simply incorrect. Lack of public knowledge doesn't affect the nature of an act. Murder is still murder even if most people are unaware of it, and vows before god(s) or officials are binding even if they are not advertised.

RumHam, on 27 Feb 2015 - 7:50 PM, said:

Here's another question, what if Jon had died before/while being born? I'd imagine the infant mortality rates in Westeros are not good. Then the three Kingsguard would be in a awkward position. I mean he wasn't king while in the womb right? So why did they decide to defend him, and not Viserys who had been crowned on Dragonstone? If you believe their loyalty was to the family and not the crown, you would think they'd follow Aerys and Rhaella's wishes about who the next king should be.

I believe that I have clarified my stance on this multiple times. For following Aerys' wish, they would have to be aware of it in the first place (and it is dubious what Rhaella might have wished had she known about another son of Rhaegar's). Also, when did Rhaella crown Viserys, before or after Jon was born, and again, did the KG know about it in time to adjust their actions accordingly?

Really, I fail to see what you would have me say.

You're certainly entitled to feel that way. It's a complex issue with no easy answer. That's why I think it's iffy to make assumptions about who is king based on the Kingsguard's presence at the tower. The three Kingsguard viewing Jon as their king is a possible explanation, but it's actually not the only one.

Based on my or your assumption, that might be inconclusive. However, we are judging this on the basis of the testimony of Eddard Stark whose morals and honour are tuned in a particular way - he is a man who bends honour only for the sake of the loved ones, and mercy towards innocents.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

i would not say at this point Arya "looks very like Lyanna"...

The Ned disagrees... "You remind me of her sometimes. You even look like her."

Also, hi everyone! :D

[Ygrain]

The Ned disagrees... "You remind me of her sometimes. You even look like her."

Also, hi everyone! :D

Oh, a new episode! Well met!

[SFDanny]

Also, hi everyone! :D

Hello, great, great job on Radio Westeros! I finally caught up to episode 12 and am looking forward to the next. Any timetable for that?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

Also, hi everyone! :D

Well met again and thanks for 12 fabulous episodes of Radio Westeros!

[Lord Varys]

Ygrain,

I think the main problem in our assessment is that I don't follow the assumption that Ned is talking KG rather than knighthood in general when he talking to Bran. Bran asks him whether the KG are the best knights - and since he wants to become a great knight he also considers to become a KG. It was not a discussion about the virtues that make a KG the best KG (which essentially should be martial prowess, a handsome face, and blind loyalty and obedience).

The notion that Ned considers Ser Arthur the paragon of chivalry may have to do more with the character of this man as a knight rather than what he did as a Kingsguard.

Ser Arthur happened to remain the splendid knight he (most likely) was before he joined the KG even afterwards, which can be seen in his attitude towards the people of the Kingswood when he hunted down the Brotherhood. The man protected the innocent while being a KG - a stunt very few knights should have been able to pull off.

George has introduced the concept of conflicting oaths and that - according to Ser Arlan - hedge knights upheld the 'protect the innocents' clause of the oath much better than all the knights who had conflicting interests (household knights the will of their liege, landed knights their own interests as land owners, etc.).

And we should not forget that every KG was a knight is those times, and sworn his knightly vows before he took the white cloak. Ser Arthur is also the only KG who could have been close enough to Ned prior to everything to lead Ned to describe him as such a great guy. I'm not sure why anyone should praise a KG especially for doing his duty (dying while defending those he had sworn to protect). That was their job.

Succession stuff:

Whether the KG specifically renews their oath when a new king ascends is not really the issue. Every lord and nobleman in the Realm seems to be obliged to do this - compare who is supposed to swear fealty to Joffrey after he ascends the throne. And he especially demands that all his councilors renew their oaths as well - which would include Barristan Selmy.

The KG does not necessarily know who the next king is going to be if the old dies. Until a new king is crowned, the Hand rules in place of the dead king (Otto Hightower; Bloodraven, Ned if he had been smarter), and the KG would technically be answerable to the Hand. They might still continue to protect the royal family from real and imagined threats and decide to oppose the Hand should he decide to crown somebody they want not on the throne or so, but generally speaking the KG should have no king upon the old king dies until a new king is crowned. Depending on the situation - hello, Criston - they could be crucial in deciding who is going to be the next king, but they aren't automatically chained to the next king - unless there is no doubt who is going to succeed. And even when it is clear who the king is can the KG decide to not follow that and abandon him for another pretender: Ser Steffon Darklyn apparently got away in time before he had sworn fealty to Aegon II, and two KG supposedly abandoned Maegor I in favor of Prince Jaehaerys during his last days - which was, of course, treason.

With Aerys and Aegon (believed to be) dead, and Viserys Aerys' chosen heir, he would have been the best candidate for the next Targaryen king. But Rhaegar's son by Lyanna could have been a rival pretender, although he would have had no chance against Viserys in any circumstances - if we go with a scenario in which Rhaegar and Aerys die, but the Targaryen dynasty in Westeros survives. Since Aerys has neither recognized Rhaegar's son by Lyanna as a legal heir, not accepted/confirmed his polygamous marriage, it is unlikely that anyone would have backed him against Aerys' chosen heir. Queen Rhaella most likely would have preferred her own son over her grandson. I'm not exactly inclined to believe that she approved of Rhaegar having two wives. And why should she?

And despite Robert being 'a usurper' he still had a legal claim. Had there been a Great Council after the war, deciding whether Viserys, Jon, or Robert should become king, and should the lords have chosen Robert, the Kingsguard would have been forced to accept this ruling - or suffer the consequences of disobedience.

But while he was not yet crowned or recognized as king Viserys was about as much king as Prince Aegon and Rhaenyra were prior to their respective coronation (if you read TPatQ closely you realize that both are only styled King/Queen after their respective coronations). With the three knights absent from Dragonstone Viserys III wasn't really their king even after he was crowned - if he was already crowned when they died - as they never recognized him as such or formally entered into his service. Barristan also only joins Daenaerys' Queensguard after she formally accepts him as such. He wasn't a member until he became a member.

But if we break this whole thing down to the tower there is simply no way to decide whether the KG stayed there because their honored Rhaegar's last command/out of their own free will because they felt honor-bound to protect this prince rather than another, or whether they believed that this prince was actually the new king. That is essentially all I'm saying. I'd not be surprised if Arthur or Oswell actually believed that this was the case - but this would not really matter.

Unless we know more about this whole thing we cannot decide this thing - or rather, I think I cannot.

[Ser Creighton]

You know debates on preception are only on perception. It's a circular argument, you prove it, no you prove it.

What reason is their to believe they did not consider Jon the king. Did they know about Viserys being named heir, maybe maybe not. Did they choose to except Rhaegar as their King maybe and maybe not.

So an argument where it s stated they did not consider Jon seems persumptuous. There are multiple possible options and a lack of information.

Rhaegar died doing the Kings will, weather he had his own motivations, he still died doing that and Aerys was never deposed nor was his new Heir questioned. There is no great council, no small council, Rhaegar did not challenge it if he even knew about it.

The one thing that is clear is that Viserys was named king, by the king and the king could do that. When it happened and everyone who knew is unkown, but the Citadel knows. Tyrion doesn't know, we know that he thought Aegon had a better claim than Dany. Not actually true, passed over, Marwyn might know. Someone might call a great council and say I'm a boy and she is a yucky girl so I shoud be king. Could happen, but as Nymeria showed us her arrival changed Dorne, now a woman could rule and still can and Dorne was a better place for her arrival. Sombody could get married at that settles a lot of problems rather easily.

Right now Dany has the strogest legal claim of her family. It's not perfect in this world but it is what it is. Dead men tell know tales, and the 3 KG could crown whoever they want, does not make it legal or binding. It is not there personal choice or there own private election that decides that. It's only their perception, that may have been their belief.

You know people talk about Cole and the Dance, but he had a son of the king and his wife the Queen. It was not just him. That led to a disaster, Nymeria and Mors had wars to fight as well. But united Dorne and effected change for women. Huge step really in this world. Everyone here complimented Dorne for that, and you know what? It took a woman, and fucking good for her, she united that Kingdom and it is still united and the people of Dorne hold her in the highest esteem. And believe it or not it took some serious fighting to do that, but nobody bashes here though. Funny how a woman of water came to a desert with an boat load of refugees, had 3 husbands, The first 1 a sun who was one of the horse lords of Dorne, the second one Hellholt and the last the Sword of the morning. In a land that was constantly fighting amongst itself and used magic to bring water to the sand. It's almost like unity of opposition with desert and water. Next thing you know some firey princess from Essos will come with a bunch of refugeess to probably some cold frozen land and maybe she had a husband who was her sun, a second husband who nobody gives a fuck about but I sure fire like hellholt will be associated with his death and gosh maybe a third husband. Now I need a guy with a magic sword, who will help bring the "Dawn" to end the long night. Where the hell can I find this guy? Not like Nymeria sent a king to the wall know as the Sword of the evening. It would have to be like an inverse of that for someone to come form the wall. This person does not exist, could be Edric, Edric will end the long night, Jon is a red herring.

It's nothing against Jon or his rights, it just happens to be the situation as it stands, I am sure Jon will do great things in the future. First maybe some bandaids and some wound wash, maybe a little Neosporin, maybe more than a little. Then he can Watch Edric go all Azor Ahai, cause it's probably Edric and not Jon.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

You're certainly entitled to feel that way. It's a complex issue with no easy answer. That's why I think it's iffy to make assumptions about who is king based on the Kings guard's presence at the tower. The three Kingsguard viewing Jon as their king is a possible explanation, but it's actually not the only one.

Thats the thing, it's not just based on the Three King's Guard being at the Tower of Joy. It's a big part of it but there a lot of different clues that all work together to build the case for Lyanna and Rhaegar being married.

First clue: The Dragon has Three Heads

This quote from Rhaegar in the vision of Daenerys' in the HotU

"There must be one more," and "The dragon has three heads."

This points to the fact that Rhaegar was looking for a 3rd child

add this quote from Maester Aemon:

"The dragon must have three heads … but I am too old to be one of them. I should be with her, showing her the way, but my body has betrayed me."

Clearly both men see the Three Heads of the Dragon to mean Targaryens.

So would a bastard child be a Targaryen? Maybe, maybe not.

Second clue: The Prince who was Promised

From the Wiki:

Ser Barriston Selmy talks to Daenerys about her mother, Rhaella, and father, Aery II. He mentions that her grandsire, Jaeherys II, commanded that they be wed after a Woods Witch had foretold that the prince who was promised would be born of their line.

TPwwP was an important prophecy to the Targaryens and one that Rhaegar was enthralled with.

From the Wiki:

"at one point Prince Rhaegar Targaryen believed that he might be the prince that was promised. According to a tale told of Rhaegar, one day he found something in his scrolls that changed him and he decided to become a knight. He said to Ser Willem Darry, the master-at-arms,

"I will require a sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior."

Rhaegar was convinced that if he was not the Prince who was Promised then one of his children would be

This quote from the HotU

"He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire."

The PRINCE. You cant be a Prince if you are a bastard.

Now, does Rhaegar believe that Aegon is the TPwwP and say there is no longer a need for a true born Targaryen to be the third head? Maybe, maybe not.

Third clue: The King's Guards own words.

“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.

“When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, 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.”

“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.

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

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

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Ned’s wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.".

This is a fever dream that Ned has while recovering from his fall from the horse in King's Landing, so maybe you could discount some it. But it also says that this was an old dream that he had not had for a long time.

So I think we can assume that if it is not exactly what was said, its meaning is still there.

This scene carries a lot of meaning by what the King's Guard say

“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..

Here they tell us that they know about Rhaegar's Death and that Robert has ascend the Iron Throne. They specifically call him the Usurper, meaning he has won

“When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, 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.”

Here they tell us that they Know Aerys is dead by Jaime's hand. And they know about the Sack of King's Landing and most likely the death of Rhaegar's wife and children including Aegon

Meaning they have done the math on the path of Succession

Before Robert's Rebellion the line of Succession went- Aerys > Rhaegar > Aegon > Viserys> Rhaella > Robert Baratheon

So they know that with out any other unknown fact that Viserys should be their (Targaryen) King.

“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.

Here they are telling us that their fight is not over and have no plans to flee or surrender. There must be a reason for this.

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

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

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

“Then or now,” said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"But not of the Kingsguard" This right here tells you that they do not consider Viserys their King

If they did, at least one of them would have gone to Dragonstone (or at least tried to go). If Viserys was King, they would be duty bound to protect him

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

They bring up their vow. The vow that they a moment ago seemed to have forgotten when they acknowledge Viserys has no Kings Guard with him.

Ned’s wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.".

This tells us that they planned on winning this battle. They were not giving up or trying to have an honorable death. They were not committed to defeat. They were going to win and keep doing what it was that they were doing at the tower.

Clue four: Ned thoughts about the King's Guard

Ned's quote to Bran:

"Are they truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms?"

"No longer. But once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world."

Now why would Ned say this about men that he fought to the death against?

There are three real possibilities of what happened at the Tower

1: Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna and these three men guarded him and held Ned's sister hostage afterwards

Do you think Ned would think as highly of them if this was what happened?

2: Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off together but she was his mistress and Jon his bastard. These three men did not fight to protect the King and his family but instead guarded a mistress and a bastard.

Does Ned still think highly of these oath breakers and cowards?

3: Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and these three men were guarding a Targaryen Princess and the rightful heir to the Targaryen Crown

This seems like something that Ned would respect

Clue five: Three King's Guard

The fact that all three of them stayed at the Tower of Joy is also a clue

If they were simply following an order from Rhaegar to stay and guard Lyanna, two of the men were supporters of Rhaegar but Gerold Hightower did not originally go with Rhaegar and the others. He was sent to find Rhaegar by Aerys.

There is no reason for him to swear an oath to Rhaegar and would transcend Rhaegar's death, and Aerys' death to stay there. He would have left unless he had a reason not to go to Viserys.

Finding out that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married and expecting a royal child in an unprotected locale would be a good reason for him to stay.

If one had stayed, or perhaps two, you could argue these men were following their friend and Prince Rhaegar's last command. But Hightower stayed.

The three of them staying also points to Lyanna's baby being a boy.

Had one or two stayed they might have been there to protect a Targaryen Princess and her baby girl who was now second in line for the Crown.

Three King's Guard stayed at the Tower, including Hightower.

This can really only mean that they were there guarding Targaryen Princess Lyanna and her newly born son, the rightful heir to the Targaryen Crown.

Clue Six: Ned's thoughts about Rhaegar

“For the first time in years, he found himself remembering Rhaegar Targaryen. He wondered if Rhaegar had frequented brothels; somehow he thought not.”

now compare these to this quote from Robert:

"And Rhaegar ... how many times do you think he raped your sister? How many hundreds of times? I will kill every Targaryen I can get my hands on, until they are as dead as their dragons, and then I will piss on their graves."

or this one:

"In my dreams, I kill him every night. A thousand deaths will still be less than he deserves."

Seems like Ned would think thoughts of Rhaegar being a despicable human being that deserved more of what Robert had wanted to do to all of the Targaryens, rather than thinking he was a honorable guy who likely did not disgrace himself by going to brothels.

Is that what you think of the guy who either kidnapped and raped your sister at worst or ran off with your sister as a mistress and knocked her up to have a bastard at best?

No, it seems more like what you would think of the guy who your sister loved and who loved her back> The guy who married your sister and gave her a true born son that Ned has grown to think of as a son.

Now you can pick apart anyone of these clues, give different opinions about what they all mean. But it is the summation of all of the clues that point to Lyanna and Rhaegar being married

[Ser Creighton]

The Ned disagrees... "You remind me of her sometimes. You even look like her."

Also, hi everyone! :D

And where have you been hiding? Under the Snow? Get it? Cause it's a book reference and you have litereally been buried by snow all winter. I made funny.

[RumHam]

And what should it matter to the KG what the world knows or not? They know. Also, there are no multiple claimants - there is a dead king, there are his heirs, and an usurper. If there is no decree changing the succession line, or they are unaware of it, the custom is the default.

It does matter what the world knows, maybe not in principle but certainly in practice. Robert is obviously another claimant, and if they're pushing Jon's rights than obviously that conflicts with Viserys' claim.

This is not about polygamy. I am disputing your claim that lack of general knowledge somehow lessens the validity of a marriage because it is simply incorrect. Lack of public knowledge doesn't affect the nature of an act. Murder is still murder even if most people are unaware of it, and vows before god(s) or officials are binding even if they are not advertised.

Don't you need witnesses? The gods may consider these oaths binding, but it's what men think that matters. I think it's pretty clear from historical examples that Rhaegar couldn't just take a second wife and be like "well too late what's done is done, obviously my son by her is legitimate deal with it." Maybe he could have gotten people to accept it, maybe not.

I believe that I have clarified my stance on this multiple times. For following Aerys' wish, they would have to be aware of it in the first place (and it is dubious what Rhaella might have wished had she known about another son of Rhaegar's). Also, when did Rhaella crown Viserys, before or after Jon was born, and again, did the KG know about it in time to adjust their actions accordingly?

Really, I fail to see what you would have me say

Well sorry I was unaware of your stance. I didn't search through all your posts trying to find an answer when you didn't reply. I don't think we know when Viserys was crowned exactly. One would imagine as soon as they got word of the Sack. The gist of my question was "What if Jon died in or before childbirth." Suddenly the three Kingsguard would look pretty stupid for not going to Viserys. I think we would all agree that a fetus cannot be considered the king.

Based on my or your assumption, that might be inconclusive. However, we are judging this on the basis of the testimony of Eddard Stark whose morals and honour are tuned in a particular way - he is a man who bends honour only for the sake of the loved ones, and mercy towards innocents.

Again it's not clear that his respect for them stems from their unflinching protection of whoever they think should be king.

edit:

Tyrion doesn't know, we know that he thought Aegon had a better claim than Dany.

There's nothing so far to suggest Aegon was disinherited, just that Aerys named Viserys heir. It would not effect Daenerys's claim vs Aegon's.

[BearQueen87]

Shiny! Couldn't find it for a second. We need pinned :)

[BearQueen87]

The Ned disagrees... "You remind me of her sometimes. You even look like her."

Also, hi everyone! :D

Hi! 'Bout time you popped back in :) Glad to see there is a new episode, need to listen.