R+L=J v.138

[Lord Varys]

BQ87,

who has said that Ned came to claim the boy? We don't even know if he knew that Lyanna had been pregnant. And traitors can be pardoned. It is not for the Kingsguard to decide who is an enemy and who isn't unless they have reason to believe that they are an obvious threat. And I'd be surprised if Ned had openly stated or threatened that he intended to kill Lyanna and her child.

Oh, and actually the KG does hand over the king. Rickard Thorne and Willis Fell abandoned Aegon II and handed him over to the care of Ser Marston Waters. Not to mention that the Princess Dowager Lyanna Stark could have handed both herself and her child over to Lord Eddard. If the king or his representatives yield the KG would have to accept that, wouldn't they?

The whole 'they protected/died for the king' thing essentially makes Lyanna to a non-entity in this whole thing as she most likely would never have wanted that the knights kill her brother. If we go with this theory Rhaegar the Rapist becomes a shred more likely as this could only work if Lyanna was either a prisoner or a mistress/secondary wife with no authority over the KG.

[MtnLion]

"Treachery was a coin the Targaryens knew well," Robert said. The anger was building in him again. "Lannister paid them back in kind. It was no less than they deserved. I shall not trouble my sleep over it."

"You were not there," Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night. "There was no honor in that conquest."

There's a slightly jarring juxtaposition here. Why does this bring up Ned's memories of living his lies for fourteen years? Simply because he's thinking about the rebellion? The context is that Robert does not lose sleep over the Lannister treachery, yet Ned does lose sleep. While there are other things going on there, I think we can safely draw the conclusion that looking back on RR, Ned thinks of the entire series of events with deep regret. It may have been driven by necessity, but he is deeply unhappy with the outcome. "There was no honor in that conquest." In Ned's mind, Jaime's actions sullied not only the Kingsguard order, but the entire rebellion, and by extension Ned's own sense of honour. Ned believed that Jaime should have been sent to the wall, an opinion shared by Barristan and Stannis. Robert disagreed, and Robert gets his own way, and Ned, fourteen years on, resents that. "He was no Jon Arryn, to curb the wildness of his king and teach him wisdom. Robert would do what he pleased, as he always had, and nothing Ned could say or do would change that." (ibid).

Sorry, I couldn't go beyond this point. Clearly, you are misrecognizing what is being said in the quote you gave. You try to tie it all to Jaime, which is not the case. Ned's fourteen years of lies are to protect a Targaryen child. The Lannister treachery was in reference to Tywin's claim of support for Aerys then sacking King's Landing when allowed to enter, and Amory Lorch and Gregor Clegane killing the Targaryen children and Elia. Perhaps you want to rework your essay, starting with this particular point?

ETA: Fifteen years ago Robert's Rebellion started, fourteen years ago it ended, and Ned returned home with Jon. Food for thought. ;)

You don't see that Ned is reflecting not just on Jaime, but Tywin and his treachery, his assassination of Aegon, and his murder of Elia and Rhaenys. You don't see how the children being murdered prompts Ned to reflect on the lies that he has had to tell in order to protect Jon from that sort of treachery. Ned's reflections in this paragraph are not on the Kingsguard but on Lannisters and how they undermined the great things that Robert and Ned set out to accomplish with their rebellion.

I am saying that you choose to say one particular thing, and put blinders on to ignore the side stories that are involved. It seems to me that you do it intentionally, so most often I just ignore you. The quote does not support your conclusions. Make other conclusions, change the quote, or just relent.

[BearQueen87]

BQ87,

who has said that Ned came to claim the boy? We don't even know if he knew that Lyanna had been pregnant. And traitors can be pardoned. It is not for the Kingsguard to decide who is an enemy and who isn't unless they have reason to believe that they are an obvious threat. And I'd be surprised if Ned had openly stated or threatened that he intended to kill Lyanna and her child.

Well I personally believe that Ned knew or had at least a strong suspicion of what he was going to find in that tower. He got it from whoever told him to get to the TOJ in the first place.

Oh, and actually the KG does hand over the king. Rickard Thorne and Willis Fell abandoned Aegon II and handed him over to the care of Ser Marston Waters. Not to mention that the Princess Dowager Lyanna Stark could have handed both herself and her child over to Lord Eddard. If the king or his representatives yield the KG would have to accept that, wouldn't they?

1. The Key word there is abandoned. These KG were clearly not going to abandon Jon to anyone since he is, at the very least, the last living son of Rhaegar Targaryen and there is an all points bulletin out for Targs at the moment--be they Viserys or, were Robert to learn the truth, for Jon. Whether because of Kingship or because of loyalty and oaths to R, they weren't going to fork over the baby to someone they didn't know they could trust 100%. In other words, no one but themselves.

2. And what was Lyanna's state of mind at this time? Ned remembers her as barely coherent and gasping in pain. Do you think she heard the skirmish got up and proceeded to try and order the KG to stop? How does Lyanna know that Ned will listen to her? He does, in the end, of course, but that's a huge "I'm dying and have no choice" gamble on the part of L.

[Avalatis]

*stares warily at the pencil in her hand...* eek.

Quick calculation reveals this is my 57th RLJ thread.

I do think it's Protect...Obey in that order. I also think Whent and Dayne are more complicated than that. Hightower is simpler but is also the red giant flag of weird.

I don't think we know enough about Dayne or Whent. Hightower we got some snips from Jaime that can allow us to see how he might act. I imagine that Dayne wasn't a two dimensional character, but until we get some persepctive beyond what we have it is hard to conclude how he would act.

[Lord Varys]

We have no idea if Jon was even born when Ned arrived there. AGoT mentions the bed of blood but we don't know anything about the chronology as the dream actually ended before it came to the duel and the subsequent events. Is the dream order even the correct order? When did they fight and die? Did Lyanna quickly after the birth - like Dalla did - or suffered she for days or weeks. There are speculations about all of this but we don't know anything for sure. I'm not set on a definitive time line there. In fact, I entertain multiple version and try to figure out which would be the most interesting.

If Lyanna wasn't on board with Rhaegar's plans at all she would have commanded the knights to stand down as soon as news about Rhaegar/Aerys' deaths arrived at the tower - if such news arrived there. And even if not, she would have been rather adamant that she and her child were Starks and should go to Winterfell rather than continue this stupid Targaryen business.

Not to mention that there is also a good chance that Lyanna Stark would come up with a plan B for the case of her own death. Like, should I not make it go to X and he/she will know what to do. I imagine she also would have made it clear how to react/deal with Ned and/or Robert should he/they ever arrive, most likely suggesting a cautious cause should Robert be there but a friendly approach if only Ned came.

If Ned knew about the pregnancy before he arrived at the tower we should assume that both the pregnancy and the marriage - if such a thing occurred - were known at court. You don't keep many secrets from Varys, after all. But it seems as nobody thinks that Lyanna was Rhaegar's wife or that they had a child which means that I find it very unlikely that this is the case. If a survivor of the Sack had known the truth not only Ned but Robert - who was there, too, before Ned left - would have approached that person. Both Ned and Robert wanted to find Lyanna, and if Ned talked to somebody who might have known where she was Robert would have asked her, too. It is more likely that Rhaegar told nobody anything upon his return and Ned only got the same 'general directions'/rumors/whatever led Hightower in the right direction.

Another option would be that Ned talked to one of Rhaegar's companions - one of the twelve who accompanied him to the Riverlands and who had returned with him to KL - at the Trident after the battle. Considering the fact that Robert was injured at that time and this companion could also have died of his wounds shortly thereafter there is a chance that Ned could keep his knowledge secret.

I agree that the KG could take it upon themselves to claim guardianship for the child after the death of the mother but not before. And even then it would have been only a temporal thing as the Queen Dowager Rhaella was still alive and should be delivered the child to decide what to do with it. But considering that Lyanna was still alive when Ned arrived at the tower it is very unlikely that they actually had the right to attack or kill him. At least not before they were absolutely certain that he would kill the child as soon as he saw it. Not to mention that they could also have offered to continue to guard 'the king'. That way they could have protected him even in Ned's presence, could they not?

[Avalatis]

There is no protect vs. obey in my opinion. To protect the king you have also obey him as he should be one of the main authorities on himself and his enemies

Agreed. In regards to King Viserys they make no attempt to reach him and determine what his orders are. Much less do they attempt to ensure he is protected and safe.

I do not claim to know how the three knights interpreted the vows they swore, KG vow included. And since our only source is a dream I will not speculate on that until we have better information.

That is not true. We are given several examples of the Kingsguard vows. We are also given several examples of Hightower following the vows. Hightower a Knight placed his duty to his Kingsguard vows over his Knightly vows. He placed his Kingsguard vows above immoral actions by his King. This is outside a dream. Even if you dismiss the entire dream itself, you are still left with questions of why Hightower was there and not with his new King Viserys. The only way to answer that is he didn't know anything and Ned gave him no option to leave (as the dream indicates). That doesn't match up with Ned's character at all.

But we can all agree that the knights stayed at the tower because they were commanded to guard it and/or the people therein.

That is the best guess for why they were there to begin with. Hightower could have been there on orders from the King (and not Rhaegar).

I still miss a convincing explanation as to why the knights would then have to/decide to 'protect' the newborn king and his mother against his own uncle/her brother. Surely slaying Eddard Stark would have been considered a very grievous crime from the point of view of both Lyanna and the young king himself. If Lyanna's son was the chosen king of the knights, then Lyanna would have been the one speaking for him rather than Hightower, Whent, and Dayne himself as we know that the Kingsguard also protects and obeys the wives and mothers of princes/kings (Cersei Lannister, for instance).

He was sworn to Robert. That means he would not pursue Jon's birthright as the rightful ruler of the 7 Kingdoms (as Ned ended up doing). Technically if the vow of the Kingsguard were to ensure the King's life this would work. But we can assume it is more than just protecting his life, but also his throne.

Lyanna might not have been in any shape to speak. It's also possible she was not aware that Ned had shown up. The battle could have happened before. There is no reason for the Kingsguard/Lyanna to think Ned would just show up.

And why not try to convince Lord Stark to join the cause of their new king? He was a great lord and his uncle, surely he would be tempted to help seat him on the Iron Throne...

His loyalties were known. And as we suspect there was more dialogue between them than what was in the dream it is possible they did try to sway him to their cause.

Secret marriages are meaningless as long as they are secret. That is my point.

Not really. There were witnesses. The Marriage was to ensure that Jon was a prince, not a bastard. With evidence and witnesses they could have made the affair public at a latter time (after Rhaegar had managed to convince Aerys or perhaps after he had secured the throne himself). Why did Rhaegar keep his marriage secret in the first place? He was hiding. We don't know why he was hiding. But you're not going to have a public wedding and announcements if you're busy hiding from the King and the Rebels.

So to answer your question. Rheagar either from prophecy and wanting a true prince decided marriage was appropriate or from his love of Lyanna and not wanting to dishonor her in creating the 3rd head of the dragon.

The KG are sworn to do whatever the king asks them. He can command them to lie. But this is not really the point. The point is that it was a secret marriage and thus easily to dismiss by Rhaegar's enemies or those who did not want Rhaegar to be a polygamist. All they needed to do suppress or challenge the claims that this supposed marriage took place.

They can claim all they want. In the mean time they are being dueled by Dayne and being killed for questioning his honor, his new King Rhaegar's honor (assuming it went down that way), and for questioning the honor of the Kingsguard. Most people knew the Sword of the Morning Arthur Dayne. Questioning his word would be quite bold.

There would be no need to question the marriage as it is a simple process in which to perform. If they say they did it, have witnesses there is no reason to question it. You can claim it was immoral and evil, but questioning the action would be futile.

You can unmake a consummated marriage of your own child if you are powerful enough.

That might be true. But Tywin probably threatened the priest into claiming it never happened. He also threatened the poor girl (and perhaps her whole family) to claim she was just a whore. So one of the supposed spouses is stating it was never real and no one else can collaborate the marriage. I don't think this is evidence of nulling the marriage.

During the reign of Viserys I the Targaryens were at the peak at their and Maegor's days weren't that far in the past. If polygamy was still an option, someone - Daemon - would have tried it, or somebody would have suggested it as a way to either unite Rhaenyra and Alicent's factions or strengthen the position of Rhaenyra or Aegon.

The Kings make the law. Since they were the only ones who practiced polygamy it is unlikely they would outlaw themselves from it (highly so). What is more likely is that the Targaryens decided that the practice of polygamy was more trouble than it was worth or they became more religious and felt it was wrong. It was a practice that they no longer cared to use (until Rhaegar felt the world would end unless he did so).

[Avalatis]

We have no idea if Jon was even born when Ned arrived there. AGoT mentions the bed of blood but we don't know anything about the chronology as the dream actually ended before it came to the duel and the subsequent events. Is the dream order even the correct order? When did they fight and die? Did Lyanna quickly after the birth - like Dalla did - or suffered she for days or weeks. There are speculations about all of this but we don't know anything for sure. I'm not set on a definitive time line there. In fact, I entertain multiple version and try to figure out which would be the most interesting.

If Lyanna wasn't on board with Rhaegar's plans at all she would have commanded the knights to stand down as soon as news about Rhaegar/Aerys' deaths arrived at the tower - if such news arrived there. And even if not, she would have been rather adamant that she and her child were Starks and should go to Winterfell rather than continue this stupid Targaryen business.

Not to mention that there is also a good chance that Lyanna Stark would come up with a plan B for the case of her own death. Like, should I not make it go to X and he/she will know what to do. I imagine she also would have made it clear how to react/deal with Ned and/or Robert should he/they ever arrive, most likely suggesting a cautious cause should Robert be there but a friendly approach if only Ned came.

If Ned knew about the pregnancy before he arrived at the tower we should assume that both the pregnancy and the marriage - if such a thing occurred - were known at court. You don't keep many secrets from Varys, after all. But it seems as nobody thinks that Lyanna was Rhaegar's wife or that they had a child which means that I find it very unlikely that this is the case. If a survivor of the Sack had known the truth not only Ned but Robert - who was there, too, before Ned left - would have approached that person. Both Ned and Robert wanted to find Lyanna, and if Ned talked to somebody who might have known where she was Robert would have asked her, too. It is more likely that Rhaegar told nobody anything upon his return and Ned only got the same 'general directions'/rumors/whatever led Hightower in the right direction.

Another option would be that Ned talked to one of Rhaegar's companions - one of the twelve who accompanied him to the Riverlands and who had returned with him to KL - at the Trident after the battle. Considering the fact that Robert was injured at that time and this companion could also have died of his wounds shortly thereafter there is a chance that Ned could keep his knowledge secret.

I agree that the KG could take it upon themselves to claim guardianship for the child after the death of the mother but not before. And even then it would have been only a temporal thing as the Queen Dowager Rhaella was still alive and should be delivered the child to decide what to do with it. But considering that Lyanna was still alive when Ned arrived at the tower it is very unlikely that they actually had the right to attack or kill him. At least not before they were absolutely certain that he would kill the child as soon as he saw it. Not to mention that they could also have offered to continue to guard 'the king'. That way they could have protected him even in Ned's presence, could they not?

There are a lot of assumptions on Lyanna and her views in this post. We have no clue if she was involved in the prophecies or if she cared about her son being on the throne. You also make a bunch of assumptions on her state at the time of the fight. You also forget that Lyanna while strong willed isn't going to be bullying Hightower, Dayne, and Whent around. She was a 17 year old girl (perhaps younger)? She was clearly sick (as she died shortly after). Her possible love Rhaegar had died on the Trident by her former betrothed.

This girl is going to give standing orders to Kingsguard? She is going to anticipate everything that happened and will happen? She wouldn't be depending on their advise, counsel, and judgement?

[Ygrain]

There are a lot of assumptions on Lyanna and her views in this post. We have no clue if she was involved in the prophecies or if she cared about her son being on the throne. You also make a bunch of assumptions on her state at the time of the fight. You also forget that Lyanna while strong willed isn't going to be bullying Hightower, Dayne, and Whent around. She was a 17 year old girl (perhaps younger)? She was clearly sick (as she died shortly after). Her possible love Rhaegar had died on the Trident by her former betrothed.

This girl is going to give standing orders to Kingsguard? She is going to anticipate everything that happened and will happen? She wouldn't be depending on their advise, counsel, and judgement?

Touché.

Also: a feverish girl of sixteen, heavily traumatized by the death of her beloved, the difficult birth and the danger to her child, tells them that they totally gamble with their king's life by trusting the Rebels' second in command. Really? This is not a PC game where they can load an older save in case something goes wrong. Would they bet Jon's life on Lyanna being right, or would they take no chances? Wouldn't they disobey her order to protect the king's life?

[Lord Varys]

I've mentioned that Lyanna could have made plans for the day she had to face Ned/Robert before she was feverish and dying - if this even happened at that time. We don't know how long Ned stayed at the tower.

Not to mention that the idea that a person that is repeatedly compared to Arya in the series, slapping around three unfamiliar squires, making short work of young Benjen would back down or allow a KG who is sworn and accustomed to obey to kill her brother is, frankly, ridiculous. Lyanna Stark was a very strong person, the daughter of a great lord, a great rider, possibly a great warrior as well. She had commanded servants and guardsmen all her life. Do you really think Lyanna would not have owned those three men and made it crystal clear to them that her child was her child, and not theirs, and that she would make the decisions.

Robert and Ned may have been rebels but they were also Lyanna's betrothed/brother. Whatever they may have done I very much doubt that she would have allowed the knights to harm them. I think Lyanna would have believed that she could singlehandedly unite and end the whole rebellion rather than ending up a poor, helpless woman fearing for the life of her poor child. That's not a version of Lyanna I can even imagine.

Now, we could go with Rhaegar imprisoning Lyanna against her will at the tower, or with Rhaegar giving explicit orders what to do should he not come back. But I really don't think the knights could dare kill Lyanna's brother while she was still alive if they actually considered her child the true king. In that scenario she would have been his guardian. If she was not, there would have been no reason to stay at the tower and protect her as well as the child as she would have been expendable in this situation. And nothing suggests that the child was sick or unable to travel so Ned should have found Lyanna at an empty tower if the child had been born days or weeks before his arrival.

[The Twinslayer]

No, it is not. If someone asked Ser Fell why there is no one with king -- and he said he swore a vow, it would be understood as a vow to the King to protect his heirs. I also suspect that his answer would not be that they swore a vow -- I suspect he would say that the king was safer in hiding without a KG there to make his presence more likely to be spotted. So it was a special circumstance in which the king arguably was safer without KG.

But the KG as ToJ are in a totally different situation. No argument can be made that Viserys is safer without KG protection. No argument can be made that their vow to Viserys was being fulfilled by protecting his heirs, which he would want done under the circumstances. The KG at ToJ simply cannot have swore a vow to Viserys to protect Jon and Lyanna -- and it is clear that is not what they are saying.

I had a pretty good idea that when I asked this question that this situation would be raised as a counter-example and had already considered it. It is not a counter-example. The statement by Hightower that they cannot go to Viserys because they swore a vow cannot be understood as the same situation as Ser Fell.

Your example simply takes a situation out of context to try to make a parallel that does not exist. The context is completely different and context is critical. Anyone who knew all the facts surrounding Ser Fell's situation would understand how he could think he was keeping his vows to the king by taking the actions he took. No one who knew all the facts surrounding the KG at ToJ (assuming for this purpose that one of the relevant facts is that the KG consider Viserys to be the rightful king) would agree that they are keeping their vows to the king by staying at ToJ and not taking Ned up on his offer to leave and go to Viserys on DS. So Hightowers reference to having to stay at ToJ because they swore a vow makes no sense if Hightower believes Viserys to be the rightful king.

The parrallel is exact. Fell swore a vow to protect a simple girl who had no prospects of succeeding to the throne; and in order to fulfill that vow he had to leave the king with no Kingsguard. There is no hint or suggestion anywhere that this was done because the king was hiding and the KG presence would risk giving the game away. In fact, King Aegon was soon hiding out with his very recognizable dragon.

So if Fell was asked the question: King Aegon has fled to Dragonstone with a bastard knight and his dragon, Sunfyre. I thought you might have sailed with the king" he would respond "No, because I was ordered to protect the young princess and to take her safely to Storm's End, and I swore a vow to do that."

Also, if King Aegon had escaped King's Landing with Fell and Thorne but without the children, do you think that Lord Larys would have ordered Fell and Thorne to leave King Aegon with the bastard knight and go do something else just because they might be recognized, thereby risking someone discovering the king? I don't. If there weren't other people to protect, Fell and Thorne would have stayed with the king.

[Avalatis]

I've mentioned that Lyanna could have made plans for the day she had to face Ned/Robert before she was feverish and dying - if this even happened at that time. We don't know how long Ned stayed at the tower.

Ned hung out at the tower? Then he decided it was time to kill some Kingsguard huh? Why would she expect Rhaegar to lose at the Trident? Why would she expect Ned to be the one to find them (much less anyone).

Not to mention that the idea that a person that is repeatedly compared to Arya in the series, slapping around three unfamiliar squires, making short work of young Benjen would back down or allow a KG who is sworn and accustomed to obey to kill her brother is, frankly, ridiculous

Yeah sparring with your own brother or chewing out some squires that had pissed her off is the same as bullying well renowned figures such as the Kingsguard? Even if the many other psychological factors weren't in play there is no way this happening. Needless to say we know too little about her, and you're making a lot of assumptions of what she is capable of doing in the situation she was in.

Lyanna Stark was a very strong person, the daughter of a great lord, a great rider, possibly a great warrior as well. She had commanded servants and guardsmen all her life. Do you really think Lyanna would not have owned those three men and made it crystal clear to them that her child was her child, and not theirs, and that she would make the decisions.

We assume she was a strong person, such as the Knight of the laughing tree. The North is only slightly less looked down upon than Dorne. Being able to beat Benjen in a sparring match as children is not the same as being a great warrior. If she was the KotlT then she was a good jouster.

I think in her condition she was in no state to own any person, much less the White Bull. These men aren't squires near her age, they are battle hardened warriors who have killed. They all come from noble families (some rather wealthy such as Hightower and Whent) and have spent years at court dealing with bossy noble girls. Some have witnessed Aerys burning people alive.

Robert and Ned may have been rebels but they were also Lyanna's betrothed/brother. Whatever they may have done I very much doubt that she would have allowed the knights to harm them

Lyanna didn't care for Robert from what little we can deduce about her character. And again are only evidence of the meeting is from the dream. Lyanna was not present when Ned met the Kingsguard. It is further shown she is in a bed of blood near death begging Ned (which suggests she was either too sick to have been up and about, or maybe she was in the process of having Jon).

I think Lyanna would have believed that she could singlehandedly unite and end the whole rebellion

Are you trolling me now? Is Lyanna the prince who was promised, does she also have a secret dragon back up in Winterfel that she hid away? Did Lyanna never die?

I think I'll stop responding here.

[Avalatis]

Touché.

Also: a feverish girl of sixteen, heavily traumatized by the death of her beloved, the difficult birth and the danger to her child, tells them that they totally gamble with their king's life by trusting the Rebels' second in command. Really? This is not a PC game where they can load an older save in case something goes wrong. Would they bet Jon's life on Lyanna being right, or would they take no chances? Wouldn't they disobey her order to protect the king's life?

Yeah a lot was going on with her at that time. Her situation wasn't one where she was likely to take charge even if she had the character for such a task. The Kingsguard also wouldn't by default listen to her as all powers derive from the King. If the King had no told them to obey her, it is unlikely that they would follow her orders.

[Lord Varys]

TT,

yeah, this sort of hammering around on the KG concept as long as it fits what you want it do - to support a certain interpretation of a certain series of events depicted in a dream to back a certain interpretation of the parentage of a character - is what makes me mislike the theory so much. The KG and other characters/institutions aren't in the series to serve as a quarry to defend or support a certain theory. They are concepts of their own.

Avalatis,

I really think you completely misunderstand - or willfully ignore - what status and rank mean in this society. If Lyanna was married to Prince Rhaegar she was the Princess Consort of Dragonstone, a member of the royal family, and (one of?) the future queen(s) of Westeros. She was one of the people who commanded the Kingsguard, not a girl to be intimidated by them. Do you think the KG could treat female members of the royal family who were serving them the way you think they would have treated Lyanna? Do you think Targaryen princesses and queens usually stood meekly by and let the KG decide what they were to do? Do you think Elia or Cersei let themselves be bossed around by KG? I don't think so.

And this especially unlikely in Lyanna's case. Again, she was the daughter of a great lord which means that she was accustomed to command servants. And the three knights served the royal family to which she belonged if she was Rhaegar's wife. The idea that she would be intimidated by three guardsmen in white cloaks is ridiculous. Not to mention that it would be completely out-of-character for those three knights to even try to boss her around. She was Rhaegar's wife, and two of the knights were Rhaegar's friends.

Not to mention that Rhaegar would have left somebody in charge/assigned the knights to somebody when he left. Who would that be? If the child was not yet born - and this seems to be the case - this person would have been Lyanna. Which means that Rhaegar had assigned the three knights to her, personally, and they accepted this assignment (else they wouldn't have stayed there). Another option would be that she was Rhaegar's captive, but that's a different discussion. And not very likely anyway as this would have enabled them to abandon her when it became evident that she was dying - if this was already the case when Ned arrived.

Ned staying at the tower:

I meant he could have stayed after the death of the knights. There is no reason to assume that left soon thereafter. If the fight triggered the childbirth and if Lyanna died a slow death rather than a quick one Ned could have been at her bedside for days not minutes or hours.

Lyanna the promised princess:

Well, I was referring that she knew both Ned and Robert well and her personality suggests overconfidence and strength. I have no reason not to consider the possibility that she could be leave to slap some sense in both Robert and Ned. Even Catelyn tries to do this with Renly and Stannis.

But I guess if I try to imagine a meek and timid Lyanna she'll appear eventually...

[Avalatis]

They are concepts of their own.

Which is what we've been doing. Applying these character and institutions in a logical fashion to see how they would act. That would have to act in a way contrary to how Martin has described them for what you have expressed to be accurate. This is possible, just not likely.

I really think you completely misunderstand - or willfully ignore - what status and rank mean in this society. If Lyanna was married to Prince Rhaegar she was the Princess Consort of Dragonstone, a member of the royal family, and (one of?) the future queen(s) of Westeros. She was one of the people who commanded the Kingsguard, not a girl to be intimidated by them.

The Kingsguard are sworn to the King. They serve to royal family because the King tells them to do so. They wouldn't by default obey her as if she had absolute authority, especially when they are dealing with the King, especially since she is likely not in a stable state of mind.

She could have been Brienne on steroids and be as ballsy as all hell. It still wouldn't matter. The reality is she is sick, a 16 year old girl, lost her lover, had lost her brother and father earlier that year (though that wouldn't be as big of deal because of the time lapse), and she is dealing with people that even her brother Ned idolized.

Do you think Targaryen princesses and queens usually stood meekly by and let the KG decide what they were to do? Do you think Elia or Cersei let themselves be bossed around by KG? I don't think so.

Lyanna was not a Targaryen princess. She was not raised as royalty. She is even implied to have little court manners. You don't know how Elia acted. You also don't know how Lyanna acted. Needless to say you are projecting what you wish Lyanna to be into your theory here. It is a complete fairy tale to think she is out giving order and taking control of the Kingsguard after everything she went through and considering her limited experience. This is Medievalish society, not the Hunger Games. Cersei's biggest issue in the series is that she is a woman and no one takes her seriously (and she was Queen). Perhaps you haven't been reading the same books.

And this especially unlikely in Lyanna's case. Again, she was the daughter of a great lord which means that she was accustomed to command servants.

Winterfel is a backwater, lowly populated with few knights to speak of (as Knighthood is a custom of the 7). Sansa and Arya already give us the perspective on this. They might be used to servants doing stuff for them, but they aren't that used to giving orders to them. Their caretaker is a servant who actually disciplines them. And we're just talking about servants here... Soldiers and Knights? Kingsguard? The Sword of the Morning Arthur Dayne and The White Bull Himself.

You have unrealistic expectations for Lyanna. She might have been a free spirit and a good fighter. Beyond that we don't know what she is capable of. We do know she was in a pretty shitty psychological/physical state when the TOJ sequence happened.

But I guess if I try to imagine a meek and timid Lyanna she'll appear eventually...

You can attempt to imagine all you want. Your expectations are pretty high.

[Lord Varys]

But you do know that Cersei is not born royalty, either, right. Neither is Robert, by the way. Yet she commands all KG as the mother of the king. Don't you think Lyanna could do the same?

If Jon was the knights' king then he was an infant king - which means his single surviving parent would be calling the shots. At least insofar as the KG is concerned. Historical precendents include Queen Dowager Cersei Lannister being protected and in charge of KG before she became Queen Regent and after she was stripped of that office. Queen Dowager Alicent Hightower also commanded Ser Criston Cole after Viserys' death - prior to the ascension of Aegon II.

The idea that I or you should suddenly make an exception for Lyanna Stark for 'some reason' makes no sense. Not to mention that you fail to even acknowledge that I'm not necessarily talking about 'dying Lyanna' but about Lyanna from the day Rhaegar left the tower. At which time she would have been pregnant and still healthy - or else Rhaegar wouldn't have left her, I assume.

This does not mean she is Princess Regent or anything like that just that she is the mother of her royal child, and the KG would be prone to protect and obey her as well as her child.

If they weren't assigned to obey/serve/protect her then what were they doing doing there. Protecting a royal infant of unknown gender in a non-royal womb?

And you should really reread the series again, I think. Cersei Lannister commands the Kingsguard on multiple occasions, she treats them as servants, strips them of their white cloaks, and fucks both with their minds and bodies. And Cersei Lannister isn't born royalty, either.

Lyanna was a woman grown at that time not a timid girl like Sansa or a 9-11-year-old Arya. The idea that she would not have strongly objected to the idea of killing her brother is, frankly, ridiculous.

Come to think of it:

The series in itself shows us that the Kingsguard vow to protect/serve/obey the king means little if anything at all. Ser Boros Blount, Ser Meryn Trant, and Ser Jaime Lannister are loyal to Cersei, not Robert. As is Osmund Kettleblack later on, apparently, although he also serving Littlefinger. Ser Mandon Moore's loyalty remains a mystery for the time being.

What reason have we to believe that the men of Aerys' Kingsguard were essentially different? Selmy already confirmed that there were factions and secrets within the Kingsguard - which means they were as involved in plotting and scheming as everyone else at court. And it is pretty obvious that Prince Lewyn Martell would have sided with Elia Martell in any conflict or strife rather than supporting the king he was sworn to. Oswell and Arthur being Rhaegar's friends also suggests that he was more important to them than 'the king'. Especially since both may have helped Rhaegar to actively plot against the king.

In such a scenario no one can boldly claim that the few tidbits we know about Ser Gerold's personality lead to the conclusion that he would always defend and stick to the king. Even he may have had a secret agenda, a breaking point, or a change of hearts. The fact that he is at tower and not with Aerys is a pretty big hint whom he chose in the end - Rhaegar. If Ser Gerold had Aerys' best interest at heart he would have returned to KL whatever Rhaegar had commanded or whatever he had promised him to convince him to go.

[Kingmonkey]

You don't see that Ned is reflecting not just on Jaime, but Tywin and his treachery, his assassination of Aegon, and his murder of Elia and Rhaenys.

I don't? Funny, because I said "That's (the killing of Aegon, Elia and Rhaenys) one aspect of the treachery, as was Jaime's killing of Aerys, and the Lannisters sacking the city after having the gates opened for them. The whole thing puts a bad taste in Ned's mouth."

You don't see how the children being murdered prompts Ned to reflect on the lies that he has had to tell in order to protect Jon from that sort of treachery.

I don't? Funny, because there was that whole point I made about lies plural, how that was ONE of the lies?

Ned's reflections in this paragraph are not on the Kingsguard but on Lannisters and how they undermined the great things that Robert and Ned set out to accomplish with their rebellion.

You don't say? Wow, that's a good theory. Kind of like where I said it myself in that terribly erroneous mini essay. "While there are other things going on there, I think we can safely draw the conclusion that looking back on RR, Ned thinks of the entire series of events with deep regret. It may have been driven by necessity, but he is deeply unhappy with the outcome. 'There was no honor in that conquest.' In Ned's mind, Jaime's actions sullied not only the Kingsguard order, but the entire rebellion, and by extension Ned's own sense of honour."

Who knows, if you didn't just dismiss what I actually wrote and make up straw men to shoot at, we might agree more often.

I am saying that you choose to say one particular thing, and put blinders on to ignore the side stories that are involved. It seems to me that you do it intentionally, so most often I just ignore you.

Take a good look in that mirror. You're insisting this is all about Ned protecting Jon while I'm looking at a far broader and more nuanced thing which that is just one part of. Yet somehow when you insist it's wrong because it's all about Ned protecting Jon, I'm choosing to say one particular thing and ignoring side-stories? Priceless.

The quote does not support your conclusions. Make other conclusions, change the quote, or just relent.

Seriously? Relent? Thou shalt not disagree with the holy canon of MtnLion? The quote doesn't support my conclusion, because what?

"Treachery was a coin the Targaryens knew well," Robert said. The anger was building in him again. "Lannister paid them back in kind. It was no less than they deserved. I shall not trouble my sleep over it."

"You were not there," Ned said, bitterness in his voice. Troubled sleep was no stranger to him. He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night. "There was no honor in that conquest."

Yeah, that looks to me like it supports my conclusion that the lack of honour in the conquest was a part of what bothers Ned. Due to the way that, you know, it says it right there in the text. If you think I should change the conclusion, it's not enough to just say "You're wrong, change it" because what MtnLion says comes way below the actual text as an authority.

If you think I'm wrong, then by all means, show where I've gone wrong. Refer to the text, justify the counter-claim. I'd welcome a proper debate. I'm totally open to being proven wrong, if you can. Or don't bother, that's fine too. In which case, don't bother saying "You're wrong", either. Debate in good faith, or don't debate at all.

[Avalatis]

@LV

I congratulate you on your ability to jump topics so many times when you're unable to address questions you can't answer. You have a bright (or dark) career as a politician I'm sure.

I'm not going to get down into the mud over a discussion about the Heroine Lyanna Stark the Princess who was promised. The color of her secret dragon is not something I'm going to bother discussing either. Her future in getting women the right to vote in Westeros is not something I'm really interested in.

I have leveled numerous question towards you and instead of addressing them over the many pages of this thread, you instead change your angle of attack over and over again. I have addressed your new attacks repeatedly only to have you again switch to a new angle of attack (still not addressing the points I brought up). The fact that the debate has ended up where it is now is mind blowing.

I won't bother responding to you until you take the prerequisite time to address my questions to you.

[Ser Creighton]

*stares warily at the pencil in her hand...* eek.

Quick calculation reveals this is my 57th RLJ thread.

I do think it's Protect...Obey in that order. I also think Whent and Dayne are more complicated than that. Hightower is simpler but is also the red giant flag of weird.

Just started watching that show on Amazon and I am just over half way through season 2. It's really good, so far.

See I have a very different take on Protect, Obey, Vows, and actions in the series as a whole, doesn't matter how you are, I just apply some of the same basic themes Martin uses to everyone. It goes like this, Human heart, Perception, Choice, Consequence. Consequence can go a few ways it's really just the resolution to the action good or bad. Basically if I take all the characters as being human and being subject to some of the basica yet major themes of the story, than I except that they are, no matter how good, evil or grey, flawed. They are subject to mistakes, choices, actions, and everything else. So I don't like to keep anything to concrete with the characters because that is not true to human nature or to any character displayed in the books. Now the KG could be very rigid to their vows, but in the series they do not have to be.

See I am not all that intrested in the KG speech only one small part of it, I don't really care about the vows or why they were there. I can get more from the symbolism and theme' than I can from the speech. Don't get me wrong I really like the speech as it is written, and the moment and all that. I just don't need to get in a debate over the unkown variables or semantics of the speech. There is simply one part that intrests me and that is it. It is very important but the KG speech will not actually tell people what they want to know. The can guess, but with these amount of variables that is all it is, an educated guess. There are things in the KG speech that far more apply to the fundimental themes of the story than why they were there.

Weather Jon is a king a prince or a bastard has little effect on his story. It's like Aragorn, Aragorn gets the throne at the end of the Red book. But that is not what the story was about. There was a slightly larger problem on hand that he was helping to deal with. I am not that intrested in the Throne for any character, but rather the over all problem facing the world. I admit I sometimes have fun joking around about it, but only because some people get so caught up in the throne, so they must be teased.

It really shocks me that people think so much of that throne, it's really the name of the first book, that is really not the overall story. It's a plot device and it plays it's part and helps to drive some events and someone may sit on a throne or two in the very end. But really it is not that story, getting the throne does not equal winning. Stopping the apocalypse is winning, fixing what ever crazy magic problem there is, that's winning, not dying in this series is a win... in most cases. Basically surviving equals winning here, the throne equals metal chair. Call it a trophy if you want, although I tend to think it will be gone.

I know this about Jon, he is not a King right now, and he is not a Targaryen right now. He is Jon Snow right now, just like Strider was Strider for most of the Red Book. This is Jon's identity and he is not hiding anything. It may change at some point, but this is who he is and who he has been for the entire series. The perception of what three dead KG had of Jon's identity as a new Born will have little to no impact on the this story. However they identified Jon, matters little because they will never tell him anything. The identity of his mother and father and his situation will come from another person. But as of right now going into book 6 his identity is that of a Stark bastard, and his plate is rather full of other more important things, the first 17 years of his life are that of a bastard. Nobody is getting 17 years of king Jon. We might have a year or two in world left in the series.

[Dorian Martell]

Hodor

[Lord Varys]

Avalatis,

I don't have address every single point you make as I usually don't quote other post. I try to summarize and address everything important in broad strokes. If you want, I give you a quick summary of what I think you said in your last post:

- The Kingsguard is sworn to the king: You asserted/concluded that this means they could not possibly consider Lyanna an ultimate authority

I gave you counter expamples illustrating as to why the knights might have been sworn to Lyanna/felt obliged to obey her after they had been assigned to her. I named Criston Cole (ultimate authority originally Rhaenyra, later Alicent), Prince Lewyn Martell (presumably Elia Martell, as she was his niece, and the Martells are a very family-oriented house), Arthur Dayne and Oswell Whent (Rhaegar Targaryen), and Jaime Lannister, Meryn Trant, Boros Blount, and Osmund Kettleblack (Cersei Lannister - and Littlefinger, in Kettleblack's case)

- then you made irrelevant points about how 'Lyanna could have been Brienne on steroids' and it wouldn't matter, trying to use her sickness/dying as an excuse why she could not command or take charge - you were not addressing the fact that I said we should expect her to make preparations/plans why she wasn't already sick/dying - or do this after the complications began (if she died a slow death over days she wouldn't have been incoherent in the beginning)

- then you mentioned an irrelevant point again - the loss of her brother and father earlier that year which, you suggest, would have shattered her but also too far in the past to make any difference (which is why it was unnecessary to bring it up at all, if that's what you believe) - and then you make the wrong claim that Ned idolized the three knights when in fact he only says Ser Arthur Dayne was a great guy, and the KG once a shining example to the world (this means the KG as an institution not the three knights at the tower or Aerys' other KG, Jaime excluded). It is also irrelevant to the topic discussed who Ned idolized or not as he is a completely different person, and Lyanna by no means subject to his preferences in 'badasssery'.

- then comes your rant about how Lyanna could not possibly take charge (implicitly drawing from the point about her being shattered by the loss of Brandon/Rickard you yourself considered to be irrelevant at first), that I don't know what Elia did (well, I do know she was a Princess of Dorne, daughter of the Princess of Dorne, born and raised in a society in which women actually do rule regularly, and that she was married to the Prince of Dragonstone and expected to be the next Queen of Westeros); I don't think it is a stretch or wrong to assume that she would command those who were sworn to serve the royal family; you close with how 'no one took Cersei seriously' - I imagine Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark would not agree with you as Cersei clearly arranged Robert's murder and was in complete control of KL after her husband's death.

- the next point is that Winterfell being backwater supposedly is relevant. Servants are servants. And the KG aren't different from guardsmen if you are a member of the royal family. Arya bosses around Goldcloaks in AGoT when she is 9-10 years old. Lyanna is a woman grown. If she is anything like Arya at all she would not back down to anyone. A person like Septa Mordane - which Lyanna may not even have had, as Rickard wasn't married to a woman following the Seven - could not possibly have treated a 14-16-year-old Arya (or Lyanna) the way she treated her at the age of nine.

As a general point:

You can simply imagine how you would react if a war broke out between your husband/lover, and your brother and former fianceé. I imagine you don't have to have Lyanna's character to try to make a peace between the two, don't you think? Else you would be a erratic and incoherent character. There are many historicial precendents in which royal spouses related to various warring noble houses tried to make peace between the factions. The best example I can think of right now is Octavia, the sister of Augustus and wife of Marc Antony who repeatedly helped forge a peace between her husband and her brother (until it no longer worked).

As to women taking charge in Martinworld:

Daenerys is a 14-year-old girl with no political power or martial prowess after Drogo's death and before the dragons are hatched. Yet she is able by mere presence/charisma to force Jorah to acknowledge as as queen. Just as Sansa is able to take charge and call the women during the Battle of the Blackwater after Cersei's disapearance. Lyanna would have had more strength and determination than either of these women, and we should for some reason believe that the KG - who were sworn and accustomed to obey in general - would suddenly resist this woman's intention to take charge even if she was legally allowed to. If Rhaegar loved and was married to Lyanna - and if Lyanna was in love with him - I cannot imagine a scenario is which Rhaegar left the tower the commanding 'Oh, and by the way, do not obey any orders my silly wife might try to give you. She is fair to look upon but has a an empty head. Best not take her seriously less she hurt herself.'

Such a scenario would only make sense if Lyanna had been indeed abducted, imprisoned, and taken to wife (if it happened) against her will.