R+L=J v 150

[BearQueen87]

 

You have a two Dornish holdings nearby ToJ and Starfall is located further away and the western red mountains lie between it and ToJ.

 

Story wise, I believe the ties between the ToJ and Starfall are Arthur, Dawn, Ashara and Ned (Dawn provided a valid and honorable reason to go to Starfall and see the only person he personally knew in the area).

 

Yes, I know it's further away. But the point is that GRRM could decide to have Starfall play a larger role, even if it's not the closest on a map simply because it (Starfall) holds a larger significance to the RLJ story as a whole. Why introduce another facet--Nightsong/Nightsong's family or Kingrave/Kingsgrave family--when Starfall is close enough and already has a strong tie to the entire RLJ plot? There is also something to be said about the more people that know a secret, the more likely it is to get out.

[Avalatis]

 

No more so than Jon having to choose his duty as LC over Winterfell. I didn't say it had to be love of a person, and moreover didn't say it had to be romantic love. It could be love of his Stark family, it could be love of the NW's (should they still exist), it could be love of being Jon Snow, bastard born of Ned Stark, the identity he's carried for so long and would have to give up in order to be Jon Stark-Targaryen, newly crowned king. My larger point is that this is one of Jon's arc throughout: love vs duty.

 

Love of Robb/Ned vs Duty to the NW and his vows (book 1)

Love of Ygritte vs Duty to the NW/realm (book 3)

Love of Winterfell/Being made a Stark vs Duty to the realm/world as the WW's come for us in the night (book 5)

 

GRRM has being setting up that repetition for awhile. I think it's very possible that the last choice for Jon will be love of X (again, not necessarily a single person and not necessarily a romantic love) vs duty to the newly formed Westerosi realm after the Dawn has come (a Dawn he helped bring and has to see through)

 

I guess that could fit with a trend for him. I'm not sure what love he would be giving up. Well I guess the North, but that seems kind of lame.

[Avalatis]

So has there been a detailed analysis of Barristan Selmy to see if that can shed light on the actions of the Kingsguard at the TOJ? Of the Kingsguard of that time we have the most information about him. Obviously he was kept in the dark about Rhaegar's plans (though Hightower was too), but how he acts could reflect upon Hightower, Dayne, and Whent.

 

The first thing that comes to mind for me is the moment Robert died. What does Barristan do? He goes to the new King Joffery (who wasn't crowned yet). When Ned has him read orders from King Robert (previous King) that places Ned as protector of the realm and regent to the heir does Barristan do what Ned says? No, he sticks to who he perceives as the obvious new King of the realm: Joffery.

 

It's interesting when we finally get his view point we never get any regret from him about failing to support Ned. Not that it's any evidence as Barristan is like Ned Stark and has a lot of crucial information to the plot and his thoughts are very tailored to maintain the mystery. But I think this suggests that even though Barristan thinks Cercei and Joffery are terrible individuals he knew what his job was, and it was to protect the King. He ignored the orders of the previous King Robert and the new Regent/Protector of the Realm and stuck with the King.

 

I'm sure there are more examples with Dany, but I'll stick with this.

 

edit: The obvious action in regard to Dany is what does Barristan do when Joffery "kicks" him out of the Kingsguard. He refuses to acknowledge it. He realizes that he has been serving the wrong Dynasty and immediately seeks out Dany. He doesn't consider any of the 5 Kings (2 who are brothers to Robert) he goes to Targaryen's who he now feels he was mistaken for not being with the entire time. Again the Kingsguard go directly to the monarch.

 

So news of Rhaegar and Aerys deaths are either relayed by Ned or are filtered in from the victorious rebels. They are aware that Viserys has fled to Dragonstone. If Barristan was in Hightower's place what would he have done?

 

I've already gone over what we know of Hightower and how we think he would act.

[SFDanny]

 

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.
 

 

Thanks, corbon, I should have made it clear I in no way think Ser Arthur is a serious candidate for Jon's father. This idea has far too many big problems to be considered anything other than in full on crackpot territory. Not that advancing a crackpot theory isn't fun and entertaining in the long wait for the next book, but it should be viewed for what it is, not something serious. I say that with all do respect to the Khal's "sadness" theory. As I see it, this theory rests on the idea that Arthur has the proximity to Lyanna to have been the father of her child. Of course so does Whent. And any Pate the Pig boy who was in the neighborhood of where Lyanna was when Jon was conceived. This doesn't make them real candidates for Jon's father. It makes them all just people who can't be ruled out by the timeline and location. There maybe thousands of characters, known and unknown, that could be Jon's father if this is the only criteria. To be serious there should be something that points to them as likely. Such as a rumored relationship or attraction between Arthur and Lyanna. Nothing of the kind exists. Sorry "sadness" between Ned and Arthur doesn't qualify. One could go on, but I think you get my drift of why I don't take it seriously.

 

 

Except, if Jon is not king, the KG's obligation to protect him (or Lyanna) from Ned considerably decreases, and even if they perceived some danger, protecting mistresses and bastards is still not their sworn duty, and doing so is still dereliction of their primary duty. Turn it any way you wish, but if they are obeying some higher call, they are doing so at the coast of breaking the vow to protect the king. - Which contradicts two known facts from different sources, the characterisation of Hightower as blindly loyal to Aerys, and characterisation of Arthur Dayne as the best of Kingsguard.

 

ETA: Had Ned known why Jaime killed Aerys, he might have agreed that it was necessary, and perhaps even not without honour. Yet, it wouldn't make Jaime an exemplary Kingsguard; in this respect, he would still be a complete failure.

 

Aegon is dead or presumed dead, and if the KG are unaware that Aerys proclaimed Viserys his heir (if he did), then a legitimate son of Rhaegar is ahead of Viserys in the succession line.

 

 

Again you assume that fulfilling their first duty is the motivation behind Hightower, Dayne, and Whent's action. As you allude to in your last sentence, we now have evidence which points towards that not being the case. If the Kingsguard knows of Aerys's action making Viserys his heir over Aegon, then these three men's decision not to send one of their number to Dragonstone means that is absolutely not their motivation. Or rather they have interpreted their first duty in a way that ignores the King's command. So, if they know of Aerys's decree, they are either ignoring it in favor of another vow, or they are making a decision to decide themselves who is the rightful king - again ignoring Aerys's command. Whichever way you want to slice this it calls into question your assumption of the motivations of the three. We have to consider different motives than just the stock ones that have been repeated for years.

 

Let's assume, however, that they did not know about the decree. We are still making an assumption that the three men are making their decision based on Jon's legitimacy and his claim for the throne. Remember the three men's actions is supposed to be, under this theory, evidence that points to Jon's legitimacy - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The only reason to do that is based on Ned's view of the three. We have to decide before hand that these men act the way they do because they would follow the need to fulfill their first duty before all else. We do so based largely on Ned's view of them as "shining examples" and his view of Ser Arthur as the "best knight" he ever knew. The honorable Lord Eddard Stark would only say such things about men who strictly held to their vows. Or perhaps not.

 

As I think I show in the last half of part four of my essay, Ned's view of honor is not so tied to following the letter of vows when it conflicts with doing what is right. I think the key here is what Ned's thinks was right for these men to do. I don't think it is clear whether it was motivated by guarding their king, or guarding innocents who he loved, or both, or something else, and in someways is unimportant to understanding Ned. The effect was the same. They died protecting Lyanna, and probably Jon, from the danger they saw in Ned taking them. This guilt-inducing fact mixes with admiration for their self sacrifice, and sears the images of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent into his memory to the point he is still dreaming of their faces from their combat some fifteen years after the fact. It is their sacrifice to protect Lyanna that forms his view of the three, not just the fact they did or did not do their first duty in the way we read their oaths to mean.

 

This lack of clarity is important, however, in our trying to understand why the three fought and died where they did. Without the assumption of Jon's legitimacy, we can see these men's motives in many perspectives, and it may be that the motives of the three differ from one another. Because they all think Jon is the rightful heir, because they have decided Jon is the better heir than Viserys, because they honor their dead prince's command to guard Lyanna and perhaps her child, or because they choose to not abandon innocents to a fate they think Ned represents - or perhaps other motivations - are all things we must, I think, consider.

 

Lastly let me deal with Jaime's view of Hightower and his words to him at Rickard's and Brandon's executions. I've no doubt Jaime views Hightower with some anger. He has abandoned him to his duty to guard a mad king. It should be Hightower making these decisions a young seventeen year old boy is forced to make. So, when we read Jaime's statement about Hightower telling him not to judge Aerys we should view it through his bias. I think Hightower, like all Martin's characters, is probably much more complex in his thinking than Jaime's memory tells us. I've no doubt he was devoted to his duty, but whether his duties and experiences force him to deal with tough choices in a variety of ways remains to be seen.

[IceFire125]

 

No more so than Jon having to choose his duty as LC over Winterfell. I didn't say it had to be love of a person, and moreover didn't say it had to be romantic love. It could be love of his Stark family, it could be love of the NW's (should they still exist), it could be love of being Jon Snow, bastard born of Ned Stark, the identity he's carried for so long and would have to give up in order to be Jon Stark-Targaryen, newly crowned king. My larger point is that this is one of Jon's arc throughout: love vs duty.

 

Love of Robb/Ned vs Duty to the NW and his vows (book 1)

Love of Ygritte vs Duty to the NW/realm (book 3)

Love of Winterfell/Being made a Stark vs Duty to the realm/world as the WW's come for us in the night (book 5)

 

GRRM has being setting up that repetition for awhile. I think it's very possible that the last choice for Jon will be love of X (again, not necessarily a single person and not necessarily a romantic love) vs duty to the newly formed Westerosi realm after the Dawn has come (a Dawn he helped bring and has to see through)

 

I'm of the opinion Jon will deny/reject his heritage before he accepts it.  

 

When called up on to put his name at the Great Council he will run away from it, as he ran away from the NW.  However, honor brought him back, not his honor, but the honor of the people, from high lords to the lowliest of the common folks.

 

During and after the war for dawn, they'd know what Jon did, will do, and what he wants them to do...

 

I do not require men to kneel, but they do need to obey.

 

**This context came about with Jon's thought about how Sigorn looked at Jon as his enemy because of his Father that Jon killed.  He was seen as a god to his people.  Jon realized that it would be hard for them to kneel, but he must have them obey.  Later we found that Jon did a KINGLY duty.  He set up, presided and participated in the marriage of Sigorn, who's now the magnar and Alys, thus eliminating him as an enemy and added him as an ally.  

[Avalatis]

So, if they know of Aerys's decree, they are either ignoring it in favor of another vow, or they are making a decision to decide themselves who is the rightful king - again ignoring Aerys's command. Whichever way you want to slice this it calls into question your assumption of the motivations of the three. We have to consider different motives than just the stock ones that have been repeated for years.

 

Might you want to tackle Barristan Selmy? I'm of the opinion that the 3 Kingsguard at the TOJ had not heard the news. But assuming they did, does Barristan's actions regardings Robert's "orders/will" give you any insight?

[RumHam]

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.

 

 

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:

 

 

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. 

 

That's an interesting theory but I don't find it very convincing. (Also I'm still not totally clear on what qualifies as a "special phrase.") Isn't it just as likely that Jeor just wasn't considering the possibility of Jon holding a niece or nephew? I'd imagine for most men of the watch that's never an option. In any event one person speaking imprecisely doesn't convince me that Martin is intentionally creating dialects where phrases mean different things in different parts of Westeros.

 

It reminds me of Rickard Karstark telling Robb he'll be a kinslayer for offing him. I'm sure Robb doesn't agree that killing such a distant relative meets the standard for kinslaying, but both he and Karstark would probably define the term the same way. Again like with furnace wind, it's a matter of degrees. 

 

And I just wanna say one more time that I disagree with you on Quentyn using furnace wind to describe the flames that burnt him. To add to what Corbon said wind = air, not fire. When you open a furnace do flames shoot out or does hot air come out? I'm not trying to be rude but I don't get people who cling to the idea that furnace wind means anything more than exactly what it sounds like. 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

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.  

 

This example is even more tenuous. Obviously things like north and south are relative. Plus "The North" is a noun, not a phrase. It's not news that people from different cultures sometimes have different names for the same place.

[PodrickMayne]

So we know Rhaegar used to read obsessively when he was young until he found something that changed him right? I can't find that exact quote but my assumption is he found something about the long night AA and the three headed dragon. He has two children with his wife and a third on the way that he protects in TOJ to ensure he was born (Jon)

Now obviously Aegon survives and would be another head of the dragon. Is Rhaenys for sure dead? I'm thinking we can come to find out she also survived. I know most people think that the prince that was promised and AA are the same thing. But my thought is maybe Rhaegar found and read something that lead him to think he was the prince that was promised and his children would be the 3 heads of the dragon that is AA?

Also I could see Sam Tarley discovering the same texts and putting everything together and returning to Jon to tell him everything

It's a lot of speculation and maybe reaching a little but is all that possible?

[RumHam]

So we know Rhaegar used to read obsessively when he was young until he found something that changed him right? I can't find that exact quote but my assumption is he found something about the long night AA and the three headed dragon. He has two children with his wife and a third on the way that he protects in TOJ to ensure he was born (Jon)

Now obviously Aegon survives and would be another head of the dragon. Is Rhaenys for sure dead? I'm thinking we can come to find out she also survived. I know most people think that the prince that was promised and AA are the same thing. But my thought is maybe Rhaegar found and read something that lead him to think he was the prince that was promised and his children would be the 3 heads of the dragon that is AA?

Also I could see Sam Tarley discovering the same texts and putting everything together and returning to Jon to tell him everything

It's a lot of speculation and maybe reaching a little but is all that possible?

 

Here is the quote:

 

 "As a young boy, the Prince of Dragonstone was bookish to a fault. He was reading so early that men said Queen Rhaella must have swallowed some books and a candle whilst he was in her womb. Rhaegar took no interest in the play of other children. The maesters were awed by his wits, but his father's knights would jest sourly that Baelor the Blessed had been born again. Until one day Prince Rhaegar found something in his scrolls that changed him. No one knows what it might have been, only that the boy suddenly appeared early one morning in the yard as the knights were donning their steel. He walked up to Ser Willem Darry, the master-at-arms, and said, 'I will require sword and armor. It seems I must be a warrior.'"

 

 

 

As to Rhaenys's possible survival, I'd say no. Martin had this to say back before the Young Griff reveal:

 

I was wondering if you could answer (or take the "fifth") one teeny little question I've been dying to ask for the past year: Are Aegon and Rhaenys, Elia's children, well and truly dead?

 

All I have to say is that there is absolutely no doubt that little Princess Rhaenys was dragged from beneath her father's bed and slain.

 

 

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1106/

[Bael's Bastard]

 

Wouldn't this just be Robert's reign then?

 

I don't think so, personally. It's not like Robert hated being king but sucked it up and did his duty because it had to be done. He hated being king, and pretty much neglected to do his job. I can see Jon not wanting to be king, even hating to be king if he ever becomes one, but I can't see him being king and neglecting to do his job, or putting it all on others. 

[Sly Wren]

 

I guess that could fit with a trend for him. I'm not sure what love he would be giving up. Well I guess the North, but that seems kind of lame.

I'm not sold on the "Jon becomes King of all" option. But if he thought he had to--he got stabbed because he was going to try to save Arya and Winterfell. Thinks about his family often. So does Ghost. Giving up not just the North but all that he believes he is--Stark--giving up being near his family (if they come back--which it seems like they will) to go south and rule--can definitely see that as being a sacrifice. Not a romance, but a sacrifice of what he loves and believes in. 

[Avalatis]

 

I don't think so, personally. It's not like Robert hated being king but sucked it up and did his duty because it had to be done. He hated being king, and pretty much neglected to do his job. I can see Jon not wanting to be king, even hating to be king if he ever becomes one, but I can't see him being king and neglecting to do his job, or putting it all on others. 

 

Ah. I guess this is closer to Ned (which is obvious). Ned hated the idea he would become protector of the realm, but he would do his duty. Hopefully Jon has learned enough to know that "doing what is right" is not always the best solution.

[Avalatis]

I'm not sold on the "Jon becomes King of all" option. But if he thought he had to--he got stabbed because he was going to try to save Arya and Winterfell. Thinks about his family often. So does Ghost. Giving up not just the North but all that he believes he is--Stark--giving up being near his family (if they come back--which it seems like they will) to go south and rule--can definitely see that as being a sacrifice. Not a romance, but a sacrifice of what he loves and believes in. 

 

Yeah, that could be it. He kind of already gave up the Starks when he joined the NW, but I guess having to leave them after being reunited would be bitter.

[Sly Wren]

Again you assume that fulfilling their first duty is the motivation behind Hightower, Dayne, and Whent's action. As you allude to in your last sentence, we now have evidence which points towards that not being the case. If the Kingsguard knows of Aerys's action making Viserys his heir over Aegon, then these three men's decision not to send one of their number to Dragonstone means that is absolutely not their motivation. Or rather they have interpreted their first duty in a way that ignores the King's command. So, if they know of Aerys's decree, they are either ignoring it in favor of another vow, or they are making a decision to decide themselves who is the rightful king - again ignoring Aerys's command. Whichever way you want to slice this it calls into question your assumption of the motivations of the three. We have to consider different motives than just the stock ones that have been repeated for years.

 

Let's assume, however, that they did not know about the decree. We are still making an assumption that the three men are making their decision based on Jon's legitimacy and his claim for the throne. Remember the three men's actions is supposed to be, under this theory, evidence that points to Jon's legitimacy - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The only reason to do that is based on Ned's view of the three. We have to decide before hand that these men act the way they do because they would follow the need to fulfill their first duty before all else. We do so based largely on Ned's view of them as "shining examples" and his view of Ser Arthur as the "best knight" he ever knew. The honorable Lord Eddard Stark would only say such things about men who strictly held to their vows. Or perhaps not.

 

As I think I show in the last half of part four of my essay, Ned's view of honor is not so tied to following the letter of vows when it conflicts with doing what is right. I think the key here is what Ned's thinks was right for these men to do. I don't think it is clear whether it was motivated by guarding their king, or guarding innocents who he loved, or both, or something else, and in someways is unimportant to understanding Ned. The effect was the same. They died protecting Lyanna, and probably Jon, from the danger they saw in Ned taking them. This guilt-inducing fact mixes with admiration for their self sacrifice, and sears the images of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent into his memory to the point he is still dreaming of their faces from their combat some fifteen years after the fact. It is their sacrifice to protect Lyanna that forms his view of the three, not just the fact they did or did not do their first duty in the way we read their oaths to mean.

 

This lack of clarity is important, however, in our trying to understand why the three fought and died where they did. Without the assumption of Jon's legitimacy, we can see these men's motives in many perspectives, and it may be that the motives of the three differ from one another. Because they all think Jon is the rightful heir, because they have decided Jon is the better heir than Viserys, because they honor their dead prince's command to guard Lyanna and perhaps her child, or because they choose to not abandon innocents to a fate they think Ned represents - or perhaps other motivations - are all things we must, I think, consider.

:agree: Well stated. 

Not fully sold on the 3KG dying to protect Jon, but absolutely agree that the actions of the KG at the tower and Ned's reactions to them are specific to the situation and their choices. And neither Ned's assessment of them nor their actions themselves rely on Jon's legitimacy. They could think he's legit, but not necessary to their actions. 

[spoon89]

Yes, I know it's further away. But the point is that GRRM could decide to have Starfall play a larger role, even if it's not the closest on a map simply because it (Starfall) holds a larger significance to the RLJ story as a whole. Why introduce another facet--Nightsong/Nightsong's family or Kingrave/Kingsgrave family--when Starfall is close enough and already has a strong tie to the entire RLJ plot? There is also something to be said about the more people that know a secret, the more likely it is to get out.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. We are both making guesses, you based on story telling and mine on logistics of movement. GRRM will be the first to say his strong suit is not time lines, travel times and logistics of movement, it's story telling, so you may be correct, hopefully we will find out.

[SFDanny]

:agree: Well stated. 

Not fully sold on the 3KG dying to protect Jon, but absolutely agree that the actions of the KG at the tower and Ned's reactions to them are specific to the situation and their choices. And neither Ned's assessment of them nor their actions themselves rely on Jon's legitimacy. They could think he's legit, but not necessary to their actions. 

 

Thank you. I think Jon's presence fits with the actions of the Kingsguard. By that I mean they are stopping Ned from taking someone or someones who they are protecting from the threat Ned represents. I don't think Jon's presence at the tower is proven by their actions though. Just that their actions make sense with him there or without him at the tower.

[The Khal Who Rode West]

Why would Ned respect the three men as Kingsguard when they let at least 3 people ahead of Jon in the line of succession die (Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon), another who was ahead of Jon be forced to flee in exile (Viserys), let one princess die (Rhaenys), and their queen (Rhaella) and another princess (Dany) be forced to flee in exile? And they couldn't even protect Jon as they failed to defend him from his enemies as they couldn't stop Ned. They seem to be the worst Kingsguard ever.

Yet Ned does respect them. He calls Arthur the finest knight he ever saw, he buried the three equally with his own men who were men he vowed never to forget, and he brought Arthur's sword back to his family. But they were terrible Kingsguard. So perhaps Ned doesn't respect them as Kingsguard but as knights/men.

[BearQueen87]

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. We are both making guesses, you based on story telling and mine on logistics of movement. GRRM will be the first to say his strong suit is not time lines, travel times and logistics of movement, it's story telling, so you may be correct, hopefully we will find out.

 

Whatever the case, I'm sure we will find out. :)

 

 

Why would Ned respect the three men as Kingsguard when they let at least 3 people ahead of Jon in the line of succession die (Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon), another who was ahead of Jon be forced to flee in exile (Viserys), let one princess die (Rhaenys), and their queen (Rhaella) and another princess (Dany) be forced to flee in exile? And they couldn't even protect Jon as they failed to defend him from his enemies as they couldn't stop Ned. They seem to be the worst Kingsguard ever.

Yet Ned does respect them. He calls Arthur the finest knight he ever saw, he buried the three equally with his own men who were men he vowed never to forget, and he brought Arthur's sword back to his family. But they were terrible Kingsguard. So perhaps Ned doesn't respect them as Kingsguard but as knights/men.

 

Or they were really good KG who defended the baby they thought was the rightful king and Ned respects that.

[The Khal Who Rode West]

 
Whatever the case, I'm sure we will find out. :)
 
 
 
Or they were really good KG who defended the baby they thought was the rightful king and Ned respects that.

But again how are they good Kingsguard? They failed to protect anybody.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

But again how are they good Kingsguard? They failed to protect anybody.

Is Barristan a failed KG then? His King ordered him to stand aside when he attacked the boar, and died. Barristan did not protect him, because his king had given him specific orders.

Who is to say that someone with authority (Aerys, or due to earlier orders from Aerys, perhaps Rhaegar) did not order the three KG away from the King (Aerys)?