R+L=J v 141

[Moondancer]

He won the tourney and was given the laurel, as was the custom for the victor, to crown his queen of love and beauty.

By whom? The North's PR?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

By whom? The North's PR?

No, by the master of the tourney, that is Lord Whent.

[Lord Varys]

General thoughts on oaths:

If you actually read medieval literature then oaths are are a personal thing between a king/liege and his vassal/retainer. And usually such oaths don't become null and void when the liege/king they are sworn to die - a very good example for this would be Hagen von Tronje's loyalty to his nephew King Gunther which extends beyond the grave.

In that sense whatever oath the knights are referring to - the KG oath or another oath they have sworn to Rhaegar before his departure - should have a personal component as well. You don't swear oaths to impersonal entities like 'the Crown' or 'the Iron Throne' or to 'the king' as an abstract concept.

In that sense, I think, we have to interpret whatever the knights did at the tower as a demonstration of personal loyalty to Rhaegar rather than the abstract (and suicidal) enactment of their KG duty. The fact that they are KG doesn't matter all that much - any knight loyal to Rhaegar would have guarded his wife/mistress and child with his life, no?

[Jon Weirgaryen]

:agree:

Addition: unlike some heroes (the cited Hagen) in the sagas and the legends, oathbreaking was an option in the real world more often than not.

[Lord Varys]

Of course. And also in sagas and stories. The whole point of oaths and such is that you can break them and this causes trouble, strife, and mayhem.

A personal oath of fealty sworn by the knights to Rhaegar's infant son as (uncrowned and unrecognized) new king makes little sense as does the assumption that the knights chose them personally as their new king. An oath of fealty always involves two parties, and the infant could not really react to/accept such an oath. They could have sworn the oath to Lyanna representing her child but that would cause contradictions about the knights trying to kill Lyanna's brother. It is much easier to assume they accepted the duty to protect the tower and Lyanna/her (unborn) child and swore an oath to Rhaegar to do that - he may have insisted on that if George's hints that the knights may not have been happy with this whole thing are true.

Finally, it would be completely uncommon for a hidden/threatened Targaryen prince to be proclaimed king by his followers. Prince Aegon has not been proclaimed king by Connington and his gang, nor by the Golden Company when they met - despite the fact that Connington/Haldon/Lemore/Duck and the Golden Company consider Aegon to be their/the rightful king.

There is no reason to believe that the knights at the tower would behave differently.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Not a problem. I can understand thinking the Kingsguard Trio might not know of the decree. My post certainly mentions it as a possibility. We just have no evidence that this one piece of what should be publicly available information did not make it to the Tower of Joy. I've shown why it should fall in the same category as the news of the events of the Trident and the sack. So, if you or anyone else has evidence to show they did not know, then I'd love to read it. I came up with the argument, at least in these threads, that the first duty of the Kingsguard Oath was strong evidence showing Hightower, Whent, and Dayne were guarding the person they thought was their king. I argued it for many, many years, but when new evidence comes to light all of us should be willing to look at old assumptions and consider that evidence. That is what my posts are about.

I agree that new information needs to be taken into account in one's analysis. The problem I have is that a mention in WOIAF that Viserys was the new heir to Aerys is not enough "new" information to unravel the stronger evidence that the KG considered Jon to be their King. I have said many times that IMHO, the words of the KG at ToJ regarding why they did not go to DS to be with Viserys only makes sense if the KG believe Jon to be the King. The words can be twisted a bit, if one really desires, to support an alternative theory. But the natural meaning of the words, in the full context, most clearly supports a conclusion that the KG genuinely believed that Jon was the rightful heir.

Your counter-argument is that if Yandel believes that Viserys was the new heir -- this information must have come from widely-known public information at that time. But if this information is so widely known, why is it never mentioned in the main series? There could be reasons it simply never comes up in the conversations we are allowed to hear, but no one in the main series ever even hints of this information regarding the period of time after the Trident and prior to the sack, that Aerys named Viserys as the new heir over Aegon. I simply do not find your conclusion -- that this information must have been publicly and widely known to have any support. I don't believe it had to be publicly and widely known. Perhaps Aerys was waiting for the war to end to announce this decision -- either so as not to upset Dorne or just because Aerys wanted to make a big announcement at a big victory celebration. Who knows? We don't know -- but we simply have no reason to assume the knowledge was widely known at that time. I am not suggesting it was a secret. I don't think the information would have been a secret. But not being a secret is not the same as being widely known or publicly announced.

So the bottom line is that a statement in WOIAF seems to contradict Jon as the Targ heir. The question at hand is whether the KG at ToJ knew about this "decree" regarding Viserys. One alternative is that they knew but refused to try to go to Viserys anyway and made statements to Ned suggesting that staying at ToJ was more important than going to the new heir. The other alternative is to conclude that word of the "decree" simply did not get to the KG -- who were in a remote area with limited access to information and not necessarily getting information from KL insiders but only information that might be passed via raven (e.g., to Starfall and then delivered to ToJ). Of those two possibilities, I think alternative 2 makes a lot more sense than alternative 1. I understand that you disagree.

[Lord Varys]

UL,

the main series is strangely silent on many things, sometimes even intentional. For instance, despite my own arguments about a 'secret polygamous marriage' causing a lot of problems for Rhaegar or his son, it is actually possible that the public of Westeros actually knows that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married - say, because Rhaegar told everyone when he returned to KL.

But if this is the case it is deliberately kept out of the thoughts and conversations of POVs until the time is right.

Dany and Viserys' background are strangely underdeveloped as well. That Viserys was crowned we only know from the App, and it is still a mystery how young Viserys could care for his sister and himself after Darry's death.

It is very difficult to uphold this idea that the knights actually considered Lyanna's child their king. Even if they did not know about the decree/Viserys as Aerys' new heir all of them would have been aware of Aerys' mistrust of Rhaegar, and him pondering to name Viserys heir instead of Rhaegar. In such a scenario the knights would have actually acted against their late king's will/possible intentions if they had not double-checked if Aerys had named a successor after Rhaegar's death.

By proclaiming/choosing a king for themselves (for whom they then would have died) is crossing the point of no return. What would they have done if Rhaella and Viserys had shown up at the tower instead of Ned? Would they have slain them, too, if they had insisted Viserys was the true king?

Not even Jon Connington did proclaim Prince Aegon King Aegon VI yet, and he is no less loyal to Aegon than the knights were to Lyanna's child (or rather Rhaegar, I think). Why the hell should we assume that those knights proclaimed a king if even Connington did not?

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

We have had this debate so many times, I lose track, but I'll try one more time to make my views clear. I don't think that Hightower would have thought he had any choice but to consider Jon the heir to the throne. Sure, he knew that Aerys and Rhaegar had their differences, but Hightower was at KL until recently and no such decree was made replacing Rhaegar with Viserys. Hightower would have no reason to assume that Aerys would replace Aegon with Viserys after Rhaegar's death -- and Hightower has no ability to inquire into such a question while at ToJ and after the sack of KL (whom is he going to ask). We also don't know whether Hightower was told to send a message to Rhaegar that if Rhaegar died in battle, Aerys swore to retain Aegon as Aerys's heir. Maybe that happened and maybe it did not. But in any event, I think it is clear that Hightower neither knew of nor had any reason to think that Aerys would name someone other than Aegon as the new heir after the death of Rhaegar. With Aegon and Aerys both dead, Hightower has the duty to protect the next in line.

And I don't think they actually "crowned" Jon at that time -- so technically I don't think he was "king" yet. I use the term "king" in this context to mean the rightful heir to the Targ dynasty (people will say, "the king is dead long live the king" even before the new "king" actually is crowned as the new king -- it is a common use of the term, even if not precisely correct). The KG would have a duty to protect the rightful heir so that he could be brought somewhere to be crowned. He does not have to be king yet -- he only needs to be the rightful heir to become king. Those facts are sufficient to cause the KG to protect him in the same manner as if he is king. I don't think they would consider their duty to protect Jon to start only after the new king is actually coronated. I think the right to be coronated would be enough for them (as can be seen when other kings die and the KG consider their duty transferred to the next "king" even before the coronation).

In your hypothetical where the queen and V show up -- no I don't think the KG kill them. They are not enemies of the Targ dynasty. If there is proof that V is the real king, they would consider that information. I strongly suspect that if somehow after the death of Aegon and Aerys, the Targ loyalists had mounted a counter attack and defeated the rebels, a GC would have been called to choose been the "normal" heir (Jon) and the "named" heir (Viserys) -- and we don't know which of them the GC would have chosen. But the KG had no knowledge of any such "decree" that would call into question the normal inheritance rules. Without such knowledge -- and with the Targs no longer having any power base or ability to call a GC (or inquire into any "decree" from Aerys before his death), the "normal" rules of inheritance would be the only basis upon which the KG could act.

[Kingmonkey]

No, by the master of the tourney, that is Lord Whent.

As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that the laurel that Rhaegar placed on Lyanna's lap was the official one provided to him rather than one he'd acquired himself as a substitute specifically for the sake of having blue winter roses to give to Lyanna.

[Jon Weirgaryen]

As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that the laurel that Rhaegar placed on Lyanna's lap was the official one provided to him rather than one he'd acquired himself as a substitute specifically for the sake of having blue winter roses to give to Lyanna.

I have been pondering the same:

Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty's laurel in Lyanna's lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.

Eddard XV

We've got "the ... laurel", not a laurel. Furthermore the very one: "the queen of beauty's laurel".

Although the wording is no proof for assuming it was the official one, the absence of any mention of it being Rhaegar's personal belonging speaks in favor of it being the official one.

Besides being Lyanna's favorite, blue roses are the most costly flower you can get, so they fit Lord Whent's plans of showing of splendour and grandeur.

[MtnLion]

Guys and gals, there is absolute proof in the series that none of the Kingsguard knew of what Yandel suggests. Yeah, it is a pipe dream of Yandel's, for Jaime never considers it when thinking about Aegon and Viserys as candidates for the throne, before Robert and Ned arrive in King's Landing.

[MtnLion]

To these three, there's no choice, no question: they will make a last stand, or die trying, because they will not forsake their honor and cloak by entering the service of the usurper. It's a sort of old 'military honor' in a way, where the only honorable death is death for the cause/nation.

Naw, if they wanted to fulfill their oath, they can talk with Ned about a strategic retreat to Dragonstone. Ned does open the subject, but they refuse. Why would they refuse? Because they are guarding someone with a greater claim to the throne at their present location. They would not flee to Dragonstone then (when Aerys sat the throne and Viserys went to Dragonstone). They will not flee now (when Viserys is at Dragonstone, and someone else is at the tower). They remain at the tower and stand their ground because they swore a vow (notably, not following orders or for honor's sake). It is all in Hightower's and Dayne's words.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Guys and gals, there is absolute proof in the series that none of the Kingsguard knew of what Yandel suggests. Yeah, it is a pipe dream of Yandel's, for Jaime never considers it when thinking about Aegon and Viserys as candidates for the throne, before Robert and Ned arrive in King's Landing.

I generally agree with your analysis on this issue, but I am interested in a little more detail (as it will help me in my arguments when people bring up the "decree" from WOIAF). Here are my questions:

1. I agree that the words of the KG strongly suggest that they have no knowledge of the "decree" but what do you consider "absolute proof" (is it the Jaime quote or something else).

2. Please provide the quote from Jaime that you are referencing in which he thinks about Aegon and Viserys as potential kings? I am interested to see how "definitive" his actual words seem to be in this context.

3. You state that Yandel is inventing the "decree" or otherwise mistaken in believing Viserys to be the rightful heir. But I thought Ran contradicted that assertion and confirmed that GRRM indicated that the information was from documents that Yandel had access to in putting together the history and was not made up by Yandel. What is your evidence that Yandel made it up?

[Lord Varys]

UL,

honestly, monarchies are very ugly legal monsters. The death of a king - an interregnum - is usually a state of emergency. It differs from monarchy to monarchy what constitutes a king - in some an heir is considered to be king from the very moment his predecessor died, in others you have to go through the motions first (coronation, anointment, oath stuff, etc.).

In the absolute monarchies the coronation through the clergy is important as you receive your right to rule from god. And those who have rituals usually consider them to be important even if technically/practically the king rules from the moment his predecessor is dead.

In the middle ages rituals made kings, though. You needed a crown, and you needed to be publicly installed as king to show off to the world that you were king.

From TWoIaF coronations also seem to important in Westeros, and it is thus highly unlikely that the knights could actually consider Lyanna's child to be more than a prince of the blood.

From dynastic/pragmatic viewpoint it would have been utter stupidity to proclaim or choose Lyanna's son as king as the child was an infant - which would have meant either a long exile/time of hiding or the attempt to marshal armies in the name of a baby. That is not how thrones are won in Westeros. If the knights were still loyal to House Targaryen as the royal dynasty then Viserys would have been the logical choice under any circumstance as he was the oldest male Targaryen alive (he would also have been a better candidate as Aegon had he 'officially' survived KL).

ML is referring to Jaime's recollection of the Sack. But it is ambiguous as he first thinks of Viserys and then of Aegon, suggesting that he was aware of Aerys' preference. He must have been as Aerys would clearly not have kept his decision to name Viserys heir secret from Jaime. Jaime has a terrible memory anyway and is not exactly a fan of legal procedures. If I was seventeen and Jaime I guess I'd have thought mostly about Cersei's breasts while I was forced to listen to Aerys' council sessions...

[SFDanny]

I agree that new information needs to be taken into account in one's analysis. The problem I have is that a mention in WOIAF that Viserys was the new heir to Aerys is not enough "new" information to unravel the stronger evidence that the KG considered Jon to be their King. I have said many times that IMHO, the words of the KG at ToJ regarding why they did not go to DS to be with Viserys only makes sense if the KG believe Jon to be the King. The words can be twisted a bit, if one really desires, to support an alternative theory. But the natural meaning of the words, in the full context, most clearly supports a conclusion that the KG genuinely believed that Jon was the rightful heir.

Your counter-argument is that if Yandel believes that Viserys was the new heir -- this information must have come from widely-known public information at that time. But if this information is so widely known, why is it never mentioned in the main series? There could be reasons it simply never comes up in the conversations we are allowed to hear, but no one in the main series ever even hints of this information regarding the period of time after the Trident and prior to the sack, that Aerys named Viserys as the new heir over Aegon. I simply do not find your conclusion -- that this information must have been publicly and widely known to have any support. I don't believe it had to be publicly and widely known. Perhaps Aerys was waiting for the war to end to announce this decision -- either so as not to upset Dorne or just because Aerys wanted to make a big announcement at a big victory celebration. Who knows? We don't know -- but we simply have no reason to assume the knowledge was widely known at that time. I am not suggesting it was a secret. I don't think the information would have been a secret. But not being a secret is not the same as being widely known or publicly announced.

So the bottom line is that a statement in WOIAF seems to contradict Jon as the Targ heir. The question at hand is whether the KG at ToJ knew about this "decree" regarding Viserys. One alternative is that they knew but refused to try to go to Viserys anyway and made statements to Ned suggesting that staying at ToJ was more important than going to the new heir. The other alternative is to conclude that word of the "decree" simply did not get to the KG -- who were in a remote area with limited access to information and not necessarily getting information from KL insiders but only information that might be passed via raven (e.g., to Starfall and then delivered to ToJ). Of those two possibilities, I think alternative 2 makes a lot more sense than alternative 1. I understand that you disagree.

The problem is one alternative is making a theory based on facts in evidence. The other is based on shifting the facts based on a previously held theory and ignoring some of the evidence to suit the theory. Knowledge of the decree is simply incompatible with the idea that Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are fulfilling their first duty by all three remaining at the tower. Knowledge of the decree means they make a different choice than to fulfill their first duty.

Now, it is possible, and it might even be true, that the Kingsguard did not receive the information about Aerys's decree while they did receive the contemporaneous information about Rhaegar's death, the death of Elia and her children, Aerys's death, etc., but it is up to those who think this is so to show why it is so. I've yet to see anything remotely like evidence to support the idea. The fact the decree is only referenced this once means nothing. Many of our facts in evidence come from a single source. For instance, we know that Lyanna was taken at "sword point" based on one reference in A Dance with Dragons. We start with knowing that all is not well between Rhaegar and Aerys with a single reference about how Rhaegar cannot be found. Later we have more that builds to support the idea, until, we know with the publication of TWoI&F that there is factional dispute between father and son that is compared to the build up to the Dance of Dragons. The need here is to show evidence that either says this decree is false, or that the trio did not know of it. Wishing it is so doesn't make it so.

With the dialogue in Ned's dream, we can read it in different ways, so, for instance, we can assume the vow in reference is the first duty, or we can look to the many other vows the men have made as possible sources for the remark. Only taking one way to read this is, again, placing the theory before looking at the evidence. I think I've shown how a different reading of what that vow is in reference to fits with Ned Stark's view of these men, and in fact fits with a deeper understanding of Ned's code of honor. I think we need to look at these assumptions again. Assumptions I've made as well as those who took up my old argument after me. We have to look at the evidence first, and construct our theories afterwards.

Lastly, let us be clear. The World of Ice & Fire does not say Jon is not Rhaegar's heir. It only states that Aerys changes the order of succession after Rhaegar's death naming Viserys his heir. Assuming Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar, that still makes him Rhaegar's heir - if Aegon is a fake, and makes him, upon Viserys's death, the rightful Targaryen claimant to the throne. Whether any of that is important remains to be seen.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

Your logic misses the point that Hightower would not "choose" who would be the "best" choice. Absent a GC (or perhaps differing royal decree -- although we have no examples of any such decree changing the order and being respected without a GC), the rules of inheritance of the IT under the Targ dynasty were clear. And under those rules, Jon was next in line. Hightower would not feel free to "choose" Viserys instead and the ability to call a GC was not really available any more. So treating Jon as king -- and going into exile to raise an army to re-take Westeros -- real would have been the only logical option for the KG.

By the way, in which book did Jaime have this recollection?

[UnmaskedLurker]

The problem is one alternative is making a theory based on facts in evidence. The other is based on shifting the facts based on a previously held theory and ignoring some of the evidence to suit the theory. Knowledge of the decree is simply incompatible with the idea that Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are fulfilling their first duty by all three remaining at the tower. Knowledge of the decree means they make a different choice than to fulfill their first duty.

Now, it is possible, and it might even be true, that the Kingsguard did not receive the information about Aerys's decree while they did receive the contemporaneous information about Rhaegar's death, the death of Elia and her children, Aerys's death, etc., but it is up to those who think this is so to show why it is so. I've yet to see anything remotely like evidence to support the idea. The fact the decree is only reference this once means nothing. Many of our facts in evidence come from a single source. For instance, we know that Lyanna was taken at "sword point" based on one reference in A Dance with Dragons. We start with knowing that all is not well between Rhaegar and Aerys with a single reference about how Rhaegar cannot be found. Later we have more that builds to support the idea, until, we know with the publication of TWoI&F that there is factional dispute between father and son that is compared to the build up to the Dance of Dragons. The need here is to show evidence that either says this decree is false, or that the trio did not know of it. Wishing it is so doesn't make it so.

With the dialogue in Ned's dream, we can read it in different ways, so, for instance, we can assume the vow in reference is the first duty, or we can look to the many other vows the men have made as possible sources for the remark. Only taking one way to read this is, again, placing the theory before looking at the evidence. I think I've shown how a different reading of what that vow is in reference to fits with Ned Stark's view of these men, and in fact fits with a deeper understanding of Ned's code of honor. I think we need to look at these assumptions again. Assumptions I've made as well as those who took up my old argument after me. We have to look at the evidence first, and construct our theories afterwards.

Lastly, let us be clear. The World of Ice & Fire does not say Jon is not Rhaegar's heir. It only states that Aerys changes the order of succession after Rhaegar's death naming Viserys his heir. Assuming Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar, that still makes him Rhaegar's heir - if Aegon is a fake, and makes him the rightful Targaryen claimant to the throne. Whether any of that is important remains to be seen.

I agree 100% that evidence should not fit theories, but the other way around. Both theories have to fit the facts that we know. Your theory fits the facts by asserting that the reference to swearing a "vow" and not "fleeing" is a reference to some other vow they took. But you have no evidence to support that proposition. The natural reading of their words to me is that they have the vow to protect the king and the king is in the tower. While not 100% certain that this reading is correct, no other reading of the words makes as much sense. So I am not retrofitting facts to fit the theory -- the theory is based on the facts we have been given regarding the words and actions of the KG (and even if Ned is not remembering word-for-word, the words still need to be consistent with the intent and understanding of the parties at that time based on what Ned understood the KG to know at that time).

Now you point to the "fact" that Yandel reports that Viserys was named the "new heir" after the death of Rhaegar. I accept that Yandel reported this information and that Yandel believes it to be true. But there are many possible explanations for why this information never got to ToJ (I noted a few above in a prior post). You are the one who is inventing a fact -- you are inventing the fact that the KG learned that Viserys was named the new heir. But you have no evidence for this fact. I read your prior post in your sig in which you explain why you believe it to be true. I found it wholly unconvincing. You believe that anyone who knew of the deaths of Aerys and Aegon would know of the decree. But you have no evidence to support this assertion. Many reasons (as I have stated before) could explain why many people who learned of these deaths nevertheless never had knowledge of any decree regarding Viserys.

What is my evidence that the KG did not find out about the decree? It is hard to prove a negative. But I base my conclusion on their behavior and words. Their behavior and words are more consistent with people who knew nothing about any such decree. I find that "evidence" (i.e., the implications of their words and actions) more compelling than an assumption that news of the decree would have to be as widely known as news of the deaths. I just don't think you have any support for that assertion. So I find the "facts" to be more consistent with the 3 KG not finding out about the decree than that they did find out about the decree. I am not ignoring any facts. I am following the facts and making them be as consistent with each other as possible. And the facts are more coherent taken as a whole if the KG never found out about the decree than if they did.

[Kingmonkey]

We've got "the ... laurel", not a laurel. Furthermore the very one: "the queen of beauty's laurel".

Although the wording is no proof for assuming it was the official one, the absence of any mention of it being Rhaegar's personal belonging speaks in favor of it being the official one.

Besides being Lyanna's favorite, blue roses are the most costly flower you can get, so they fit Lord Whent's plans of showing of splendour and grandeur.

Right, but on the flip side, it would a bit of a coincidence that the QoLaB wreath happened to be blue winter roses, and it's "the" wreath either way because it's the one he gave. I think we need to mark this one down as a could be either way.

[MtnLion]

I generally agree with your analysis on this issue, but I am interested in a little more detail (as it will help me in my arguments when people bring up the "decree" from WOIAF). Here are my questions:

1. I agree that the words of the KG strongly suggest that they have no knowledge of the "decree" but what do you consider "absolute proof" (is it the Jaime quote or something else).

2. Please provide the quote from Jaime that you are referencing in which he thinks about Aegon and Viserys as potential kings? I am interested to see how "definitive" his actual words seem to be in this context.

3. You state that Yandel is inventing the "decree" or otherwise mistaken in believing Viserys to be the rightful heir. But I thought Ran contradicted that assertion and confirmed that GRRM indicated that the information was from documents that Yandel had access to in putting together the history and was not made up by Yandel. What is your evidence that Yandel made it up?

1. Yes, Jaime does not think about any decree, and he is the Kingsguard closest to Aerys between Rhaegar's departure for the Trident and Aerys' death.

2. It is when Jaime has slain Aerys, he considers the options, while not knowing that Gregor and Amory are scaling the Red Keep. At no point does he reflect on any possible decree.

3. Yandel may not have invented it, but it may be (say, Pycelle) someone else's invention that he is perpetrating without verification. Where is the decree? As far as I know there is no reference to an actual decree. ;)

[MtnLion]

Frakking double post. (I had a feeling it was happening.) :P