Jump to content

R+L=J v.138


Jon Weirgaryen

Recommended Posts

What would happen if the king, say King Aegon V, ordered the Lord Commander of his Kingsguard, say it is Ser Duncan the Tall, to give him the gift of mercy. Suppose Egg was grievously wounded, there were no maesters anywhere near, and Egg was facing a days-long, agonizing death.

Dunk has to choose: Team Protect or Team Obey. What does he do?

Interesting question. I would suspect if the King was dying (and it is very obvious) he would give the gift of Mercy. As a new King would have been appointed at that point. But yeah, the Kingsguard would try everything they can to save him. But if they have no hope of saving him I don't see why not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's also there under the protection of a good man and true, who is the brother of a Kingsguard

Funny that you make it sound exactly the other way round than the KG, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, there is another part of this to consider, that being how Ned viewed the actions of the three at the tower. Ned only knows about the Kingsguard's vow to protect the king with their lives. He never states any other purpose for the Kingsgurad to live up to, to garner his respect as a shining example to the world. So, until you can show how Ned thought that there might be some other purpose for the three Kingsguard to stay and fight him at the tower, we must perceive it as in keeping with their vow to protect the king with their lives.

Ok, this is a great question and goes beyond Protect vs. Obey. What did Ned think about the Kingsguard in general, and the 3KG in particular? Mini-essay time!

Something his father had told him once when he was little came back to him suddenly. He had asked Lord Eddard if the Kingsguard were truly the finest knights in the Seven Kingdoms. "No longer," he answered, "but once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world."

"Was there one who was best of all?"

"The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne, who fought with a blade called Dawn, forged from the heart of a fallen star. They called him the Sword of the Morning, and he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more. Bran wished he had asked him what he meant.

Here's that famous passage in full. What we can learn from it:

In Ned's opinion, the Kingsguard used to be the finest knights in the kingdom, "a marvel, a shining lesson to the world".

In Ned's opinion, this is no longer the case.

In Ned's opinion, Ser Arthur Dayne was "the best of all" (of them) and "The finest knight I ever saw".

Why does Ned have these opinions, and what caused this change ("No longer")?

The first point to make is that it's unlikely Ned really believed that every single Kingsguard in the past was a shining lesson to the world. There are plenty of Kingsguards in the past who were clearly not good and honourable men. He's talking about the Kingsguard Order in general, and he believes something has sullied the Order to the extent that the entire Order is far less worthy in his eyes.

Yes, it's pretty obvious what that is: Jaime killing Aerys. For Ned, the fact that Jaime remained in the Kingsguard sullies the entire order.

"He is my wife's twin, a Sworn Brother of the Kingsguard, his life and fortune and honor all bound to mine."

"As they were bound to Aerys Targaryen's," Ned pointed out.

"Why should I mistrust him? He has done everything I have ever asked of him. His sword helped win the throne I sit on."

His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but he did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."

"Seven hells, someone had to kill Aerys!" Robert said, reining his mount to a sudden halt beside an ancient barrow. "If Jaime hadn't done it, it would have been left for you or me."

"We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard," Ned said.

Even though Ned wanted Aerys dead, he feels that breaking such a solemn vow in to such a fundamental degree is unforgivable. He's happy to forgive Barristan for fighting for Aerys, but not Jaime for killing Aerys. Let's look a little further into this, though.

"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).

So here's the key point: Ned's statement that the Kingsguard are a shining lesson to the world does not apply to every individual Kingsguard, it is a statement of contrast. As an order they were meant to be the most dedicated and most noble of knights, but Jaime's continued presence in the order gives the lie to that. In Ned's mind, Jaime's deed stole honour from the Kingsguard Order, the rebellion and from Ned himself.

This is about a fall from innocence; the reputation of the Kingsguard belonged to that time of innocence, that golden age of Ned's youth where he could believe in honour and the purity of the white cloak, the way Bran still does. Now, thanks to Jaime, they embody that fall from innocence, that moment where Ned rode his horse up to the throne in silence, unable to find words as he saw his righteous rebellion ended by an act of treachery.

So we get on to "The finest knight I ever saw was Ser Arthur Dayne". Why Dayne? Apart from the ToJ dream, the only other thing we get from Ned about Dayne is when Ned thinks about the Tourney at Harrenhal.

He remembered Jaime Lannister, a golden youth in scaled white armor, kneeling on the grass in front of the king's pavilion and making his vows to protect and defend King Aerys. Afterward, Ser Oswell Whent helped Jaime to his feet, and the White Bull himself, Lord Commander Ser Gerold Hightower, fastened the snowy cloak of the Kingsguard about his shoulders. All six White Swords were there to welcome their newest brother.

Yet when the jousting began, the day belonged to Rhaegar Targaryen. The crown prince wore the armor he would die in: gleaming black plate with the three-headed dragon of his House wrought in rubies on the breast. A plume of scarlet silk streamed behind him when he rode, and it seemed no lance could touch him. Brandon fell to him, and Bronze Yohn Royce, and even the splendid Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning.

It's likely that Ned's high opinion of Dayne started there; it would be the first time he met Dayne, he spent time with Dayne's sister, and his memory of Dayne at that moment is that he was "splendid". Interestingly, in the previous paragraph, we have Ned's only non-TOJ dream memory of Whent and Hightower too. Neither is remembered as "splendid". Indeed, the context we see them in here as that they are the two sole members of the six KG present who are named in the context of the raising of Jaime to the KG Order. They are, indirectly, linked here with the fall of the KG. Maybe that's just coincidental, or maybe not. I'm not suggesting that Ned in any way subconciously blames them for Jaime's actions, but the contrast is interesting. It's Dayne who is the the one who is remembered as exceptional by Ned, NOT Whent or Hightower. It's Dayne alone who is coloured, in Ned's memory, by sadness. There is "Father had gotten sad then, and he would say no more", and there's also the dream itself, where we get "Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips" and "No," Ned said with sadness in his voice. "Now it ends." In Ned's mind, he and Dayne share sadness about the events at the ToJ.

And onto the ToJ dream:

Yet these were no ordinary three. They waited before the round tower, the red mountains of Dorne at their backs, their white cloaks blowing in the wind. And these were no shadows; their faces burned clear, even now. Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, had a sad smile on his lips. The hilt of the greatsword Dawn poked up over his right shoulder. Ser Oswell Whent was on one knee, sharpening his blade with a whetstone. Across his white-enameled helm, the black bat of his House spread its wings. Between them stood fierce old Ser Gerold Hightower, the White Bull, Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.

This gives us the other insight we get into Ned's thoughts about the KG, and the 3KG in particular. He remarks on their white cloaks, and their faces burning clear. There's nothing negative in his memory of them here; all three seem to be fulfilling that image of the Kingsguard as they should be. They contrast strongly with his memory of his own force, "shadows, grey wraiths on horses made of mist". I think this is where we do get to see Ned thinking positively of the three, though we shouldn't draw too strong a conclusion about this, because it's not reasonable to think that he's seeing his own men in a negative light. Rather, he's reacting to a sense of guilt. These are three fine men, men he'd liked to have bent the knee as Barristan Selmy did, but who he was forced to kill. The contrast between their light and his shadow suggests he feels guilty about having killed them, as if he sees them as being the ones in the right and himself as being the one in the wrong, forced into an action that he did not think of as good.

When we look at this in total, it's clear that while Ned had considerable respect for the 3KG, it's groundless to assume that Ned's "shining lesson" comment applies specifically to the 3KG rather than the order in general. The context of that comment is the contrast with Ned's personal experience of Jaime's treachery. Ned picks out a particular individual, who is one of the three. It doesn't make sense that the thing that made Ned hold Dayne in higher regard than any other Kingsguard is something that two other Kingsguard shared with him.

When Ned describes the three KG, there's a characteristic he gives to each:

Dayne: had a sad smile on his lips.

Whent: on one knee.

Hightower: fierce.

Is any of that meaningful, or is it just colour? Some people have suggested the rather nice theory that Whent being on one knee implies bending the knee -- hinting at the presence of the king (jon). Perhaps we can read something into each of those three characteristics.

Dayne was sad -- he knew what was coming, and regretted it.

Whent bent the knee -- he had accepted Jon, not Viserys, as the king, (or possibly he was willing to make terms with Ned).

Hightower was fierce -- the leader of the Kingsguard was defiant to the end. For all that Dayne or Whent might have wished a different outcome, he had decided they must fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Team AnyoneWhoThingsObeyORProtectIsACertaintyIsDoingItWrong represent!

From the last thread:

Can't argue with that! :^)

The assumption wasn't wrong, it was correct -- for nine months. Dragonstone is a near-impregnable fortress, a tough nut to crack when defended by only a handful of men. Viserys was there with probably a couple of thousand men and the entire Targ navy. He's also there under the protection of a good man and true, who is the brother of a Kingsguard -- a noticeable echo of that meeting you mentioned. Stannis had to build a navy virtually from scratch before there was any threat to Viserys.

Would Hightower have known that? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know what the 3KG knew. If he did, then it's entirely possible that he DID assume that Viserys was safe. In that context, the choice is to abandon whatever duty he is performing at the ToJ to be at the side of a king who was as safe as he could possibly be already, or to stick to the duty he was in the middle of. He's a man of honour and a man used to obedience, yes. He's also a man of action -- would he necessarily have put a purely ceremonial function ahead of something he considered important, and had sworn to a member of the royal family to do? I really don't think he necessarily would.

He knew there was one honorable knight with Viserys, who was not of Kingsguard (as he states). Knowing if the rest of the commanders and soldiers were loyal is questionable. It would be a fairly big assumption for him to assume the King was safe when he has not made any effort to ascertain if it is true (such as sending one Kingsguard).

What was so important that Hightower couldn't send at least on of the 3 to ensure Viserys was safe? Let's put the vow out there.

"Hightower I want you, Dayne, and Whent to remain here with my mistress and soon to be bastard and see them to safety after the birth."

Why would Hightower swear to this? He might swear to ensure they are brought to saftey, but he would not swear that all of them would remain no matter the situation. He could maintain a vow to see them to safety by having Whent and Dayne escort Lyanna and Jon. Both of them are exceptional fighters and honorable.

Under such a vow why does Hightower and company fight to the death with Ned the uncle of said bastard? If they told Ned "Hey we have sworn to see them to safety" I wouldn't think Ned would have a huge problem with that. Yeah they heard about Kingslanding. But that isn't enough to state Ned is a kinslayer and would kill his own blood. A bastard has no claim to the throne and is a minor threat to Robert's reign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No longer," he answered, "but once they were a marvel, a shining lesson to the world."

Nice analysis. I agree that Jaime's actions did sully the order of Kingsguard. But this passage could be interpreted as "once" being the time of Hightower and Dayne. Look at the Kingsguard under Robert, they're a joke in comparison. Barristan being the only real Kingsguard of the bunch (and even he admits this as he leaves). Jaime might have been Kingsguard material in his youth but he had fully dishonored himself and lost all self respect in the mean time.

So I think it's more than just Jaime. I think the majority of its members are subpar and even Barristan agrees with Ned on this.

Neither is remembered as "splendid"

Actually he doesn't remember Barristan as splendid either, yet we know Barristan is a legend in his own right. He refers to Hightower in the following:

"and the White Bull himself, Lord Commander Ser Gerold Hightower"

I would say Ned seemed fairly impressed by the man. Dayne is obviously considered the best in Ned's eyes, but that doesn't mean the rest of them weren't amazing knights in his eyes.

It's Dayne alone who is coloured, in Ned's memory, by sadness.

Probably because Ned was the one to kill him. And the fact that he Dayne was clearly an impressive fighter that Ned needed Howland Reeds help to survive. Ned also had to deliver the Sword of the Morning to Ashara and his other family members which would have been a somber and regretful day. Imagine going to the family of the man you killed in combat who you respected and admired.

I believe that Ned admired the Kingsguard from his youth. They were legends in his eyes, Dayne being the best of them (for whatever reason). The Kingsguard under Robert were a shadow of their former glory. The only true Kingsguard among their number being Barristan who was getting old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 Amory Lorch and Gregor Clegane killing the Targaryen children and Elia. Perhaps you want to rework you essay, starting with this particular point?

"Not our men," Ned said patiently. "Lannister men. The lion of Lannister flew over the ramparts, not the crowned stag. And they had taken the city by treachery."

You think Armory Lorch and Gregor Clegane killing the Targaryen children and Elia was how the Lannisters took the city? I think not. That's 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.

If you'd read the essay properly rather than stopping there, you might realise that I wasn't saying that Ned's lies were solely about what happened at the sack, but rather that it is interesting that a discussion of the sack brings up those negative feelings about the rebellion. Yes, part of that is about Jon. Not all of it, though.

"We were not Sworn Brothers of the Kingsguard," Ned said. The time had come for Robert to hear the whole truth, he decided then and there. "Do you remember the Trident, Your Grace?"

Does Ned then tell Robert about Jon? No, he does not. He tells Robert about Jaime. Maybe consider that fact that "He had lived his lies for fourteen years" has "lies", not "lie". Plural. There's much that Ned has kept to himself about the rebellion, and much that he regrets. So no, I don't think I need to rework my essay with the assumption that the treachery Ned refers to isn't referring to what Ned says it refers to, or that the "lies" are in fact a singular "lie".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because Ned was the one to kill him. And the fact that he Dayne was clearly an impressive fighter that Ned needed Howland Reeds help to survive. Ned also had to deliver the Sword of the Morning to Ashara and his other family members which would have been a somber and regretful day. Imagine going to the family of the man you killed in combat who you respected and admired.

The element of Dayne's sadness is present in Jaime's weirwood dream, as well. I suspect that it might have something to do with being trapped by his honour and vows, something that Ned would understand all too well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is not the topic you're discussing right now, but doesn't Lyanna running away with Rhaegar directly contradict GRRM's view on arranged marriages?

True, Rhaegar is not a stable boy but Lyanna's marriage to Robert was already arranged and "There were thousands, tens of thousand, perhaps hundreds of thousands of arranged marriages in the nobility through the thousand years of Middle Ages and people went through with them. That’s how you did it. It wasn’t questioned.".

How does that clear stance compute with R+L?

Then there's also the possibility that Rhaegar was acting on a prophecy (with him falling in love eventually, but not from the start).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice analysis. I agree that Jaime's actions did sully the order of Kingsguard. But this passage could be interpreted as "once" being the time of Hightower and Dayne. Look at the Kingsguard under Robert, they're a joke in comparison. Barristan being the only real Kingsguard of the bunch (and even he admits this as he leaves). Jaime might have been Kingsguard material in his youth but he had fully dishonored himself and lost all self respect in the mean time.

So I think it's more than just Jaime. I think the majority of its members are subpar and even Barristan agrees with Ned on this.

Oh I agree with that, but I don't think that the sub-par KG of Robert is something Ned really cares about except in the contrast. Ned is unhappy about the results of the rebellion, he feels that Robert's rule hasn't fulfilled the glory and honour he hoped he would, and that's a real part of the "loss of innocence" argument I make. The fall of the KG is symbolic of that.

Actually he doesn't remember Barristan as splendid either, yet we know Barristan is a legend in his own right. He refers to Hightower in the following:

"and the White Bull himself, Lord Commander Ser Gerold Hightower"

I would say Ned seemed fairly impressed by the man. Dayne is obviously considered the best in Ned's eyes, but that doesn't mean the rest of them weren't amazing knights in his eyes.

Dayne is the only KG that Ned remembers as splendid. He's the shining lesson par excellence, but certainly Ned respected the others too, they're still shining lessons. I'm sure Ned respected Hightower, but not as much as Dayne. Indeed, not as much as Barristan perhaps. Ned doesn't say much about Hightower, but he calls Barristan "the finest sword in the Seven Kingdoms in his youth", and we get "'Ser Barristan is as valiant and honorable as any man in King's Landing.' Ned had come to have a deep respect for the aged, white-haired Lord Commander of the Kingsguard."

Probably because Ned was the one to kill him. And the fact that he Dayne was clearly an impressive fighter that Ned needed Howland Reeds help to survive. Ned also had to deliver the Sword of the Morning to Ashara and his other family members which would have been a somber and regretful day. Imagine going to the family of the man you killed in combat who you respected and admired.

Ned also had Whent and Hightower killed, even if he may not have been the one to actually land the killing blow. He didn't have to deliver Dawn to Ashara, but he chose to -- a degree of honour he grants Dayne above the other two KG, or indeed above his own fallen men. I think there's more to Ned's feelings about Dayne than simply that he respected and admired him. To Ned, the KG of Aerys was (excepting Jaime) a shining lesson, "legends in his eyes" as you say, but Dayne was a real exception above them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think Armory Lorch and Gregor Clegane killing the Targaryen children and Elia was how the Lannisters took the city? I think not. That's 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.

If you'd read the essay properly rather than stopping there, you might realise that I wasn't saying that Ned's lies were solely about what happened at the sack, but rather that it is interesting that a discussion of the sack brings up those negative feelings about the rebellion. Yes, part of that is about Jon. Not all of it, though.

Does Ned then tell Robert about Jon? No, he does not. He tells Robert about Jaime. Maybe consider that fact that "He had lived his lies for fourteen years" has "lies", not "lie". Plural. There's much that Ned has kept to himself about the rebellion, and much that he regrets. So no, I don't think I need to rework my essay with the assumption that the treachery Ned refers to isn't referring to what Ned says it refers to, or that the "lies" are in fact a singular "lie".

It is not my problem that I found that part of your essay not worth continuing. I am not under any obligation to read the entire thing. It is not "proper" to expect me to read it in its entirety, especially when there are obvious flaws.

Lie to Catelyn, Lie to Robert, Lie to his men at arms. Ned has many lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whaaat? Fake shiny? No, no, no, my dear, you're just not true legit shiny. It's like Orphan black, you're like Rachel.

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

I think that pretty much sums up the last 52 threads or so.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned also had Whent and Hightower killed, even if he may not have been the one to actually land the killing blow. He didn't have to deliver Dawn to Ashara, but he chose to -- a degree of honour he grants Dayne above the other two KG, or indeed above his own fallen men. I think there's more to Ned's feelings about Dayne than simply that he respected and admired him. To Ned, the KG of Aerys was (excepting Jaime) a shining lesson, "legends in his eyes" as you say, but Dayne was a real exception above them all.

Good point. I find it hard to believe it was simply because of skill in battle.

Dayne followed R out of loyalty and love but also because he was truly worried about the Targ monarch and the way Aerys ruled over those under him. If Hightower is the embodiment of "protect" at all costs, then perhaps Dayne is the embodiment of "obey" at all costs--but Dayne chose to obey a higher order, that of the shinning knight who protects the realm, instead of his oath to Aerys as a KG. That's his tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not my problem that I found that part of your essay not worth continuing. I am not under any obligation to read the entire thing. It is not "proper" to expect me to read it in its entirety, especially when there are obvious flaws.

No, of course not. You have no obligation to read anything. Nor do you have any obligation to explain why you say there are obvious flaws. It's a message board, not a prison sentence.

However, this is why it's really rather pointless having a discussion with you. You claim there are "obvious flaws", yet when I point out that the text directly supports what I said, you simply ignore it. If there are obvious flaws, you've failed to point any out yet. You seem to have a problem countenancing the possibility that your conclusions may not be the only valid ones, or indeed that they might even be wrong. You state things like "Ned's fourteen years of lies are to protect a Targaryen child" as if this was a fact stated in the text rather than your conclusions, or rather as if your conclusions are canon. Indeed you frequently do the same with your ToJ analysis, quoting your paraphrase to debunk another poster's theorising as if your paraphrase was what GRRM had written rather than how you interpret what GRRM had written.

It's all a shame really, because apart from that you're obviously an intelligent individual with much to offer to the debate. You'd offer a lot more to the debate if you actually were willing to debate rather than dismissing as obviously incorrect anything that doesn't match your assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 think this is the best and simplest summary I've seen yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not nearly as many posters here as there used to be... Actually, Its a good think, we lost some of the more narrow-minded posters sj41y, who thought she was always right & that Jon would save the world...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we can cut the KG oath into pieces. In fact, that's one of the main reason why I'm not following the orthodox dream interpretation.



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. Just waiting until some assassin tries to murder the king wouldn't do.



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.



But we can all agree that the knights stayed at the tower because they were commanded to guard it and/or the people therein. If we go with the assumption that the knights chose to consider Lyanna's newborn child then any command of Rhaegar (or vow sworn to him) would be null and void according to the 'orthodox interpretation', no?



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).



The argument that Lyanna was already too weak interfere makes little as we should assume that she would have told them what to do while she still could. The idea that she would have commanded them to protect herself and her child against her own brother makes little sense to me. And I cannot think of any reason why the knights should prevent Eddard Stark from even seeing his kin. They could have interferred should Ned Stark try to abduct or take the child, but just a visist shouldn't have been a problem. 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...



As to the polygamy issue:



Secret marriages are meaningless as long as they are secret. That is my point. And also the reason why Catholic priest cannot marry. It makes no matter if lie with a woman/man as long as you don't proclaim publicly that this is your wife. If you are married in secret you are not married at all in the eyes of the public since you are pretending you aren't married - which effectively means that you aren't married. If my wife is not my wife she isn't my wife.



As to the validity of the KG as witnesses:



Rhaegar: You know we aren't married but you will nevertheless state that this is the case whenever you are asked.


Knights: Of course, Your Grace.



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.



Jaehaerys-Shaera:



Aegon V decided to let the marriage of his children stand. Not because he was forced to do so but because he, presumably, loved his children and chose to honor their wish to marry each other and live together rather than enforcing his own will at all cost.



Lord Tywin did not. You can unmake a consummated marriage of your own child if you are powerful enough. And the king certainly is powerful enough. Aegon V should also have been able to annul the Duncan-Jenny match if he wanted to but he chose not to. Yandel makes it appear as if Egg himself was against the match but we don't yet know if this is the full picture. He was clearly not as opposed to it as his own council and court as they seem to have been the forces behind the ultimatum to choose between Jenny and the Iron Throne. Jenny is eventually accepted at court and things between Aegon V, Duncan, and Jaehaerys remain friendly - which is pretty big hint that Egg accepted the decisions of his own children rather than enforcing his will like Tywin did. But he certainly could have.



As to polygamy in general:



I'm really inclined to believe that polygamy must have been prohibited by law even for members of House Targaryen since Jaehaerys I. Polygamy does not even come up once during TRP despite the fact that it would have been a good way to overcome the troubles between the Blacks and the Greens and prevent the impending Dance. Say, by marrying Rhaenyra to Laenor Velaryon, Aegon the Elder, and Daemon Targaryen. Or by Rhaenyra choosing multiple secondary husbands among the Lords vying for her favor. She could even have married both Laenor Velaryon and Ser Harwin Strong.



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.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

You mean the uncle/brother of the mother who was also the BFF of the newly crowned King (the so-called Usurper) who had just waged war against the Targaryen monarchy because the previous king had killed the aforementioned uncle's father and brother and who probably slayed a great many Targ men in order to take down the Targ (read: rightful in the minds of the KG) rule?

Yes, by all means, let's hand Baby Boy King Jon over to him.

Forget that he's Jon's uncle for a hot second and ask yourself this incredibly basic question: Would the KG hand their king over to anyone? No. Stranger, family friend, best friend, uncle, brother, father, mother, sister, whatever. They KG ain't forking over the king.

And negotiate? Negotiate what exactly? "Yes we'll hand over our charge, the last son of our prince and the rightful heir to the throne as we see it, to you Lord Eddard so long as you pinky swear to keep him safe?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

You can disagree with someone all you want, but there's really no reason to make it personal. We can all be stubborn when it comes to admitting we were wrong. It's human nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...