R+L=J v.137

[BearQueen87]

That would be helpful and explain much, but I just always questioned why he never went on sojourn to the Wall if it was a concern?

His Uncle was there, and we know Jahaerys and his queen went north, and even Tyrion whom Aemon appeals to for influence and help.

Well, what good would traveling to the Wall do, though? The NW don't even think the Others are a real threat (or around) anymore. They are more concerned about the Wildings. He could talk to Aemon, I guess, but they were already talking via raven.

[addicted to snow]

They are Kingsguard, they do think differently than Lyanna. They have an obligation to protect the king. If Viserys is the rightful heir, then they have an obligation to protect him, and they are not doing that at the tower. They can split forces, and accept Ned's offer to discuss sending one or more of their group to Viserys. They could have split before Ned arrived, as well.

If these King's Guards have such an uncontrollable urge to Guard the King, then what the hell were they doing at the ToJ after Rhaegar left, but weeks before Jon was born???

There was no king there... There was Prince of Dragonstone there... What were they doing at this tower??? How did they fight off their uncontrollable urge to find Aryes, the true king & fight to the death protecting him???

[SFDanny]

Decree? What decree? Could someone point me to a quote that 1) Aerys issued a decree, and 2) that the KG were aware of its existence?

BTW, given that Aerys was planning to burn KL, would he have bothered with a decree when Aegon was going to be toast with everyone else, anyway?

Here is the quote in question.

"Birds flew and couriers raced to bear word of the victory at the Ruby Ford. When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King's Landing with Rhaegar's children as a hostage against Dorne." (TWoI&F 129) bold emphasis added

and here is Ran's post confirming this text is correct. Ran is responding to this post by mrllopez.

"I have another error - in the passage in the book discussing Robert's rebellion, Viserys is referred to as King Aerys II's "new heir" after the death of Rhaegar when the babe Aegon is still alive (this would be after the Battle of the Trident but before the Sack of King's Landing).

For example, King Edward III of England was succeeded by his 8 year old grandson Richard II. Edward had other sons, but Richard was the son of Edward's son & heir, Edward the Black Prince, who had pre-deceased King Edward III.

So, primogeniture demands that VIserys would NOT be the heir so long as Rhaegar's son Aegon was alive, baby or not. Viserys would be AFTER Aegon." bold emphasis added

"Not an error. Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king. We have other examples of people being passed over, or potentially passed over, for others.

Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time." bold emphasis added

The document in question is either the decree itself or a contemporary document referring to it. If you're interested in why i think this document is real, why Dayne, Hightower and Whent likely knew about it, what it means regarding the Kingsguard's Oath and what it tells us about the Kingsguard trio, and what it means regarding Ned's view of the three men, then I'd refer you to four rather long posts I just finished on the subject. Post #1, Post #2, Post #3, and Post #4

Concerning Aerys's pyromancer plot and what he planned for Elia and her children, we don't know he planned to leave them in the city to burn. We have reason to believe might have thought he would survive the blaze, but that doesn't mean he really planned on testing the theory on either himself or Aegon. We know he was holding Elia and her children as hostage against Dorne. If you actually kill the hostages it does away with their value as hostages. Aerys has a simpler way of punishing Dorne for his paranoid fantasy of Lewyn's betrayal - make Viserys his heir.

Why do you have any level of confidence that the KG are aware that Aerys named Viserys as the heir to the throne? We don't know for sure that he did (although I admit that WOIAF suggest he might have), but even if Aerys did, the exchange among Ned and the KG make it abundantly clear that the KG has no knowledge of any such decree and considered Jon to be the heir to the throne.

I'd point to the links above for my reasons, but in short form here is the argument: they seemly knew about other important events of this time - Rhaegar's death, the deaths of Elia and her children - so it makes sense that we assume they knew these things the also would know about as public a move as the naming Viserys his heir.

And, no, the exchange makes no such thing abundantly clear. They respond to points Ned chooses to bring up to them. That we don't see Ned bring this up doesn't mean they don't know about it anymore than the fact Ned does not bring up Rhaegar's death, or Elia and her children's deaths means they don't know about these facts. While they may consider Jon a better king, even as an infant, than Viserys maybe true, but the decree tells us Viserys is their king, and if they are true to their first duty they should be trying to get to him. Not keeping all three men at the tower of joy.

[Alia of the knife]

On northern mythology we do have some information connecting Rhaegar. He was communicating with Aemon at the wall. Aemon indicates the Prince is associated with the War for the Dawn, Rhaegar has been known to mention the prince and ice and fire and the dragons. Rhaegar believed for a time he was the Prince that was promised.

Now he does not have to go North to study northern mythology, he could but the best placed would be the library at Winterfell, the Wall and what's that Town of the first king right by Winterfell? But he probably didn't but there is another place he could of gone. We only have a brief glimps of his life so there is room for it. Rhaegar was suppose to be very bookish and the Maesters were in awe of awe of his wits.

It's not out of the realm of possibility he visited Old Town. In fact even Oberyn studied there. Why in fact you could of made a show of it. Oberyn Excelling in potions class and Rhaegar excelling in Defense against the Dark Night. We see that both people in Esssos and Westeros have some understanding of the Darkness and Azor and the Prince. Mel considers them one. But there is this moment with Tyrion in Dance 27 that is very intresting. It's not really about the conclusion of what he says but the fact that he knows it. Tyrion is in Volantis and the Red Priest is speaking, and he asks what he is saying, and he gets a brief description. But right off the bat Tyrion knows exactly what he is talking about. That is intresting it a few ways but one of them is that Tyrion actually has heard Warnings that the Others are coming. Now lets say Marwyn shows up in Meereen and Tyrion is there and Dany is back, and Moqorro that's going to be a moment.

That Daenerys stands in peril. The dark eye has fallen upon her, and the minions of night are plotting her destruction, praying to their false gods in temples of deceit conspiring at betrayal with godless outlanders

The hairs on the back of Tyrions neck began to prickle. Prince Aegon will find no friend here. The red priest spoke of ancient prophecy, a prophecy that foretold the coming of a hero to deliver the world from darkness. One hero. Not two. Daenerys has dragons, Aegon does not.

Now I did not bring this up because of Dany but to point out that people in Westeros can learn sure you probably need to be someone at the Citadel or like Tyrion, but Rhaegar was like Tyrion in some ways, he was bookish. Tyrion new exactly what it was and even associated Dragons with it. It's not to say Tyrion is right, but I don't need to get into that right now, just that it can be learned and the prince is associated with the long night according to Aemon who Rhaegar spoke with, or exchanged letters with. He could of requested books from the Citadel he could of gone there but he knew, just like Tyrion knew and just like Aemon knew.

Now intresting enough if you go back to his first chapter what is Tyrion reading about, he has a few things out. He is reading about the changing of the seasons, engins of war, and he is reading Valyrian scrolls. Why do you think he would be reading that group? Changing of the seasons, engins of war and Valyrian scrolls. I am pretty sure Ayrmidon's engins of war is a nod to the Iliad, as Ayrmidon is actually Myrmidon. Any way sorry, just wanted to point out if you could have Valyrian scrolls in Winterfell you could probably have northern books tales and stories in KL.

That is all I got.

Well, I was going to point out that it was actually the Winterfell library that had the oldest and most ancient books at least according to the Wiki, almost like Cleopatras library in Alexandria before the Romans burned it.

You'd think Rhaegar would go there just for that. In fact, maybe Rhaegar married Lyanna just for her "books." :)

[IceFire125]

There's a theory that Daenys the Dreamer's Signs and Portents contained records of visions relating to the Others and that Rhaegar may have had access to a copy or at least some pages.

There have always been Targaryens who dreamed of things to come, since long before the Conquest. - BR to Dunk and Egg.

[aquintus]

If these King's Guards have such an uncontrollable urge to Guard the King, then what the hell were they doing at the ToJ after Rhaegar left, but weeks before Jon was born???

There was no king there... There was Prince of Dragonstone there... What were they doing at this tower??? How did they fight off their uncontrollable urge to find Aryes, the true king & fight to the death protecting him???

It's already been established that as long as one Kingsguard member is guarding the king, then the rest are free to carry out other duties (including following direct orders of other royal family members). It's also already been established that they were ordered to be there by Rhaegar.

It has not, however, been established why they stayed there after Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were all dead and Viserys, the supposed heir to the throne, was off at Dragonstone without a Kingsguard protector. The only logical explanation for all three staying at the Tower is that they believed that Viserys was not the new king, and that they believed that the actual new king was at the Tower.

[SFDanny]

The only logical explanation for all three staying at the Tower is that they believed that Viserys was not the new king, and that they believed that the actual new king was at the Tower.

Just how is that logical? Given the decree, it is logical to assume they believed Viserys was their new king and they choose to ignore their first duty to him. Why they would do so is certainly open for debate, but using the fact they didn't go to mean they believed Viserys was not their king isn't logical. It assumes an outcome based on ignoring facts to the contrary.

[RumHam]

It has not, however, been established why they stayed there after Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were all dead and Viserys, the supposed heir to the throne, was off at Dragonstone without a Kingsguard protector. The only logical explanation for all three staying at the Tower is that they believed that Viserys was not the new king, and that they believed that the actual new king was at the Tower.

In a perfect world were oaths must be kept no matter the circumstance and logistics, that maybe the only logical explanation. Though I still lean in the direction that if Rhaegar specifically commanded all three of them to defend the tower no matter what they could have justifiably stayed, regardless of their knowledge about Visery's status. The oath is presumably not that specific about the procedure surrounding the king's death and the naming of a new heir. Or about following the orders of the Royal family in the king's absence / after the order giver has died.

Edit: but my main point, which I forgot to make, is that it's not a perfect world. Most of the time oaths don't mean shit when actually tested.

[markg171]

It's already been established that as long as one Kingsguard member is guarding the king, then the rest are free to carry out other duties (including following direct orders of other royal family members). It's also already been established that they were ordered to be there by Rhaegar.

It has not, however, been established why they stayed there after Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were all dead and Viserys, the supposed heir to the throne, was off at Dragonstone without a Kingsguard protector. The only logical explanation for all three staying at the Tower is that they believed that Viserys was not the new king, and that they believed that the actual new king was at the Tower.

But this entire argument is contradictory. If it only takes 1 KG to protect the king, then why does all 3 need to be with Jon?

[BearQueen87]

But this entire argument is contradictory. If it only takes 1 KG to protect the king, then why does all 3 need to be with Jon?

Because it doesn't actually take just one KG to protect the king. One must be with him for the vows of the KG to be upheld, but actual protection in a war zone when the enemy is probably coming requires more than one. Rhaegar has more than one sworn shield, for example.

[Mace Cooterian]

Well, I was going to point out that it was actually the Winterfell library that had the oldest and most ancient books at least according to the Wiki, almost like Cleopatras library in Alexandria before the Romans burned it.

You'd think Rhaegar would go there just for that. In fact, maybe Rhaegar married Lyanna just for her "books." :)

On the subject of R+L=J and "what might be buried in the crypts of Winterfell"...I'm not sure I've read anything with more sense than this.

:cool4:

[markg171]

Because it doesn't actually take just one KG to protect the king. One must be with him for the vows of the KG to be upheld, but actual protection in a war zone when the enemy is probably coming requires more than one. Rhaegar has more than one sworn shield, for example.

But then how is it okay that Aerys only had 1 KG, when he was in that exact situation that you are describing?

[BearQueen87]

But then how is it okay that Aerys only had 1 KG, when he was in that exact situation that you are describing?

Because he also had an entire castle full of guards and men at arms and a City Watch and walls surrounding the entire city. Jon is in a broken down tower in the middle of nowhere and the KG do not know how many men Ned Stark is bringing (a handful or half an army)

[addicted to snow]

In a perfect world were oaths must be kept no matter the circumstance and logistics, that maybe the only logical explanation. Though I still lean in the direction that if Rhaegar specifically commanded all three of them to defend the tower no matter what they could have justifiably stayed, regardless of their knowledge about Visery's status. The oath is presumably not that specific about the procedure surrounding the king's death and the naming of a new heir. Or about following the orders of the Royal family in the king's absence / after the order giver has died.

Edit: but my main point, which I forgot to make, is that it's not a perfect world. Most of the time oaths don't mean shit when actually tested.

Great Post!

[addicted to snow]

Because it doesn't actually take just one KG to protect the king. One must be with him for the vows of the KG to be upheld, but actual protection in a war zone when the enemy is probably coming requires more than one. Rhaegar has more than one sworn shield, for example.

& yet both of them broke protocol & stayed behind @ the ToJ rather than follow Rhaegar into battle... It seems to me that something out of the ordinary was going on long before Jon was ever born...

[aquintus]

But this entire argument is contradictory. If it only takes 1 KG to protect the king, then why does all 3 need to be with Jon?

They didn't. But they had no where else they HAD to be. At least one KG =/= no more than one KG.

[aquintus]

Given the decree, it is logical to assume they believed Viserys was their new king and they choose to ignore their first duty to him.

What decree? What proof do you have that 1) there even was a decree, and 2) that those three KGs had any idea at all that it existed if there was one?

Why they would do so is certainly open for debate, but using the fact they didn't go to mean they believed Viserys was not their king isn't logical. It assumes an outcome based on ignoring facts to the contrary.

There are no facts to the contrary. Also, it's logical to believe that they all 3 believed that the king was in the Tower because if they didn't, they could have protected Viserys and the Tower at the same time. Again, 3 KGs and only 2 locations to protect. 3 KGs can be in 2 places at the same time.

[aquintus]

Though I still lean in the direction that if Rhaegar specifically commanded all three of them to defend the tower no matter what they could have justifiably stayed, regardless of their knowledge about Visery's status.

And I'll say, flat out, that doing so would be a violation of their KG oath, an oath that they specifically reference in their conversation with Ned. Their oath says that they have to GUARD the KING (it's right there in the name of their order. It's not rocket surgery). They could have followed the Rhaegar's command to stay at the Tower AND protected Viserys as king at the same time. 3 KGs, 2 places to be. The fact that ALL THREE stayed (and specifically Hightower, who had no special relationship with Rhaegar and who we know took his KG duty very seriously), suggests heavily that they did not believe that Viserys was king.

[Alia of the knife]

On the subject of R+L=J and "what might be buried in the crypts of Winterfell"...I'm not sure I've read anything with more sense than this.

:cool4:

I was being a bit tongue-n-cheek with books over looks, however, in terms of the crypts and "crackpots," I've been speculating that poor simple Hodor has been taking care of a very large "pet" left behind on a royal visit, that likes dark, warm places possibly caused by volcanic activity.

[RumHam]

And I'll say, flat out, that doing so would be a violation of their KG oath, an oath that they specifically reference in their conversation with Ned. Their oath says that they have to GUARD the KING (it's right there in the name of their order. It's not rocket surgery). They could have followed the Rhaegar's command to stay at the Tower AND protected Viserys as king at the same time. 3 KGs, 2 places to be. The fact that ALL THREE stayed (and specifically Hightower, who had no special relationship with Rhaegar and who we know took his KG duty very seriously), suggests heavily that they did not believe that Viserys was king.

I don't think it's that simple, as a few of us have been arguing a Kingsguard assigned to a task wouldn't necessarily give up that task because he learned the king suddenly did not have a sworn brother with him. If they can forsake that aspect of the oath to have their meetings than this really shouldn't be that big of a deal. We also have the example of Aegon II fleeing King's Landing sans Kingsguard.

On an unrelated note, I would like to learn more about rocket surgery, it sounds fascinating.