R+L=J v 150

[The Khal Who Rode West]

We seem to be going back over the same ground, but OK. First, it is not a problem no matter which is the father. Arthur is a KG, sworn to celibacy. He would not be a great knight if he ignored his vows. His vows included obeying Rhaegar. Now if Rhaegar really kept Lyanna against her will, then agree that Ned likely would not think highly of Arthur. Thus, it is only logical that Rhaegar did NOT keep Lyanna against her will -- and Ned knows this fact. That is how logical reasoning works. The only way to make sense of the information -- for there not to be an gaping hole in the logic -- is to conclude that Lyanna was not held against her will. Accordingly, it is safe to conclude that she was not held against her will.
 
As to whether Jon was in the tower, again, the only logical conclusion is that either Jon was in the tower or maybe, possibly, Jon was at Starfall but the KG were staying with Lyanna at ToJ until she could travel and were not at Starfall so as not to draw attention to Jon's real identity as the next heir to the Targ throne. The readers are supposed to make logical conclusions to make the clues fit. The clues ONLY fit if Jon either is in the tower or Jon is at Starfall, waiting for the KG to get him with Lyanna if she lives or without her if she dies. No other scenario (and I have seen arguments for other possible scenarios) makes any sense at all (at least to me). But in any case, the overarching duty of the KG (whether Jon is at ToJ or Starfall) is to defend Jon, as the heir. They either are defending Jon directly if he is in the tower or indirectly by keeping attention from him until they can come and get him and take him to safety. Those explanations are consistent with the clues and answer all questions regarding the actions of Ned and the KG. Other alternatives simply don't hold up. So we may not "know" certain things -- but we are allowed to make logical conclusions that exclude all but one or two possibilities.

But see you're stacking things in RLJ's favour by the questions that you ask. But as I pointed out RLJ does not explain Ned's opinion of Arthur. Ned's opinion of Arthur directly contradicts RLJ as there's no logical reason that Ned would single out Arthur over Oswell and Hightower if they all three died protecting their king. Arthur can't be the finest knight that Ned ever saw if he just died trying to protect his king as Oswell and Hightower did as well. RLJ isn't a perfect fit. It's a better fit depending on what questions you ask.

The talk of alternative not holding up only depends on what questions you're asking. If you only ask certain questions of course you might feel that RLJ is the only answer. But if you ask other questions parts of it doesn't hold up as well to the alternatives. RLJ is still the most reasonable option. But to say that only it answers all the questions is ridiculous. It doesn't.

[MtnLion]

But see you're stacking things in RLJ's favour by the questions that you ask. But as I pointed out RLJ does not explain Ned's opinion of Arthur. Ned's opinion of Arthur directly contradicts RLJ as there's no logical reason that Ned would single out Arthur over Oswell and Hightower if they all three died protecting their king. Arthur can't be the finest knight that Ned ever saw if he just died trying to protect his king as Oswell and Hightower did as well. RLJ isn't a perfect fit. It's a better fit depending on what questions you ask.

The talk of alternative not holding up only depends on what questions you're asking. If you only ask certain questions of course you might feel that RLJ is the only answer. But if you ask other questions parts of it doesn't hold up as well to the alternatives. RLJ is still the most reasonable option. But to say that only it answers all the questions is ridiculous. It doesn't.

Ned is asked if one of them was greater than the rest, to which he singles out Arthur, who would have killed him if not for Howland Reed.  Hmm, don't know why that wouldn't make sense if he is upholding his honor by fighting Ned.  He certainly would not be upholding his honor if he had fathered a child on Lyanna.  It only makes sense if he is protecting the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

ETA:

Your other points make sense and RLJ seems to make the most sense when you look at everything combined. But not of Ned's assessment of Arthur. Ned's assessment of Arthur isn't explained by RLJ. It seems to be directly contradicted by RLJ actually. Not that it's really explained by ALJ either though.

As Stated above, it only makes sense for Ned to hold Arthur in such high esteem if Arthur is protecting the heir to the throne. (I won't argue who is legitimately the heir to the throne, it is only clear if Ned believes that Jon is the heir, as Hightower explains the reason for them to fight is because of their vow. If you think that there is some other vow than the Kingsgurad vow, show me where Ned knows about it. It is finite, since Ned is dead, he must have said or thought about another vow within the A Game of Thrones.)  Of course, one must know and understand honor in order to grasp the concept that I am trying to convey. 

[The Khal Who Rode West]

Ned is asked if one of them was greater than the rest, to which he singles out Arthur, who would have killed him if not for Howland Reed.  Hmm, don't know why that wouldn't make sense if he is upholding his honor by fighting Ned.  He certainly would not be upholding his honor if he had fathered a child on Lyanna.  It only makes sense if he is protecting the child of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

ETA:
As Stated above, it only makes sense for Ned to hold Arthur in such high esteem if Arthur is protecting the heir to the throne. (I won't argue who is legitimately the heir to the throne, it is only clear if Ned believes that Jon is the heir, as Hightower explains the reason for them to fight is because of their vow. If you think that there is some other vow than the Kingsgurad vow, show me where Ned knows about it. It is finite, since Ned is dead, he must have said or thought about another vow within the A Game of Thrones.)  Of course, one must know and understand honor in order to grasp the concept that I am trying to convey. 

I don't understand your concept because it doesn't make sense, not because I don't understand honor. Arthur Dayne was not a lone knight at the tower. He was with Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower. All three died in the same battle that Arthur did for the same reasons according to you. Yet Ned only praises Arthur. Ned therefore cannot be praising Arthur for dying in an attempt to try and protect his king when Whent and Hightower did the exact same thing yet he does not praise them.

[The Twinslayer]

We seem to be going back over the same ground, but OK. First, it is not a problem no matter which is the father. Arthur is a KG, sworn to celibacy. He would not be a great knight if he ignored his vows. His vows included obeying Rhaegar. Now if Rhaegar really kept Lyanna against her will, then agree that Ned likely would not think highly of Arthur. Thus, it is only logical that Rhaegar did NOT keep Lyanna against her will -- and Ned knows this fact. That is how logical reasoning works. The only way to make sense of the information -- for there not to be an gaping hole in the logic -- is to conclude that Lyanna was not held against her will. Accordingly, it is safe to conclude that she was not held against her will.

I think you have a mistaken premise here.  It is perfectly logical to think that Ned would believe that Arthur was honorable even if Lyanna was held against her will.  

 

This comes from the fact that Ned includes Hightower among the KGs who were a "shining example to the world" even though Hightower was standing next to Aerys when Aerys had Rickard and Brandon murdered in a brutal fashion.  

 

This is one of the reasons Jaime resents Ned so much.  After Jaime describes Hightower's reaction to the murder of the Starks, he says "That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree."  Jaime can't understand how Ned can respect Hightower for following the Mad King's orders but condemns Jaime for putting an end to the madman.  

 

It also suggests that, far from diminishing Ned's respect for Arthur, the knowledge that Arthur upheld his kingsguard vow by obeying Rhaegar's order to keep Lyanna against her will (even if Arthur found that personally distasteful) would only increase Ned's regard for Arthur.  Otherwise, Ned would despise Hightower for Hightower's role in the murder of Ned's father and brother.  

[MtnLion]

I don't understand your concept because it doesn't make sense, not because I don't understand honor. Arthur Dayne was not a lone knight at the tower. He was with Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower. All three died in the same battle that Arthur did for the same reasons according to you. Yet Ned only praises Arthur. Ned therefore cannot be praising Arthur for dying in an attempt to try and protect his king when Whent and Hightower did the exact same thing yet he does not praise them.

I think that you are confusing the question of which one with all of the Kingsguard were a wonder, a shining example to the world.  What one of them was the best?  Why did Ned choose Arthur, when Arthur was the one that tried to kill him?  Interestingly, Ned built eight cairns for the dead, one for each of his companions, and one for each of his enemies, the Kingsguard.  Why did he honor those three as much as his companions? 

[MtnLion]

It also suggests that, far from diminishing Ned's respect for Arthur, the knowledge that Arthur upheld his kingsguard vow by obeying Rhaegar's order to keep Lyanna against her will (even if Arthur found that personally distasteful) would only increase Ned's regard for Arthur.  Otherwise, Ned would despise Hightower for Hightower's role in the murder of Ned's father and brother.  

The kingsguard's vow according to Ned is, "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own," is the only one that I have ever found.  Do you have a different interpretation from Ned that I have overlooked? 

[RumHam]

Okay, I don't agree about Quentyn, but set that aside for a moment.  I think the Tyrion quote supports my point that different characters use GRRM's special phrases in different ways.  

 

Tyrion feels wind coming off a flame that is warm enough to lift his cloak and warm his face, but not hot enough even to singe his hair.  To Tyrion, that is a furnace wind.

 

For Dany it is a lot hotter -- it is hot enough to char the raw meat from the spearman's belly that is stuck in Drogon's teeth, and even though she is standing far enough away that it doesn't burn her flesh, it is still hot enough to set her hair on fire.  

 

 

 

 

So the contrast between the way Tyrion uses the phrase (warm-to-hot breeze that lifts his cloak and warms his face) and Dany uses it (hot enough to set her hair on fire, but not quite hot enough to burn her flesh), is pretty striking.  

 

I was trying to clarify that the phrase "furnace wind" means a rush of hot air, not flame as some people sometimes interpret it. I'm not trying to refute your argument that phrases could have different meanings/connotations to different characters. However in this case the difference between Tyrion's usage and Daenerys' is just a matter of degrees (literally.) They're both using it to mean hot air. I don't see anything unusual about this. After all wouldn't the intensity of an actual furnace wind depend on how far you were from the furnace? 

 

I am curious about your theory of "special phrases" having different meanings in different POVs. I'm pretty skeptical about this. Partly because it would probably get confusing, and partly because I feel like Martin doesn't go that far in differentiating speech patterns between his different characters. As far as I recall they all tend to use the same phrases (words are wind...) the same ways. But I'd be interested if you have any examples of this phenomenon. 

[Sly Wren]

We seem to be going back over the same ground, but OK. First, it is not a problem no matter which is the father. Arthur is a KG, sworn to celibacy. He would not be a great knight if he ignored his vows. His vows included obeying Rhaegar. Now if Rhaegar really kept Lyanna against her will, then agree that Ned likely would not think highly of Arthur. Thus, it is only logical that Rhaegar did NOT keep Lyanna against her will -- and Ned knows this fact. That is how logical reasoning works. The only way to make sense of the information -- for there not to be an gaping hole in the logic -- is to conclude that Lyanna was not held against her will. Accordingly, it is safe to conclude that she was not held against her will.

The bolded is a reasonable conclusion allowable by the text. But given the size of the gap in the text, no way to establish it's the only one. Nor is there any direct evidence of it. If Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna then Arthur and Lyanna fell in love--could see the respect. If Arthur was the one who helped Lyanna escape her impending marriage or danger from Aerys. . . .etc. Plus, that promise--"promise me, Ned. Promise me you'll forgive the man I love and respect his memory." Which would work for Rhaegar, too. Not to mention the half dozen other scenarios I haven't thought of. The gap in the text is huge.

 

As to whether Jon was in the tower, again, the only logical conclusion is that either Jon was in the tower or maybe, possibly, Jon was at Starfall but the KG were staying with Lyanna at ToJ until she could travel and were not at Starfall so as not to draw attention to Jon's real identity as the next heir to the Targ throne. The readers are supposed to make logical conclusions to make the clues fit. The clues ONLY fit if Jon either is in the tower or Jon is at Starfall, waiting for the KG to get him with Lyanna if she lives or without her if she dies. No other scenario (and I have seen arguments for other possible scenarios) makes any sense at all (at least to me). But in any case, the overarching duty of the KG (whether Jon is at ToJ or Starfall) is to defend Jon, as the heir. They either are defending Jon directly if he is in the tower or indirectly by keeping attention from him until they can come and get him and take him to safety. Those explanations are consistent with the clues and answer all questions regarding the actions of Ned and the KG. Other alternatives simply don't hold up. So we may not "know" certain things -- but we are allowed to make logical conclusions that exclude all but one or two possibilities.

We know the KG are supposed to follow orders whether they like the orders or not. We know that those orders can be stupid or cruel or not directly related to taking care of the Royal Family--the SSM in the OP as well as examples of orders in the novels gives us that. Text never says how long the KG have been at the tower, or why they are there, or who they think is king, or what they do or don't think about Jon, or whether or not anyone's in the tower, or what the KG's orders were that kept them "far away," or where "far away" was. Or a lot of other things. Without that info--yes, Martin would expect readers to fill in gaps. Hopefully logical ones. The ones you gave are reasonable. But no way to know for sure what the right answer is. Not with that many gaps. Not yet.

[aDanceWithFlagons]

When then you add in how Ned viewed Arthur, "The finest of the shining example to the world", and you lose any possibility for Arthur to have fathered Jon.  
 
Objectively, just read the analysis "at the tower of joy" from my signature, and it is pretty clear that the three Kingsguard, including Arthur, defend the new king from Ned.  If it is Arthur's child then you have to have a reason for Hightower and Whent to stay, instead of departing immediately for Dragonstone.  There is no reason. 
 
To have the reason that they stay because they swore a vow, as Hightower asserts to Ned, makes sense to Ned only in the context of the Kingsguard vow.  There is no other vow that Ned knows of.  Ned knows the Kingsguard vow, since he was present when Jaime swore his, "to protect his king's life with his own". 

If one reads your own spin on the exchange because you wrote it that way.
How about reading the book passage instead. If one reads the book text one can see that the only kings in the context are Aerys and Robert.

[The Khal Who Rode West]

I think that you are confusing the question of which one with all of [font='times new roman']the Kingsguard were a wonder, a shining example to the world[/font].  What one of them was the best?  Why did Ned choose Arthur, when Arthur was the one that tried to kill him?  Interestingly, Ned built eight cairns for the dead, one for each of his companions, and one for each of his enemies, the Kingsguard.  Why did he honor those three as much as his companions? 

I'm not mistaking anything. You said that Ned praises Arthur because he died trying to defend his king. Oswell and Gerold did the same thing though in the very same battle yet Ned only praised Arthur. Ned's praise for Arthur therefore cannot come from him trying to defend his king as otherwise he wouldn't distinguish Arthur from Oswell and Gerold. The three of them would all be equally praiseworthy if they all did the same thing. Clearly Arthur did something that Oswell and Gerold did not do.

[corbon]

For Dany it is a lot hotter -- it is hot enough to char the raw meat from the spearman's belly that is stuck in Drogon's teeth, and even though she is standing far enough away that it doesn't burn her flesh, it is still hot enough to set her hair on fire.  

...

So the contrast between the way Tyrion uses the phrase (warm-to-hot breeze that lifts his cloak and warms his face) and Dany uses it (hot enough to set her hair on fire, but not quite hot enough to burn her flesh), is pretty striking.  

 

Dany's hair was not set on fire by the furnace wind that she stayed facing, but later when she ducked actual dragon fire.

 

While I'm not arguing that different characters cannot use the same phrase slightly differently, in this case its very simple. A furnace wind is an unusually hot gust of air coming from a fiery source - be it the (normal air heated by being inside a dragon) breath of a dragon or the movement of hot air rising from a conflagration below.
Two of the three characters using it use it exactly the same way and I think the third does too, only its not as clear because Quentin doesn't actually see the fiery blast that burns him because he is shielding his eyes from the hot breath that didn't set him on fire.

 

I don't understand your concept because it doesn't make sense, not because I don't understand honor. Arthur Dayne was not a lone knight at the tower. He was with Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower. All three died in the same battle that Arthur did for the same reasons according to you. Yet Ned only praises Arthur. Ned therefore cannot be praising Arthur for dying in an attempt to try and protect his king when Whent and Hightower did the exact same thing yet he does not praise them.

 

Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, has an entire lifetime, reputation, and family history stretching back thousands of years of being the best around. GRRM says that he was even better than Barristan (with Dawn, about equal without).

That is why Arthur gets singled out as the finest above the other three, even though all three are considered as shining examples to the world.

 

I think you have a mistaken premise here.  It is perfectly logical to think that Ned would believe that Arthur was honorable even if Lyanna was held against her will.  

 

This comes from the fact that Ned includes Hightower among the KGs who were a "shining example to the world" even though Hightower was standing next to Aerys when Aerys had Rickard and Brandon murdered in a brutal fashion.  

 

This is one of the reasons Jaime resents Ned so much.  After Jaime describes Hightower's reaction to the murder of the Starks, he says "That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree."  Jaime can't understand how Ned can respect Hightower for following the Mad King's orders but condemns Jaime for putting an end to the madman.  

 

It also suggests that, far from diminishing Ned's respect for Arthur, the knowledge that Arthur upheld his kingsguard vow by obeying Rhaegar's order to keep Lyanna against her will (even if Arthur found that personally distasteful) would only increase Ned's regard for Arthur.  Otherwise, Ned would despise Hightower for Hightower's role in the murder of Ned's father and brother.  

 

No it isn't logical. Brandon gave cause by threatening the royal family with death and Aerys was in the right having him killed. Not right in the way of it, and unnecessarily cruel maybe, but Brandon earned death the KG duty was on the side of Aerys all the way there.

Lyanna by contrast, offers no threat to the royal family and there is no reason she could 'honourably' be held against her will from the start of events.
And Jaime? Well, he directly violated his prime duty - for good reasons, but Ned doesn't know that.

 

With your base premise so badly off, the logic that follows is equally off.

[IceFire125]

If one reads your own spin on the exchange because you wrote it that way.
How about reading the book passage instead. If one reads the book text one can see that the only kings in the context are Aerys and Robert.

 

It certainly wasn't Robert.

 

Gerold had no purpose to stay at the tower if it was Arthur's bastard, because that's who he sees Jon as even if A+L married.  Arthur was KG.  But that's not what happened.

 

They stayed because the person in the tower had a claim higher than Viserys and a kingly claim.  It was a claim that bounded the 3KGs at the that tower or else they would've traveled to Dragonstone (or look for him, since he wasn't part of the reported persons killed).  At the very least, Gerold would have, if Jon was illegitimate.  Yet what we have is Gerold and the other 2 KGs are in agreement, that staying at the tower was not a dereliction of their duty, but of keeping to their vows to the fullest (that they died knowing, thus they've fulfilled it).

[Voice]

Interestingly, Ned built eight cairns for the dead, one for each of his companions, and one for each of his enemies, the Kingsguard.  Why did he honor those three as much as his companions? 

 

What's most interesting to me, is that Ned built the cairns after nearly being killed by Arhur Dayne, and built one for Arthur Dayne. He pulled down the tower himself after an intense melee.

 

We've talked before about how this seems to negate Lyanna's presence at the tower, and I know many of you disagree with that interpretation... still... I think it stands to reason that Ned did this respectful act because he learned something from the last remaining foeman.

 

It was Arthur vs Ned, with Howland in attendance. Ned was losing, and would have died had not Howland Reed saved his life somehow.

 

In the aftermath that followed, Ned developed quite a profound amount of respect for Arthur. I think Arthur pointed Ned towards Starfall, and told him he would find Lyanna there, and that she was with child. If Lyanna is Jon's mother, which seems likely, I think Arthur is Jon's father. There has not been a Sword of the Morning for the past 17 years (a very conspicuous number), and Dawn must be wielded by a worthy Dayne. The North is Ice, Dorne is Fire, so this pairing keeps the Son of Ice and Fire symmetry in tact.

 

We have nothing to place Lyanna (in my opinion) or Jon at the tower of joy, but Edric seems to place him at Starfall with Wylla. Everything points to Starfall, and the Palestone Sword Tower.

[spoon89]

What's most interesting to me, is that Ned built the cairns after nearly being killed by Arhur Dayne, and built one for Arthur Dayne. He pulled down the tower himself after an intense melee.

 

We've talked before about how this seems to negate Lyanna's presence at the tower, and I know many of you disagree with that interpretation... still... I think it stands to reason that Ned did this respectful act because he learned something from the last remaining foeman.

 

It was Arthur vs Ned, with Howland in attendance. Ned was losing, and would have died had not Howland Reed saved his life somehow.

 

In the aftermath that followed, Ned developed quite a profound amount of respect for Arthur. I think Arthur pointed Ned towards Starfall, and told him he would find Lyanna there, and that she was with child. If Lyanna is Jon's mother, which seems likely, I think Arthur is Jon's father. There has not been a Sword of the Morning for the past 17 years (a very conspicuous number), and Dawn must be wielded by a worthy Dayne. The North is Ice, Dorne is Fire, so this pairing keeps the Son of Ice and Fire symmetry in tact.

 

We have nothing to place Lyanna (in my opinion) or Jon at the tower of joy, but Edric seems to place him at Starfall with Wylla. Everything points to Starfall, and the Palestone Sword Tower.

 

Personally, I favor N+A=J coupled with R+L=A and a switch at Starfall, if R+L.≠ J. Allyia has been mentioned once and we do not know if the age would work out properly, but that is where I sit on the subject if R+L.≠ J. We had multiple reasons to believe that Aegon was dead until ADwD, even if he is a Blackfyre, it does open the door to those we thought dead, little mentioned or unmentioned.

[The Twinslayer]

 

I was trying to clarify that the phrase "furnace wind" means a rush of hot air, not flame as some people sometimes interpret it. I'm not trying to refute your argument that phrases could have different meanings/connotations to different characters. However in this case the difference between Tyrion's usage and Daenerys' is just a matter of degrees (literally.) They're both using it to mean hot air. I don't see anything unusual about this. After all wouldn't the intensity of an actual furnace wind depend on how far you were from the furnace? 

 

I am curious about your theory of "special phrases" having different meanings in different POVs. I'm pretty skeptical about this. Partly because it would probably get confusing, and partly because I feel like Martin doesn't go that far in differentiating speech patterns between his different characters. As far as I recall they all tend to use the same phrases (words are wind...) the same ways. But I'd be interested if you have any examples of this phenomenon. 

There are several examples of "special phrases" meaning one thing to one person but another thing to someone else.  I think "furnace wind" is one because Tyrion and Dany use it differently, but also, as I will explain below, because Quentyn uses it to describe dragon flame.

 

Here is another example:  "my blood," "my own blood," "your own blood," etc. to denote levels of kinship.  Jeor Mormont uses it to mean a person's son or daughter.  Right after he tells Jon that Robb will marry a princess, etc., he says that Jon will never hold a child of his own blood in his arms.  Mormont knows that, as the brother of the King in the North, Jon may very well hold Robb's sons and daughters in his arms (just as Benjen was a familiar face to Ned's children), but he says that the Night's Watch vow means that Jon will never hold a child of his own blood.  Thus, to Mormont"own blood" means son or daughter but excludes nephews and nieces.

 

"He will wed some beautiful princess and father sons on her.  You'll have no wife, nor will you ever hold a child of your own blood in your arms."

 

Clearly, for Jeor Mormont, "own blood" means son or daughter.

 

Ser Alester Florent uses this phrase differently.  For Ser Alester, "own blood" can mean not only a son, but also a nephew or even a great-nephew.  He tells Ser Courtney Penrose, with reference to Edric Storm's relationship to Stannis:

 

"Ser Courtney, mind your tongue.  His Grace means the boy no harm.  The child is his own blood, and mine as well.  My niece Delena was the mother, as all men know."

 

This can be put down to the theory that, to a Northern Lord, "my blood" means "my child" while to a Southerner "my blood" could also mean "my nephew or niece."  Or Jeor Mormont could have his own weird way of talking.  But clearly, this is one of the examples where GRRM has one character use a "special phrase" one way while another character uses it another way. 

 

The kingsguard's vow according to Ned is, "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own," is the only one that I have ever found.  Do you have a different interpretation from Ned that I have overlooked? 

Ned saw Jaime take the Kingsguard vow before LC Hightower at the Tournament at Harrenhal during the Year of the False Spring.  That is the same LC Hightower who heard Barristan's vows.  And the vows are the same vows that Jon "when you donned that cloak, you promised to obey" Darry took.

 

The Kingsguard vow that Ned heard Jaime take does not just include protecting the king.  It includes all of this:

 

Protect the king from harm or threat

Provide the same KG protection to royals, lovers, mistresses and bastards (but only if so directed)

Follow orders from the king, other royals, the Hand and the Small Council

Serve the king's pleasure

Keep the king's secrets

Protect the king's name and honour

Maintain chastity 

 

Supporting quotes are here:

 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/87683-the-text-of-the-kingsguard-vow/

 

 

 

Dany's hair was not set on fire by the furnace wind that she stayed facing, but later when she ducked actual dragon fire.

 

While I'm not arguing that different characters cannot use the same phrase slightly differently, in this case its very simple. A furnace wind is an unusually hot gust of air coming from a fiery source - be it the (normal air heated by being inside a dragon) breath of a dragon or the movement of hot air rising from a conflagration below.
Two of the three characters using it use it exactly the same way and I think the third does too, only its not as clear because Quentin doesn't actually see the fiery blast that burns him because he is shielding his eyes from the hot breath that didn't set him on fire.

 

 

No it isn't logical. Brandon gave cause by threatening the royal family with death and Aerys was in the right having him killed. Not right in the way of it, and unnecessarily cruel maybe, but Brandon earned death the KG duty was on the side of Aerys all the way there.

Lyanna by contrast, offers no threat to the royal family and there is no reason she could 'honourably' be held against her will from the start of events.
And Jaime? Well, he directly violated his prime duty - for good reasons, but Ned doesn't know that.

 

With your base premise so badly off, the logic that follows is equally off.

On Brandon, I don't think that Ned would believe that it is a capital offense justifying torture using a Tyroshi strangling device and an unfair fake trial for the heir to the Warden of the North to challenge the Crown Prince to a duel when the Crown Prince has committed a crime (eloping, whether by force or not, with a High Lord's daughter).  

 

But that does not matter, because Aerys murdered Rickard, too, in a cowardly way, and Hightower was a participant. There is no way that Ned thinks that the manner of his father's death was justified, and it is clear that Ned thought Aerys' crimes were bad enough to justify a rebellion.  But Ned still thinks that the KG who blindly followed Aerys' orders (Hightower) is more honorable than the KG who killed Aerys (Jaime).  In other words, Ned thinks that the most honorable KG is one who follows an immoral order and that the most dishonorable KG is one who disobeys an immoral order.  So, if Rhaegar ordered Arthur to hold Lyanna against her will, Ned would respect him if he obeyed the order, but Ned would despise Arthur if he disobeyed.  

 

Regarding Quentyn, I am satisfied that he was burned by the furnace wind.  He felt a hot wind behind him, and turned around to face Rhaegal.  He put his arm up to shield it from the flame (he calls it the furnace wind), so he is facing Rhaegal at that point.  Then his whip (in front of him) catches fire, followed by his hand (also in front of him), followed by his whole body.  And GRRM signals this with another turn of phrase.  Dany was "[i]engulfed[/i]" by a "furnace wind" while Quentyn was killed by "the flames that had [i]engulfed[/i] Quentyn Martell."  This is three different people using the same phrase three different ways:  Tyrion's furnace wind lifts his cloak.  Dany's chars the raw flesh caught in Drogon's teeth and lights Dany's hair on fire.  Quentyn's lights his whip, his hand, and then his whole body on fire.  

[The Twinslayer]

I am curious about your theory of "special phrases" having different meanings in different POVs. I'm pretty skeptical about this. Partly because it would probably get confusing, and partly because I feel like Martin doesn't go that far in differentiating speech patterns between his different characters. As far as I recall they all tend to use the same phrases (words are wind...) the same ways. But I'd be interested if you have any examples of this phenomenon. 

To give another example (apart from "furnace wind" and "my blood"), GRRM uses Ygritte to illustrate the point that different people use his special phrases in different ways.  He spends a lot of time in AGOT emphasizing how "the north" -- meaning the area from the Neck to the Wall -- is different from "the south."  Late summer snows are common in the north.  Robb has two titles -- Lord of Winterfell and King in the North.  The north remembers. Etc. 

 

Then we get this from Ygritte:

 

"Bael the Bard made it," said Ygritte.  "He was King-beyond the Wall a long time back.  All the free folk know his songs, but might be you don't sing them in the south."

 

"Winterfell's not in the south," Jon objected.

 

"Yes it is.  Everything below the Wall's south to us."  

 

He had never thought of it that way.

Jon grew up thinking he and Robb were northmen.  But then he found out that there are people who consider him and Robb to be the exact opposite.  

[Ygrain]

If one reads your own spin on the exchange because you wrote it that way.
How about reading the book passage instead. If one reads the book text one can see that the only kings in the context are Aerys and Robert.

If one actually thinks about what one reads, one realizes that Usurper=/= rightful king, and that the rightful king (i.e., the king who would yet sit the IT, were he not dead) has a known heir on Dragonstone. One also realizes that if protecting the king is the KG's first and foremost duty, they are in dereliction of it when they are not with Viserys, and that going to the object of the primary duty is not fleeing. One makes a logical conclusion that the discrepancy can be solved if Viserys is not king and that there is another heir at ToJ, whom the KG consider their rightful king, hence they are not in dereliction of anything and are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, protecting their king's life with their own and dying for him if need be, hence, they are shining examples of what a KG is supposed to be.

 

In other words, the reading of this passage requires not only the ability to understand the individual words on the page but a combination of knowledge and logic, and a grasp of honour.

[SFDanny]

If one actually thinks about what one reads, one realizes that Usurper=/= rightful king, and that the rightful king (i.e., the king who would yet sit the IT, were he not dead) has a known heir on Dragonstone. One also realizes that if protecting the king is the KG's first and foremost duty, they are in dereliction of it when they are not with Viserys, and that going to the object of the primary duty is not fleeing. One makes a logical conclusion that the discrepancy can be solved if Viserys is not king and that there is another heir at ToJ, whom the KG consider their rightful king, hence they are not in dereliction of anything and are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, protecting their king's life with their own and dying for him if need be, hence, they are shining examples of what a KG is supposed to be.

 

In other words, the reading of this passage requires not only the ability to understand the individual words on the page but a combination of knowledge and logic, and a grasp of honour.

 

There is an underlying assumption in all of this that the three Kingsguard must fulfill the letter of their first duty to be honorable in the eyes of Eddard Stark. Your "logical conclusion" becomes only one way of sorting out the mystery if we don't assume this is the only path, or necessarily the right one, to Ned's view of honor. It may well be the "discrepancy" you see is just that the three Kingsguard are more complicated in how and why they decide to do what they do, certainly Martin's remarks  telling readers to "keep reading" about Ser Arthur would suggest that is the case. The experience of the three men of guarding a mad king may have influenced their decision about supporting the claim of Viserys, even if they know of Aerys's decree making Viserys his heir. Ser Barristan's thoughts and choice would suggest perhaps some of his sworn brothers had some of the same thoughts growing out of their shared history with Aerys, and with Viserys.

 

I also think we have abundant evidence that Ned's view of honor isn't this black and white interpretation of following the first duty of their oaths. In fact, I think, a closer read of Ned's character suggests otherwise (see my post #4 in my signature for a more detailed argument on this point.) I think Martin wants us to ask ourselves such questions as what is more honorable - fighting to protect Lyanna and her child, or leaving them and going to Dragonstone because their first duty is there? Does one show more honor in choosing to follow the orders of a beloved prince in protecting his innocent wife/mistress and perhaps their child, or by going to help restore a monarchy based in the person of a paranoid, cruel, and violent child? Some of their vows says one thing; some says the other. It's not supposed to be easy to sort out "the truth" to these questions in Martin's writing. In fact, your "grasp of honour" may not match Ned's view as Martin writes it.

[corbon]

On Brandon, I don't think that Ned would believe that it is a capital offense justifying torture using a Tyroshi strangling device and an unfair fake trial for the heir to the Warden of the North to challenge the Crown Prince to a duel when the Crown Prince has committed a crime (eloping, whether by force or not, with a High Lord's daughter).

 

The cruelty is not relevant. The KG prime duty is to protect the King and Brandon challenged that by verbally attacking the life of the king's heir. Brandon is therefore the KG's enemy and although Aerys was cruel in his punishment, the end result was just - Brandon was on trial for his life, rightly so. The KGs job was to guard the king and they did that as an enemy of the king was punished.
Whether the Crown Prince committed a different crime is not relevant either, nor is it actually established yet what actually happened there.
 

But that does not matter, because Aerys murdered Rickard, too, in a cowardly way, and Hightower was a participant. There is no way that Ned thinks that the manner of his father's death was justified, and it is clear that Ned thought Aerys' crimes were bad enough to justify a rebellion.  But Ned still thinks that the KG who blindly followed Aerys' orders (Hightower) is more honorable than the KG who killed Aerys (Jaime).  In other words, Ned thinks that the most honorable KG is one who follows an immoral order and that the most dishonorable KG is one who disobeys an immoral order.  So, if Rhaegar ordered Arthur to hold Lyannaagainst her will, Ned would respect him if he obeyed the order, but Ned would despise Arthur if he disobeyed.

 

No, Hightower is not a participant to murder. Rickard asked for a trial and nominated himself as Brandon's defender. Aerys cheated the trial, but the KG are not to blame for that, nor is it their place to judge. They protected the King, fulfilled their first duty.
Your characterisation of the situation is not accurate and therefore your paraphrase is off too, thus leading to your comparison being off. Hightower held to his duty under difficult circumstances with no clear rights and wrongs. Brandon was clearly wrong, Aerys was clearly right but cheating, Hightowers job was to protect the king. Ned respects that. Jaime on the other hand broke his duties in the most absolute and condemning way. There were difficult circumstance there too, but Ned doesn't know of them, and what he does knows looks as bad as it can possibly be.
There is no indication in any way that a KGs job is to hold a noble female kidnap and rape victim against her will, at a not-king's behest, while the King and his dynasty is destroyed, and continue on in that terrible course even after both the king and the one who commanded it are long gone. The only way that can be is if 'obeying orders' (any orders, not just the kings) is the be all and end all of the KG responsibilities, and although fiercely held by some readers, that is a ridiculously irrational position. 'Following orders' must necessarily be quite a way down their list (even if the most commonly performed) or their functionality as an elite bodyguard group is worse than useless.
 

Regarding Quentyn, I am satisfied that he was burned by the furnace wind.  He felt a hot wind behind him, and turned around to face Rhaegal.  He put his arm up to shield it from the flame (he calls it the furnace wind), so he is facing Rhaegal at that point.  Then his whip (in front of him) catches fire, followed by his hand (also in front of him), followed by his whole body.  And GRRM signals this with another turn of phrase.  Dany was "engulfed" by a "furnace wind" while Quentyn was killed by "the flames that had engulfed Quentyn Martell."  This is three different people using the same phrase three different ways:  Tyrion's furnace wind lifts his cloak.  Dany's chars the raw flesh caught in Drogon's teeth and lights Dany's hair on fire.  Quentyn's lights his whip, his hand, and then his whole body on fire.

The fact of the matter is that he was not burning, he felt a furnace wind, he raised a (not burning) arm and shielded his (not burning) eyes, then he raised another arm (with whip) and found he was burning. The burning did not come from the furnace wind, it came after he raised his arm to shield his eyes. Probably from something he didn't see because he was shielding his eyes!

Note also that there is no indication that it is the furnace wind that charred the flesh caught in Drogon's teeth. Just that there was charred flesh and broken bones caught there when she looked. Dragons flame their meat before eating it, so any meat caught in his teeth was just as likely charred before he bit into it as charred by his breathing.
Note also that shortly after the furnace wind to the face, Drogon does actually blow black dragon-fire at Dany and she ducks under it (as in, head and hair in particular are the highest and nearest points as you duck under something aimed at you). That is probably when her hair is burned off.

[corbon]

 

I think Martin wants us to ask ourselves such questions as what is more honorable - fighting to protect Lyanna and her child, or leaving them and going to Dragonstone because their first duty is there? Does one show more honor in choosing to follow the orders of a beloved prince in protecting his innocent wife/mistress and perhaps their child, or by going to help restore a monarchy based in the person of a paranoid, cruel, and violent child? Some of their vows says one thing; some says the other. It's not supposed to be easy to sort out "the truth" to these questions in Martin's writing. In fact, your "grasp of honour" may not match Ned's view as Martin writes it.

 

The argument is being made that the KG are guarding an unwilling kidnapped and raped Lyanna and Ned respects them for that.
Seriously, thats what is being argued.

ETA, sorry, thats a different conversation to the one Ygraine is in.

In this case the argument being made is that because Ned single out Arthur Dayne as the finest KG over the other two, R=L=J has a flaw and AD+L=J must be in play. No, I can't follow any logic trail in that either.
Never mind that there are clear and independent reasons why AD might be singled out as the greatest of a group who were collectively a shining example to the world.