R+L=J v 150

[Regular John Umber]

 

Jon is royalty, heir to the throne, and it is even hinted in the passage that the Kingsguard have sworn fealty to him before Ned arrives. 

 

 

 

 This has probably been done to death, but I still need it clarified: he's not the heir. He's third in line. Viserys and then Aegon are ahead, aren't they? So if they need to guard the heir, shouldn't they be trying to get to the actual heir, and not standing out in the open for a fight?

[Ygrain]

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

 This has probably been done to death, but I still need it clarified: he's not the heir. He's third in line. Viserys and then Aegon are ahead, aren't they? So if they need to guard the heir, shouldn't they be trying to get to the actual heir, and not standing out in the open for a fight?

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.

[Regular John Umber]

 

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.

 

 

 

 Ok, yeah, I can see that as a viable explanation. 

 

 One thing that bugs me, however, is where those three are getting their information from?

[BearQueen87]

 

 

 Ok, yeah, I can see that as a viable explanation. 

 

 One thing that bugs me, however, is where those three are getting their information from?

 

Probably the same place they were getting their food and supplies from, and IMO, the most likely explanation is Starfall.

[Sly Wren]

 

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.

Yes--that does work. The Starfall aspects and Arthur's telling Ned where Lyanna is--that also works whether Rhaegar or Arthur=father.  And works with some of the things Ned says about Arthur and the Kingsguard.

 

Ned never says Aerys' iteration of the KG are "the finest Knights" or a "shining example to the world." Only says the KG "once" were that--never says when that once-upon-a-time era ended. Given what happened to his family and the KG's participation--seems at least reasonable to assume Ned might not see Aerys' KG as a "shining example" of anything.

 

But Arthur is the finest knight Ned ever saw. Not KG. Knight. Why? Perhaps because in the end (or even earlier) he followed the knightly code of protecting the weak. Like Lyanna and her child. 

 

Ned's calling Arthur finest knight vs. finest KG might be a distinction without a difference. But it might also be a clue as to what Arthur did to gain Ned's respect. 

 

As for Dawn--if story needs a Sword of the Morning and if Dawn is as important as some of the hints in the texts say it might be--Jon and Sword of the Morning is definitely a possibility. If he is a Dayne.

[corbon]

 

 One thing that bugs me, however, is where those three are getting their information from?

 

Well, the one source that is definitely spreading information far and wide with all resources possible are the victorious rebels. Key Points (what the rebels need you to know): Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon are dead, KL taken, the Targaryen Dynasty (and army) is overthrown, the war is over and Robert is the new king.

 

That particular set of news is definitely going out everywhere, including to whoever their source of news (and possibly supplies) is. And it isn't likely to contain irrelevant (to the rebels) tidbits like Aerys changing his heir to Viserys near the end, for example.

 

Its possible they have another origin source of their news, a survivor of the sack or similar who can get them news of special interest to them, but we have few clues to who that could be and logically such a source (who knows their location) is a Rhaegar supporter rather than an Aerys supporter and might not tell them about the Viserys/heir change anyway.

 

Note also that there will be no ravens trained to fly to ToJ, so their news will be considerably delayed from events no matter who the original source is.

[UnmaskedLurker]

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.

I really don't think I am stacking things in any respect. Ned's opinion of Arthur would not be formed merely based on what happened at ToJ. Now, if Arthur behaved badly at ToJ, such actions would preclude Ned from thinking highly of Arthur at all. So we know that Ned believes that Arthur acted honorably at ToJ. But the basis upon which Ned might distinguish Arthur from the other two likely would be based on information beyond only the ToJ events.

 

Arthur was well known in Westeros and had a long history of having a reputation for being honorable. Ned would have encountered Arthur at tourneys, presumably, and possibly other situations. So Ned distinguishing Arthur from the other two as "the best" knight he ever knew simply suggests that additional information beyond the events of ToJ went into Ned's opinion. But what we can conclude with absolute certainty is that Ned does not believe that Arthur acted dishonorably at ToJ or otherwise.

 

Breaking the KG vows to father Jon would be a dishonorable act for a KG -- they have a vow of celibacy. So I believe Ned's view of Arthur precludes Arthur from being the father. This view is completely independent of whether I believe RLJ. Even if I did not believe RLJ, I would still preclude Arthur from the list of possible fathers based on this line of reasoning. I also believe that keeping Lyanna against her will also would not be seen as honorable -- even given orders from Rhaegar, but that conclusion is not necessary to my conclusion that Arthur cannot be the father.

 

As to your second paragraph, I have no idea what you mean. You talk obliquely about "other questions" but never clarify what those questions happen to be. If you let me know specifically what questions you think create potential issues for the RLJ theory, I will address those questions. But I have no idea what questions you actually mean here.

 

 

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.  

 

 

I think others have addressed this issue adequately. As others have noted, there is a huge difference between the Brandon/Rickard situation and the Lyanna situation. Basically, Brandon broke the law and Rickard foolishly agreed to be his champion. Yes, Aerys cheated, but that is only a side point -- those men were rightfully being held in KL. No justification could exist for keeping Lyanna against her will at ToJ and raped. But as I noted, others have addressed these points adequately, so I will not belabor the point.

[Sly Wren]

 

 

 Ok, yeah, I can see that as a viable explanation. 

 

 One thing that bugs me, however, is where those three are getting their information from?

Could be messengers. Could be travelers coming through the pass--wiki describes it as the main route into Dorne, so hardly hidden. 

 

Plus we've no idea when they got to the tower. If they've only just arrived, could have gotten info at whatever place they were. So, lots of options for the info.

[MtnLion]

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.

He is asked to distinguish one.  Not three.  He chose one of the three.  I said that Ned values those three because they died defending their king, honoring their vow.  He could have chosen any one of the three, but chose Arthur. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

He is asked to distinguish one.  Not three.  He chose one of the three.  I said that Ned values those three because they died defending their king, honoring their vow.  He could have chosen any one of the three, but chose Arthur. 

Also keep in mind the Arthur was the Sword of the Morning -- an honor that only goes to the most deserving Dayne (e.g., the seat is vacant at this point in the story). So Arthur certainly may have done additional actions prior to the events of ToJ that distinguished him above the other two. Ned is not restricted in forming his views solely based on the ToJ actions (although obviously they are quite important -- just not the sole source of information to form an opinion).

[MtnLion]

Also keep in mind the Arthur was the Sword of the Morning -- an honor that only goes to the most deserving Dayne (e.g., the seat is vacant at this point in the story). So Arthur certainly may have done additional actions prior to the events of ToJ that distinguished him above the other two. Ned is not restricted in forming his views solely based on the ToJ actions (although obviously they are quite important -- just not the sole source of information to form an opinion).

There are many reasons for Ned to elevate Arthur above the others, like his skills at arms. GRRM puts it this way, Barristan and Arthur were equals at swordplay, unless Arthur was wielding Dawn. Dawn gave Arthur a distinct advantage.

Ned despises Jaime because he broke his vow. No excuse is going to be adequate, since people often neglect the rest of the interchange between Robert and Ned. "Someone had to do it." "Better you or I."

His sword helped taint the throne you sit on, Ned thought, but did not permit the words to pass his lips. "He swore a vow to protect his king's life with his own. Then he opened that king's throat with a sword."  He broke his vow, nothing can excuse that, not even saving lives.

[MtnLion]

Ned never says Aerys' iteration of the KG are "the finest Knights" or a "shining example to the world." Only says the KG "once" were that--never says when that once-upon-a-time era ended. Given what happened to his family and the KG's participation--seems at least reasonable to assume Ned might not see Aerys' KG as a "shining example" of anything.

So, when is Ned going to observe finer knights than these?  The Kingsguard were once the finest knights, a shining example to the world.  But, not any more.  One among them that was the finest of them all was Arthur Dayne.  That sounds an awful lot like first hand knowledge.  So, when exactly is Ned going to see a finer group of Kingsguard?  Go back through the Kingsguard appointments, and pick the dates that Ned would have been alive to see a better group. Please list the seven that Ned is likely to refer to as "shining examples to the world", and include contemporaries of Arthur Dayne, for us.  ;)

 

Piffle.

[Bael's Bastard]

Though not from Ned's perspective, the quote below is an indication of the sort of stuff Arthur did which might have elevated him as a knight above others in the minds of some. 

 

"Good luck getting answers then," said Jaime. "If you want their help, you need to make them love you. That was how Arthur Dayne did it, when we rode against the Kingswood Brotherhood. He paid the smallfolk for the food we ate, brought their grievances to King Aerys, expanded the grazing lands around their villages, even won them the right to fell a certain number of trees each year and take a few of the king's deer during the autumn. The forest folk had looked to Toyne to defend them, but Ser Arthur did more for them than the Brotherhood could ever hope to do, and won them to our side. After that, the rest was easy."

 

[Avalatis]

If he becomes a king out of necessity and totally hates it, that might qualify, IMHO.

 

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

[spoon89]

Probably the same place they were getting their food and supplies from, and IMO, the most likely explanation is Starfall.

 

Nightsong and Kingsgrave are both closer and in the same pass as the ToJ, I find them far more likely sources of supplies, food and news.

 

One of the little mysteries has always been how LC Hightower (and Ned) were able to locate the ToJ.

 

My most plausible theory is that LC Hightower would have sent raven messages to the loyalist households asking if they had seen Rhaegar passing through and may have gotten word from the Tyrells, that Rhaegar and party had been seen moving south towards the Prince's Pass due to information aquired from Lord Ashford. Ashford is sworn to the Tyrells and located north of the pass, Robert's attack on Ashford was thwarted before he took the castle and at the time of the battle he was a rebel fight loyalists, so the locals are not likely to talk. Mace was there post battle and likely visited with Lord Ashford, so Mace may have learned from Lord Ashford of Rhaegar's passage at that time, if not before. Timing wise Hightower was tasked with finding Rhaegar after the BotB which was after the Battle of Ashford, so it's plausible that Mace could tell Highower and send him in the correct general direction.

 

I believe Ned learned of their general whereabouts or heading during the breaking of the Siege of Storms. Ned had no clue where they were previous to the Sack, otherwise he would have refused the pursuit post Battle of Ruby Ford to go after Lyanna (Robert would have let him). The same goes for the time period after the sack and before the breaking of the siege at Storms End, if he had a clue where she was, he would have insisted someone else be put in charge of breaking the siege. If Mace did have the information of Rhaegar's passage, he could have told Ned of it during or after the negotiations for the end of the siege. Then Ned headed out to find her with his small party of close companions, possibly to trying to keep whatever they potentially found in a small group of trusted men, and also to minimize the chances of the Dorne seeing them as an attack by the crown on Dorne (Dorne was not at peace with the crown yet).

 

TL/DR: Mace is a likely source of information for Rhaegar general whereabouts for LC Hightower and Ned.

[Sly Wren]

So, when is Ned going to observe finer knights than these?  The Kingsguard were once the finest knights, a shining example to the world.  But, not any more.  One among them that was the finest of them all was Arthur Dayne.  That sounds an awful lot like first hand knowledge.  So, when exactly is Ned going to see a finer group of Kingsguard?  Go back through the Kingsguard appointments, and pick the dates that Ned would have been alive to see a better group. Please list the seven that Ned is likely to refer to as "shining examples to the world", and include contemporaries of Arthur Dayne, for us.  ;)

 

Piffle.

But why would he have had to see them? He's telling Bran stories. Like Bran remembers the stories Old Nan told him about the knights and their names being like music to him. Like Ned was probably told stories. About wonderful knights, once upon a time, who were the shining example to the world. But no more. Can't see why on earth he'd have to have seen better knights vs. just have heard stories.

 

Aerys' KG helped Aerys torture and murder Ned's family. And friends. No matter their skills, seems like Ned would have good reason not to have a good opinion of them. Until the text delineates (which it has not) why or when Ned thinks the shining aspect of the KG was lost, seems like Aerys' KG have to at least be on the table of options.

 

He doesn't say Arthur was a great knight because of the KG. Just says he was the finest and that "he would have killed me but for Howland Reed." Then gets sad and silent and Bran later wishes he'd asked what Ned meant. Why sad after the story? What happened that made Ned explicitly think of Arthur as fine but not the others? Just left out of text? Definitely possible. Something more? Also possible.

[BearQueen87]

I know that Nightsong and Kingsgrave are closer but neither has the connection that Starfall has--either in terms of loyalty, symbolic importance, and subsequent event following the ToJ fight and death of Lyanna. Starfall is tied to the larger RLJ mystery with Arthur and Wyalla at minimum (Ashara is still a puzzle piece) so, for me, while Nightsong and Kingsgrave are closer, Starfall is the more logical answer for story reasons, not logistical ones.

 

ETA: whoops. I meant to quote Spoon89 in reply. Obviously my above answer is in response to Spoon's response to me.

[Avalatis]

 

One of Jon's biggest themes is duty vs love

 

I've also thought a major theme or decision point for a lot of characters is doing what is right vs. doing what is necessary. More often than not our characters are punished for picking the "doing what is right" instead of doing "what is necessary" (morally shady option sometimes). Though I guess Jon was punished for doing "what was necessary" in the last book.

 

I'd think it would be bittersweet if he assumed the throne not because it was "right" but because it was necessary. So of course he is conflicted over this, but he sees the need for it.

 

 

That's bittersweet IMO. He's making the right decision to rule the kingdoms but giving up someone/something he loves as the price.

 

Wouldn't this just be a repeat of Ygritte? He chose his duty to the night's watch over the love for her.

[BearQueen87]

Wouldn't this just be a repeat of Ygritte? He chose his duty to the night's watch over the love for her.

 

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)

[spoon89]

I know that Nightsong and Kingsgrave are closer but neither has the connection that Starfall has--either in terms of loyalty, symbolic importance, and subsequent event following the ToJ fight and death of Lyanna. Starfall is tied to the larger RLJ mystery with Arthur and Wyalla at minimum (Ashara is still a puzzle piece) so, for me, while Nightsong and Kingsgrave are closer, Starfall is the more logical answer for story reasons, not logistical ones.

 

ETA: whoops. I meant to quote Spoon89 in reply. Obviously my above answer is in response to Spoon's response to me.

 

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).