R+L=J v.136

[RumHam]

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.

The other clues you list are not very convincing.

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.

We have a SSM from Martin saying the third head need not be Targaryen. In any event I doubt the savior of the worlds legal status and last name would really matter.

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.

This is pretty much an extension of your first clue. As for "you can't be a prince if you're a bastard" keep in mind this is an old prophecy translated from a different language and we've already had one translation error involving the world 'prince' in that prophecy. Again I don't see someone's legal status being an issue. Did the people who originally made the prophecy even have the concept of bastardy?

Third clue: The King's Guards own words.

Clue four: Ned thoughts about the King's Guard

Clue five: Three King's Guard

These three things are pretty much what we have been discussing, not additional evidence beyond the Kingsguard presence.

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.

I really don't see how Ned not hating Rhaegar suggests he and Lyanna were married. It just shows that unlike Robert, Ned knew Rhaegar did not kidnap and rape Lyanna and that it was consensual.

[J. Stargaryen]

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.

That's not really true. I mentioned this a few threads back, actually. The same power that allowed Aerys to name Viserys heir instead of Aegon would have allowed Daenerys to be Viserys's recognized heir over other claimants. While it's somewhat different since they believed Aegon was dead, Dany was still the recognized heir of Viserys III.

Part of the argument against Jon is that almost no one even knows that exists as R+L=J. Well, it's not any better for Aegon. All those same people 'know' that he was murdered.

[Blazfemur]

so wait, cuz im still a bit fuzzy. You're saying, Rhaegar TARGARYEN, and Lyanna??

It gets FUNNIER every single thread i do that!

[RumHam]

That's not really true. I mentioned this a few threads back, actually. The same power that allowed Aerys to name Viserys heir instead of Aegon would have allowed Daenerys to be Viserys's recognized heir over other claimants. While it's somewhat different since they believed Aegon was dead, Dany was still the recognized heir of Viserys III.

Part of the argument against Jon is that almost no one even knows that exists as R+L=J. Well, it's not any better for Aegon. All those same people 'know' that he was murdered.

Do we have any indication that Viserys explicitly named Daenerys his heir? Both Aegon and Daenerys have claims and it could be argued either way, but I'm thinking since Viserys was never actually the king of the Seven Kingdoms his choice of heir would't be especially relevant.

Not that it matters since I doubt the issue between them will be settled by considering who has the best claim.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

The other clues you list are not very convincing.

We have a SSM from Martin saying the third head need not be Targaryen. In any event I doubt the savior of the worlds legal status and last name would really matter.

This is pretty much an extension of your first clue. As for "you can't be a prince if you're a bastard" keep in mind this is an old prophecy translated from a different language and we've already had one translation error involving the world 'prince' in that prophecy. Again I don't see someone's legal status being an issue. Did the people who originally made the prophecy even have the concept of bastardy?

These three things are pretty much what we have been discussing, not additional evidence beyond the Kingsguard presence.

I really don't see how Ned not hating Rhaegar suggests he and Lyanna were married. It just shows that unlike Robert, Ned knew Rhaegar did not kidnap and rape Lyanna and that it was consensual.

We have a SSM from Martin saying the third head need not be Targaryen. In any event I doubt the savior of the worlds legal status and last name would really matter.

The point is not if it has to be a Targaryen, but that both Rhaegar and Aemon thought that it needed to be. There fore it would affect his choice to have a bastard or not

This is pretty much an extension of your first clue. As for "you can't be a prince if you're a bastard" keep in mind this is an old prophecy translated from a different language and we've already had one translation error involving the world 'prince' in that prophecy. Again I don't see someone's legal status being an issue. Did the people who originally made the prophecy even have the concept of bastardy?

It may add to it, but it is a different point. One reason is the Three Heads of the Dragon and one is TPwwP. They are not necessarily the same thing, but would still give Rhaegar a reason to

Marry to have a true born, in his estimation it was important.

These three things are pretty much what we have been discussing, not additional evidence beyond the Kingsguard presence.

You cant just say the King's Guards presence. their presence is one clue, and their words are another. They are both important

I really don't see how Ned not hating Rhaegar suggests he and Lyanna were married. It just shows that unlike Robert, Ned knew Rhaegar did not kidnap and rape Lyanna and that it was consensual.

Consensual romance that ended up costing your father and brother their lives so that some Prince could get his rocks off on your sister.

Ned's honor does not allow him to think of Lyanna being Rhaegar's mistress as an OK thing. He is embarrassed that he has to say he had one to protect Jon and he would never have a mistress.

If Rhaegar had a mistress then why wouldn't he go to a brothel? He doesn't go to the Brothel because he doesn't have mistresses.

[J. Stargaryen]

Do we have any indication that Viserys explicitly named Daenerys his heir? Both Aegon and Daenerys have claims and it could be argued either way, but I'm thinking since Viserys was never actually the king of the Seven Kingdoms his choice of heir would't be especially relevant.

Not that it matters since I doubt the issue between them will be settled by considering who has the best claim.

Inside the manse, the air was heavy with the scent of spices, pinchfire and sweet lemon and cinnamon. They were escorted across the entry hall, where a mosaic of colored glass depicted the Doom of Valyria. Oil burned in black iron lanterns all along the walls. Beneath an arch of twining stone leaves, a eunuch sang their coming. “Viserys of the House Targaryen, the Third of his Name,” he called in a high, sweet voice, “King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm. His sister, Daenerys Stormborn, Princess of Dragonstone. His honorable host, Illyrio Mopatis, Magister of the Free City of Pentos.” - AGoT, Daenerys I

So she sat in her wedding silks, nursing a cup of honeyed wine, afraid to eat, talking silently to herself. I am blood of the dragon, she told herself. I am Daenerys Stormborn, Princess of Dragonstone, of the blood and seed of Aegon the Conqueror. - AGoT, Daenerys II

[Alia of the knife]

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?

Depends.

Are the seats leather and is it 101 degrees and sweaty?

One night in my younger days, after three months, I did find some biscuits and gravy from Hardees under the passenger seat that we got after hitting the clubs, and I never even smelled it.

[Lord Varys]

King Viserys Targaryen IV,

we don't know that Rhaegar/Aemon believed that the dragon heads had to be Targaryens born in wedlock. It is likely that Rhaegar thought it would be better if the third head - his child by Lyanna - would be legitimate, but that is not a given. He may have aimed for Aegon, Rhaenys, and their bastard brother.

Yeah, Dany was Viserys' official heir as well as his future bride until the pact with Drogo was made - both did not know anything about the pact with Prince Doran.

As to the heads of the dragon:

In my opinion, we can be reasonably sure by now that Daenerys, Jon Snow, and Tyrion are the three heads of the dragon, with Jon and Dany being descended from Aerys and Rhaella, like the Ghost of High Heart prophesied - either of them could be the promised prince(ss), if this character really is supposed to be more important than the other two. I'd bet more money on Daenerys than Jon Snow, since she is actually the 'magic child' of Aerys and Rhaella, the one born last and seemingly the least, but her birth is heralded by signs and portents (the storm, she is born on Dragonstone - the place of salt and stone (an additional hint in that direction can be found in the phrasing of either TWoIaF or 'The Sons of the Dragon' - Aegon loving the smell of salt and sulfur of his home, or something like that) which was also the birthplace of Prince Aegon, the other promised prince candidate, and because she woke the dragons from stone.

Tyrion would be the dragon head who is 'not necessarily a Targaryen' but instead a Hill, the bastard of Aerys and Joanna.

Insofar as legal issues are concerned, Dany could use the fact that Aerys II passed over Aegon in favor of Viserys - and Viserys III, in turn, named her his heir - as a means to explain why she has a better claim than Aegon. I'd not be surprised if legal prattle like this comes up before the Second Dance finally breaks loose. There have to be some negotiations.

Jon Snow's hypothetical bid for the Iron Throne faces a number of problems:

- the NW thing

- the identity-problem thing (while he is not revealed to be a Targaryen, no Targaryen loyalist can declare for him)

- the proof problem: While Jon may eventually learn, understand, and accept who he is, it should be very difficult for communicate this 'truth' to the general public. Especially while there are two other Targaryen claimants around whose claims are both better than his (due to the fact that they have already plenty of followers and look the part)

- the public relations and polygamy problem: Jon would be the first Targaryen born of polygamy since Aenys and Maegor. As he was never recognized or acknowledged in public the general uncertainty about this (alleged) marriage and its legal status should make it very easy to challenge and outright dismiss his claim. More importantly, he was raised as Ned Stark's bastard, and thus follows gods that are not exactly worshiped by many people in the South or accepted by the new High Septon. If the sparrow movement/the power of the High Septon grows it should be very difficult for Jon to claim the Iron Throne. Dany may face a similar problem due to the fact that she is female and a virtual follower who may convert to R'hllorism - but she has dragons and an army to counter that disadvantage.

[Ygritte]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_birth

Scroll down to "in monarchies." No, a fetus is not king per se, but is potentially first in line depending on what happens when it is born. Let's remove Aerys's decree for a moment and assume the KG doesn't know about that, and that they think the succession will proceed as normal.

Baby dies-->Viserys is king

Baby is a living girl-->Viserys is king

Baby is a living boy-->Baby is king

[J. Stargaryen]

Insofar as legal issues are concerned, Dany could use the fact that Aerys II passed over Aegon in favor of Viserys - and Viserys III, in turn, named her his heir - as a means to explain why she has a better claim than Aegon. I'd not be surprised if legal prattle like this comes up before the Second Dance finally breaks loose. There have to be some negotiations.

Hmm, where have I seen this before?

[Lord Varys]

Ygritte,

male primogeniture was common, but no longer the default custom at this point. Even if we go with 'the knights did not know about Aerys' decree to name Viserys heir' while they (supposedly) knew pretty much everything else, the succession would have been far from clear in such a scenario.

Both Aegon V and Jaehaerys II came to the throne as scions of lesser branches of House Targaryen, and all the Realm seems to have been aware of the mistrust and dislike Aerys publicly displayed for both Rhaegar and his children. And considering that Viserys was older than Aegon it is essentially a given that he would have been chosen had there been a Great Council to decide the succession. Both Aegon and Lyanna's child were younger than Viserys - which means Viserys' Regency would have been the shortest.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Oh, a new episode! Well met!

Now you can see what's been taking up all my time! :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?

Thanks! End of the month, and it's another long one ;)

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

Aww you're welcome! Thanks for all the support :cheers:

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.

Yes, haha! Under the Snow, got it. You sir are a Real Comedian™. I had over 100" of snow while we were producing the latest episode. I'm mentally scarred and I haven't stopped shivering in months. But at least we can laugh about it... :rolleyes:

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

Well I've been trying to keep up with things here and the usual discussion cycles, but I really should pop in more often. Miss you guys!

[MtnLion]

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.

Coronation or not, if he is the heir, then he is the king. Robert was not in King’s Landing for his coronation before Lannister men sacked it in “King Robert’s name”. A king may be referred to as “Prince” after the coronation, as well. Your suggestion that there must be a formal partay is silly.

So to with the kingsguard, but in addition, if the(y) 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.

They have made their choice, based upon the current laws. It is apparent in what they say, what they do, and Ned’s understanding of the situation in hindsight.

Regarding the kingsguard's knowledge of Aerys's decree. we have nothing that points to their ignorance of it.

And, we have nothing that points to their knowledge of it. You have the burden to prove that they must know. So, I am waiting for the proof.

Contrary to your assertion the change of heirs to a king is normally a very public event.

Normally, says who? It obviously is not as public as you want to suggest, since no one in world says anything at all about it. Tyrion has no knowledge of it. Daenerys has no knowledge of it. Ned has no knowledge of it. I think it is the fisherman’s daughter, yet again. Simply a red herring.

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."

That does not prove that he made any of this public, and it does sound like wishful thinking.

He does not want a half-dornish prince taking over his throne when he has a "full-blooded" son that can replace him.

Again, wishful thinking. We don’t have nearly enough information about him to make these conclusions.

How would he show his righteous royal anger by hiding his decree punishing Dornish betrayals?

Flowery! “Riteous Royal Anger!” So, who did he confide in?

He wouldn't, and there is no evidence, certainly not the use of the word "prince" by Ned Stark that shows he did.

Sorry, how does that make it so?

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.

Perhaps you can’t rule out the possibility. But it is an IF, not a “this is”. IF mine aunt had had balls, she would have been mine uncle.

[MtnLion]

However, it makes no sense to assume they didn't know based on the conversation between Ned and the trio.

It makes no sense at all to assume that they knew about a secret, since apparently no one else in Westeros seems to know about it, outside of the Citadel.

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.

Public, but you don’t show any public. Show something to support your assertion.

For Ned we know he wouldn't bring up the decree even if he, as is likely, knows about it.

So, show someone else who knows about it. Also, show why Ned would think so highly about the Kingsguard if he knew that they had abandoned King Viserys to his own devices on Dragonstone, when Ned offers the Kingsguard a chance at negotiating a withdrawal.

It is irrelevant to Ned because Ned firmly believes Aegon is dead.

He certainly does believe that Aegon is dead, as does Jaime.

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.

He does, that is true, but the Kingsguard set him straight.

This is evident in his question to the trio about how he thought they would be on Dragonstone.

Quite true, and they respond that they would not have fled with Viserys when Aerys remained in the Red Keep, then. They won’t flee to be with Viserys, now, because they are guarding the king at the tower. That is their vow to protect the king, with their lives, if need be.

Dayne, Hightower, and Whent respond to Ned's statements/questions and not to things he doesn't say.

Meaning? Ned offered them a chance to talk about surrender, and then withdrawal. They are active participants in the dialog. Ned’s memory of it may be paraphrasing, but the important tidbits are there. If Ned knew that Jon was not the heir because Aerys had changed that, then certainly he is not going to hold them as a shining example to the world. So, obviously Ned did not know. Show us where someone knows, outside of the Citadel.

The topic of the decree doesn't come up, and there is no reason we should think that it should have.

There is no reason for it to come up if none of them know about it. Show us where someone knows about it.

Lastly to your first paragraph, the decree IS the topic of our di(s)cussion.

The decree is nothing, a made up bit of fiction, that is intended as a red herring. No one in the story has mentioned it, or noted its effects. Am I wrong?

It is the new information we get in this new book.

It is a red herring, just like the fisherman’s daughter. The decree has nothing to do with Jon’s parentage. The decree has nothing to do with Ned’s recollection of the Kingsguard at the tower of joy. If it does, prove it.

It makes no sense not to discuss how new material effects the theories we have long held.

It has no effect on Jon’s parentage. It has no effect on the tower of joy dialog. It doesn’t exist outside of the Citadel.

Refusing to do so only makes us appear more interested in holding on to old positions than to looking for the truth.

Show where it has an impact, and show that it is known outside of the Citadel.

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.

We certainly do know that Ned has a reason to reflect on the dialog. We certainly know that Ned had a reason to revere them as a shining example to the world. We do know Ned’s take on the Kingsguard’s vow, which is featured prominently in the dialog. Take it for what it is, and don’t try to IF it into something that it isn’t.

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.

Not to me.

[MtnLion]

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.

True, the only reason for him to base his evaluation of the Kingsguard as the finest knights, a shining example to the world, is if they lived up to their vow. We know Ned’s thoughts about their vow, since he was present when Jaime swore his to Aerys.

We don't know what Lyanna told him, only that Lyanna got him to promise her some things on her deathbed.

You are tyring to mislead for some reason . . .

Those promises may well be limited to "take my son and raise him as your own", and "bury me in Winterfell".

That doesn’t make sense based upon the rest of the story, and the angst that Ned suffered keeping his promises to her.

There is nothing to tell us she told him she and Rhaegar married. No one else at the tower was like to tell him.

The Kingsguard told him, it is the hidden meaning behind the dialog.

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?

Yes, indeed, when the Kingsguard refuse to surrender, and then refuse his offer to withdraw to Dragonstone and be with Viserys.

No, I think not.

You have your opinion, but it is unsupported, as far as I can see. (I don’t like to feed trolls, so forgive me if I don’t respond in the future.)

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.

At the cost of ignoring their purpose as Kingsguard? They wouldn’t be a shining example if they didn’t also live up to their purpose in life.

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.

It is imperative in understanding Ned’s evaluation of the Kingsguard. It is imperative in understanding Ned’s loathing of Jaime, and his insistence that Jaime be sent to the Wall. And the affront of Robert forgiving Jaime.

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 believe that it happened the same day as the sack.

I do not agree that we can rule out a second coronation.

I do not believe that we can rule in a second coronation. A second coronation lacks evidence, and therefore can be dismissed. Or, perhaps you have something to indicate that there was one?

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.

Blather.

We don't know if the High Septon participated and anointed Robert in the ceremony.

We don’t know that he didn’t. Again, we can dismiss this without evidence, since it is presented without evidence.

If not, it would make sense to have another when the over cautious faith was assured the war was really over.

IF mine aunt had had balls she would have been mine uncle. There is no reason to consider the if of something that is disproven.

We should remember there are forces still loyal to the Targaryen cause, at least to a certain degree, when Robert is crowned.

All on Dragonstone.

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.

Red herring.

[sj4iy]

Late to the party as always.

Gonna catch up on the past few pages.

[rocksniffer]

Late to the party as always.

Gonna catch up on the past few pages.

i have decided to embrace the madness...can i follow you Sj4iy...if not see you in Misc.... ;)

[Alia of the knife]

Now you can see what's been taking up all my time! :D

Thanks! End of the month, and it's another long one ;)

Aww you're welcome! Thanks for all the support :cheers:

Yes, haha! Under the Snow, got it. You sir are a Real Comedian. I had over 100" of snow while we were producing the latest episode. I'm mentally scarred and I haven't stopped shivering in months. But at least we can laugh about it... :rolleyes:

Well I've been trying to keep up with things here and the usual discussion cycles, but I really should pop in more often. Miss you guys!

Miss you too, and great show as always. I hope your seeing buttercups now. :)

[Moondancer]

RumHam, may I? -

"So why did they decide to defend him, and not Viserys who had been crowned on Dragonstone?"

The orders. (And I don't believe that they "defended" Jon from anything.)

[MtnLion]

RumHam, may I? -

"So why did they decide to defend him, and not Viserys who had been crowned on Dragonstone?"

The orders. (And I don't believe that they "defended" Jon from anything.)

There is a problem with this. "What?" you say. Ned reveres these knights as a shining example to the world, so there is something there to inspire his admiration. It is something that Ned knows, and Ned knows the Kingsguard vow, since he is present for Jaime's at Harrenhal. He despises Jaime for breaking his vow, so isn't it reasonable that he reveres these three for keeping to their vow. Yes, their vow features prominently in the dialog for why they would not flee with Viserys after Rhaegar's death on the Trident, and for why they will not flee now. The vow is to defend the king with their lives. Obviously, this complex word problem can only be answered by the Kingsguard at the tower of joy are defending the king with their lives.