R+L=J v.151

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

 
1.) No. The royal family was a threat in its entirety to the new regime.
 
2.) While it's an "open secret" in Casterly Rock of how Elia and her children died. There is no "official" accounting supporting that. When Jon Arrn went down to Dorne to try smooth things over he clearly did not admit to Elia and her children being murdered at the order of Tywin. Obeyrn makes mention of this in one of his dialogues.
 
No one openly claims the Lannisters did such a heinous act (besides the Martells).
 
So how does this curry favor:
 
Pycelle (not Yandel, as he is just working the sources/documents he has according to Ran) paints a harsh division between the Dornish and Aerys. Says they stink, constantly insults them, disinherits Aegon, and then has them killed. Lannisters lose the stigma if they can get history to dictate it happened that way. Jaime is still a "Kingslayer", but I think the only people truly pissed about that are Ned and probably Barristan.
 
This is more about history is written by the victors.

There was no official story until a few weeks after Joffrey's death, but everyone knew it had been Lannister orders. Ned, the Tyrells, Tyrion.. It's just that no one with authority ever confirmed it officially.

Trying to blame Aerys, or Elia, for the deaths,might be believed a century or two from the current story. However, those who were alive during the Rebellion know better, and even such a book won't change a thing.

A book, I might add, which came out either a while after, or around the same time, as the confession of the man who did the deed: Gregor.

[Lord Varys]

I imagine if ML actually read the book he would know that Yandel is clearly repeating rumors that are marked as such by his choice of words when he talks about Aerys or Elia possibly killing Rhaegar's children. And if he had actually done his research he would also know that the intention of the authors was to have the page appear to be messed which on that section, suggesting that either Yandel or a scribe had changed what was written there originally (perhaps in the wake of Joffrey's and Tommen's ascension and the dominant part the Lannisters played during their reigns - which was much different from the role they played during the reign of Robert during which the whole section of the history of the Targaryen supposedly was written) but that was apparently considered to be impossible during the production.

 

UL,

 

Yandel identifies Prince Viserys as Aerys II's 'new heir'. New heir as opposed to the late 'old heir', Prince Rhaegar. Now since primogeniture would suggest that Rhaegar's heir, Prince Aegon, would also be Aerys' 'new heir' after the Trident, the fact that Yandel says that it was Prince Viserys makes it clear that the king must have named him heir. It is also quite clear that Yandel speaks about the time prior to the Sack here, and there is no reason to assume that he was somehow confusing things with the later time after Aerys' and Aegon's (alleged) death - then any heir Aerys might have named would have been irrelevant in any case, since Robert I would then have been Yandel's king. Note that neither Viserys nor Daenerys are really touched upon in that book after Robert's ascension since they both posed a very serious threat to the Baratheon dynasty. George deliberately chose to not elaborate on this whole thing, but it is obviously new information, and possibly a thing to be elaborated on in future books - precisely because it was only touched upon in passing. 

 

I'm not sure what Viserys told to Dany later on - or what Rhaella told Viserys while she was still alive. We know that Rhaella supposedly shielded Viserys from his father's madness, and Viserys clearly did not touch upon the bad or horrific aspects of his father's reign when talking to Dany about the past. And I'm pretty sure that would include omitting any strife that was within House Targaryen at this point - between his mother and father, between Elia and Rhaegar, between Aerys and the Martells, and so on. Considering that Dany knows the story about the deaths of Elia and her children one could assume he remained silent about himself being named heir instead of Aegon - especially in light of the fact that his mother later crowned him. We also have no idea when exactly Viserys began telling Dany's those stories. Most likely at a time when she was old enough to understand aspects of it, say, when she was 5-7 or so. That would have been years after the fact, and telling Dany the story how the Dornishmen betrayed Rhaegar at the Trident, which then led to their father naming him heir in Aegon's place wouldn't have been a good or positive story - especially in light of the fact that Viserys III hoped the Martells would back him should he ever return to Westeros. The way Elia and her children died made Viserys and the Martells natural allies again - which wouldn't have been the case had they survived the Sack.

 

Another possibility is that Dany simply doesn't remember stuff correctly when she thinks about Aegon, and what she actually means is that Aegon would have (possibly) been king one day if Rhaegar hadn't been killed at the Trident.

 

When Dany reminisces about 'King Aegon VI' she clearly thinks about what would have happened if the Targaryen dynasty hadn't been toppled. Without a war Aegon would eventually have ascended the Iron Throne if he hadn't predeceased Aerys II or Rhaegar I.

 

Corbon,

 

we actually do know that the average guy (Larys Strong, the Master of Whisperers, who doesn't speak with the King's Voice) can order the Kingsguard to protect the king's children rather than the king himself, leaving Aegon II without KG protection.

 

The SSM about George stating that the knights at the tower had to obey Rhaegar lacks context (and the exact order) but it is quite clear that the knights considered Rhaegar to be an authority they felt they had to (and chose to) obey. Why they did that, why Rhaegar's best friend(s) didn't accompany him to battle, and why the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard felt his place was at that tower rather than at the side of Aerys II or Rhaegar is still a mystery.

 

The idea that three KGs doing stuff at a tower where most likely a prince of the blood is not as striking as, say, four KG hanging out at KL protecting the empty Red Keep while the entire royal family was traveling to Winterfell (Robert, Cersei, Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen were only accompanied by Jaime, Trant, and Blount, while Selmy, Moore, Greenfield, and Oakheart stayed at KL). We also know that Heirs Apparent to the Iron Throne can have sworn shields that are not part of the KG - Sandor Clegane and Harwin Strong, for instance.

 

We don't have to make a fuzz about three KG being at the tower - if it was their mission to protect this tower and its inhabitants then that's no problem, not even after Rhaegar's and Aerys' death. If they can effectively abandon the Prince of Dragonstone and the king himself to their enemies (not being there at the Trident and during the Sack) then there is really no reason to believe that the reason why they continued to stay at the tower after (or if) they learned about Rhaegar and Aerys' death, and the whereabouts of Prince Viserys is that they thought that the king was there with them. They could just have felt honor-bound to continue their mission there, and I'm pretty sure they would have stayed there even if they had been protecting only Lyanna (after a stillbirth) or only dying Lyanna and newborn girl.

 

The whole talk the dream knights give could work if they were protecting the king's bastard, the king's sister, the king's wife, or any other person the king had reason to put under their protection (perhaps even the king's favorite third cousin).

 

A KG cannot protect the king from himself. If he realizes assassins are attacking the king he should try to save him even if he has other duties at that time, but if they king says something like 'Get out of my way you fool, I'll take them myself!' he better goes out of the way even if it is quite clear that king doesn't stand a chance on his own. The same would be if the king order him to flee and take his daughter or wife with him.

[Alia of the knife]

:agree:

Martins taking his reference from these events means we will be arguing about this until the books are finished and we get an answer from him, because its true that the laws were both based on precedent AND messy.

 

In other words the laws were followed if it was in the best interests of everyone, or the laws were broken if it was in the best interests of everyone, because the claim the Tudors had to the throne were pretty small, and were it not for the Welsh, (i.e., see Dorne), factor, Henry VII wouldn't have even made it to Bosworth Field.

 

So in this vein we get the KG at the tower and we get two viable reasons from Selmy why they may have been there:

 

1. They were protecting the true heir to the throne, another legitimate son of Rhaegars.

 

2. They were ordered to protect Lyanna and her unborn child, whatever gender it may have been as it pleased the king to extend those protections to others, ( mistresses, lovers, etc. of members of the royal family).

And good analogy with Henry Tudor.

Would only add that the list of options could extend beyond what you've given. But those two options seem the most likely.

 

Thats true, but I didn't have the rest in front of me. However, since we also got that bit of information in Dance, it sounds like a deliberate clarification on the authors part and that we can't take Jons being the last Targaryen king for granted, though that is my personal opinion.

Again, just referencing history, it would be a dishonor beyond all dishonor to take the Warden of the norths only maiden daughter who is betrothed to another great House, and force her to become his mistress.

He would have to marry her, and taking her takes that choice out of EVERYONES hands, especially if he can get a child on her as quickly as possible, (see tPatQ).

 

Alia--

 

In your possibility #2, who are you suggesting that the KG consider to be King -- Aerys or Rhaegar? I sort of have trouble either way. If Aerys, he never gave them orders to be at ToJ. I have a bigger problem the other way as I find it completely implausible that Hightower would consider Rhaegar to be King. Now with respect to Dayne and Whent, Aerys extended them to Rhaegar, so they followed his orders and then perhaps he extended to Lyanna/Jon. Regarding Hightower -- I don't think Aerys ever formally extended him to Rhaegar, but Hightower might have considered himself to be following Aerys orders as the only way to get Rhaegar back to KL might have been to agree to stay at ToJ.

 

But the point I have been making repeatedly today (and many times in the past) is that when the King dies (and Rhaegar -- the person who gave the order dies) and the new heir to throne is on DS without any KG -- and there are no other KG to get to the new heir because they are all dead or incapacitated -- those orders would not supersede the need to get KG protection to the rightful heir. Yes, someone with authority can give an explicit order not to go (like Ned did), but absent such an explicit order, the KG's first obligation would be to get KG protection to the rightful heir. But they do not go to DS. So I don't see how they could have considered it possible that V was rightful king or that they can stay at ToJ if V is rightful king. So they must not know about any naming of V as heir.

 

 

I'm going to give you a very honest answer, and say that I don't know. This is definitely a piece of the story that we need context, because they could be there for any number reasons that Martin gave.

 

The question of Dayne and Whent are confusing, because they are with Rhaegar when he takes Lyanna. Were they there on orders of the king, and did Aerys know what Rhaegar was about, but not where?

Were they there because Rhaegar tricked them, using their orders against them to bind them when they should have turned back and gone to Aerys? He seemed to bind Hightower, because I don't believe Hightower was there because he wanted to be.

Aerys is the king, not Rhaegar and they serve at Aerys pleasure.

 

Was it a coup and they made a similarly, willful decision that Cole did when he took Queen Alicients side over Viserys last wish which put Aegon on the throne instead of Rhaenyra?

With the exception of Hightower, did they choose Rhaegar over Aerys and did they parce their decision on the condition Rhaegar didn't call himself king for the good of the kingdom?

 

I mean we have seen instances when Rhaegar did travel on his own and alone as in Summerhall, so they would not have necessarily need to go with Rhaegar if he was engaged in something that was contradictory to Aerys wishes.

 

This is what I mean by those Medieval laws that Martin based much of these things upon. People followed the laws so long as it was in the best interests of the kingdom, and they also broke them, so if some members of the KG like Cole, (though I believe he did what he did because Rhae spurned him), thought a male would be better, they would play the GOT.

 

If Dayne, (who now I believe we have found is actually Rhaegars cousin), and Whent believed Rhaegar would be better for the Kingdom, then they played the GOT, and Selmy seems not approve of such for the KG.

 

In real history many an unstable monarch had the bloodline and the right to sit the throne they were born to, but at least in Englands case, they didn't live very long on the throne, (see Richard II, and Henry IV).

[Alia of the knife]

I was reading the Arthur + Lyanna = Jon essay over at the Last Hearth. Has anybody else here seen this? It makes some interesting points, mostly stuff I've seen brought up before, as well as a couple of new things. There's also some fairly weak arguments put forth, imo. Overall I'd say it's not that great. But I'm not sure if the blame can really be placed on the author, since there's really not a lot hinting at AD+L=J.

 

Anyway, one of the big problems with AD+L=J is, if it's true why keep it a secret? What's the big deal? I'm not sure there is a satisfactory answer to that question. Here is what Superunknown5 offered up:

 

 

I don't think this is a very good explanation, since having Ned declare that Jon was Arthur and Lyanna's would severely damage the credibility of any attempt to claim he was Rhaegar's. I'm not really sure how you get around that either. In fact, it reminds me of the discussions I've been a part of about the potential problem with Jon pressing a Targaryen claim, since Ned has already claimed him as his own bastard. Add in the testimony of Howland Reed and anyone else who knew that AD+L=J, and I just don't see how this is supposed to be a problem.

 

Some person: But Rhaegar kidnapped her!

 

Ned: Yeah, with Arthur Dayne and a few others.

 

Some other person: But the baby has Valyrian looks!

 

Ned: Yeah, so do some of the Daynes. Listen, he's Arthur and Lyanna's child. I swear it to the old gods and the new.

 

Howland Reed: Me too.

 

Problem solved.

 

Further, it seems like Ned is haunted by the truth of Jon's parentage, not a hypothetical misunderstanding. "And when you have it, what then? Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." - AGoT, Eddard VIII. This secret, that Arthur Dayne is Jon's father, would not be dangerous on its own. It's only dangerous if Jon looks like one of the Daynes who looked somewhat like a Targaryen. And we know by the time of AGoT that Jon looks like a Stark. So the entire reason for this secret being so dangerous has disappeared. In fact, this would have long been obvious by 298AC.

 

One thing that occurred to me while reading this is that, assuming RLJ is true, AD+L=J is a pretty good cover story in case the baby ends up looking Targaryen. So why didn't Ned go that route? Among other reasons, I can't imagine Ned Stark besmirching the honor of Ser Arthur Dayne with such a lie. Ned took the slight to his honor upon himself. "He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night." - AGoT, Eddard I.

 

While I could see one of them, ( and I actually tend to think Whent fits this bill more than the dedicated AD), loving Lyanna from afar, rather like Lancelot/Guinevere, and that might be another reason to fight for her, I don't see anything beyond that, especially after Rhaegars death where Dayne would feel that he was betraying his friend.

 

Dayne was also a cousin to Rhaegar I believe, with Targaryen blood infused into the Dayne bloodline which would account for their appearance. If Jon had had a child with Ygritte, that child could very come out with silver hair. Awkward.

[Lord Varys]

UL/Alia,

 

we don't even know for sure whether Dayne or Whent actually were Rhaegar's sworn shields. They may have been, or only one of them (with the other sticking to Rhaegar because he was his friend). Hell, it may even be that neither was formally assigned to Rhaegar, and both decided to stick with him before they were closer to him than to Aerys.

 

Depending on how Aerys' take on Rhaegar was when he called him back it may be that Hightower informed Rhaegar that his father had named him Protector of the Realm - in that case Rhaegar could have had sufficient authority to command Hightower to not return to KL with him even if Hightower remained 'Aerys' man' until the end. But we don't even know that much.

 

The example of Aegon II - who hang out without KG on Dragonstone with a bastard knight and his kin as sole companions until he named that bastard knight to his Kingsguard - makes it quite clear that the KG had no duty to rejoin a KG-less king if they were done with they task (or the people giving them they orders were dead - Thorne and Fell wouldn't had handed Maelor and Jaehaera to Rhaenyra had she presented the heads of Larys Strong and Aegon II on the city walls.

 

Hightower, Dayne, and Whent presumably had been given important assignments, and the Queen Dowager and the young king where safe on Dragonstone. If Rhaella wanted her son protected by a White Sword she could always throw a white cloak to one of her retainers - say, Ser Willem Darry.

 

We don't know what order Rhaegar gave to the knights at the tower, but it is easily imaginable that this order was phrased, intended, and interpreted in a way that excluded the knights from going to Viserys on Dragonstone - say, because they were expressly forbidden to leave Lyanna and/or her unborn child under any circumstances. We don't have to assume that Hightower would have send someone to Dragonstone had he known that Viserys III was there and had he believed that he was king. It is just as likely that he felt all of them had to stay at the tower.

 

Jon stuff:

 

I actually think the fact that Ned made Jon his bastard rather than Lyanna's bastard child by Rhaegar (or Arthur, or whoever, really) is a strong sign for a public/well-known marriage. Ned doesn't like to lie, and a Targaryen bastard in control of Eddard Stark certainly wouldn't have been a threat to Robert - if all the world knew about Lyanna and Rhaegar was that he abducted her then he could easily have been raised at Winterfell as Lyanna's bastard rather than Ned's. The whole Ned angle of the thing caused all the internal Stark family trouble, and the chance that Robert would ever have hurt Lyanna's child and Ned's bastard nephew simply doesn't make any sense.

[Kingmonkey]

Its not a correct extrapolation to then assume that they would always have to obey any order given to them by Rhaegar (which is the assumption the 'obey' side insists upon) in any circumstance. This is proven by reductio ad absurdum. If they must obey all orders all the time then there is a fundamental failure. If a prince orders them to kill the king or to turn away while he kills the king, they must obey? No, sorry, that is completely illogical and unacceptable. There must be limitations on what orders must be obeyed or they have no value as bodyguards and no reason to exist.

Agreed 100%. However, we shouldn't assume that such situations are stipulated. I doubt the KG vows have anything along the lines "You must obey the princes of the blood too, unless they order you to kill the king" -- common sense would come into play there. Jaime has his little speech about how vows can conflict and you don't know what to do, which tells us that the vows the KG swear are not clear-cut in every situation. In the case you describe, where a prince orders a KG to kill the king, it would be very easy for the KG to realise that wasn't on without having it laid out for them. Other circumstances may be less easy to decide on.

What happens if the king orders a Kingsguard to kill him? I very much doubt that's covered by the kingsguard vows either. As with Jaime's conflicting vows, the KG would have to decide whether to protect the king or to obey the king -- he'd have to fail in one duty or the other. As the primary duty of the KG is to protect the king, I'd imagine that most KG would have the sense to refuse (and then yell for an adult).

Now what would happen if that putative prince, rather than ordering a KG to kill the king, simply orders a KG to do something other than protect the king? That isn't nearly so clear. If the KG had a good reason to believe that the king was in imminent danger, it surely seems clear that the KG would choose protect.

You gave the illustrative example of a kingsguard guarding a door when there's sounds of the king being attacked behind it, and in that example you are surely right. It would be a strange KG indeed who didn't put protect above obeying the prince's orders. On the other hand, suppose that king is on Dragonstone, protected by 2000 men and a large fleet of ships easily capable of destroying any invasion fleet you can imagine being assembled within the next few months? In that case, the KG might very well decide that going to Dragonstone would do nothing to improve the king's safety, and thus would not leave his post.
 

Hence Barristan cannot protect Robert from the boar, because the King himself ordered him not to. But Barristan would not have left Robert unprotected by the KG, abandoned the first duty, on anyone else's orders (such as Cersei for example).

There's a point about Barristan and the Boar which I think is worth bringing up here:
 

"It shall be as you command, my lord." Ser Barristan seemed old beyond his years. "I have failed my sacred trust."
"Even the truest knight cannot protect a king against himself," Ned said. "Robert loved to hunt boar. I have seen him take a thousand of them." He would stand his ground without flinching, his legs braced, the great spear in his hands, and as often as not he would curse the boar as it charged, and wait until the last possible second, until it was almost on him, before he killed it with a single sure and savage thrust. "No one could know this one would be his death."
"You are kind to say so, Lord Eddard."

As you say, Barristan can't refuse this order of the king, even though it means the king being in some danger. There's an additional point that Ned makes though: "No one could know this would be his death." Ned is telling Barristan not to blame himself -- partly because he was obeying orders, but also partly because he had no reason to believe the king was going to be killed.

 

In the example of a king (or prince) ordering a KG to kill that king, the order could indeed be refused, as the KG would have good reason to believe that the order would result in the king's death, but that is not the case here. ML is fond of pointing out that Ned's understanding of the KG vows must come into play in the ToJ dream, and it seems that Ned's understanding of the KG vows allows for a KG to not defend the king if there is no reason to think the king's about to die.
 

If Viserys is their king (and they are loyal to Aerys and believe Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon dead) they are electing to leave a live king unprotected by the KG, ignoring the first duty, in favour of an outdated princely order by a dead prince. That order didn't contradict their first duty when it was given, but circumstances have changed since then and now it does.

Considering all the above, this conclusion requires two assumptions to be true.
1. That the first duty is not just to ensure the king is safe, but to do it personally by his side at all times. We can't be certain either way, but this is counter-indicated by the "who guards the king" ritual and by Fell & Thorne. If it is not so, then being convinced that the king is currently safe ("...a good man and true") would allow the order to be followed without contradicting the first duty.

2. That Rhaegar's order was outdated. We don't know what Rhaegar's orders were. He might have been quite explicit that they ALL had to stay there to perform a duty that was not yet complete. In that case it would not yet be outdated, and they would have to chose to disregard their direct orders to protect a king who was already safe.

[J. Stargaryen]

 

While I could see one of them, ( and I actually tend to think Whent fits this bill more than the dedicated AD), loving Lyanna from afar, rather like Lancelot/Guinevere, and that might be another reason to fight for her, I don't see anything beyond that, especially after Rhaegars death where Dayne would feel that he was betraying his friend.

 

Dayne was also a cousin to Rhaegar I believe, with Targaryen blood infused into the Dayne bloodline which would account for their appearance. If Jon had had a child with Ygritte, that child could very come out with silver hair. Awkward.

 

Rhaegar and Arthur might have been third or fourth cousins. Afaik, there is no record of any recent Targaryen marriage into House Dayne. However, Maeker I's wife was Dyanna Dayne. She was the mother of Aerion Brightflame, Maester Aemon, Egg, et al. So the Targaryens do have Dayne blood from a few generations ago. Egg is Rhaegar and Dany's great-grandfather.

[Alia of the knife]

 

Rhaegar and Arthur might have been third or fourth cousins. Afaik, there is no record of any recent Targaryen marriage into House Dayne. However, Maeker I's wife was Dyanna Dayne. She was the mother of Aerion Brightflame, Maester Aemon, Egg, et al. So the Targaryens do have Dayne blood from a few generations ago. Egg is Rhaegar and Dany's great-grandfather.

 

Which goes back to my observation the Targ. bloodline is actually quite diluted, and the Blackfyre bloodline more "pure" dragon blood.

[Bael's Bastard]

 
Which goes back to my observation the Targ. bloodline is actually quite diluted, and the Blackfyre bloodline more "pure" dragon blood.

What makes you say that? If there are Blackfyres alive we do not know all their ancestry going back to Daemon, and how many Targs are in their ancestry since. Daeron and Daemon were both born to two Targ parents, and their children were born to non-Targ mothers. Daeron's line had a Dayne, Blackwood, and two sister Targs leading to Rhaegar, Viserys, and Dany, and likely a Stark leading to Jon. But we are missing too much about the number of Targs or non-Targs in any Blackfyre alive in the story.

[Sly Wren]

Sorry  I was primarily responding to SWs first line, rather than his position - 

Or, rather, her position. But, meh. . . potato po-tah-to. Bird silhoutte=ambiguous.

 

It does not say that they can be ordered away from protecting the king flat out (in any or all circumstances).

It says that if Rhaegar gave them an order to stay they would have had to stay - which means in the circumstances existing when Rhaegar would have given them that order, they would have had no reason causing them to not follow it.
Its not a correct extrapolation to then assume that they would always have to obey any order given to them by Rhaegar (which is the assumption the 'obey' side insists upon) in any circumstance. This is proven by reductio ad absurdum. If they must obey all orders all the time then there is a fundamental failure. If a prince orders them to kill the king or to turn away while he kills the king, they must obey? No, sorry, that is completely illogical and unacceptable. There must be limitations on what orders must be obeyed or they have no value as bodyguards and no reason to exist.

I agree--it's absurd to think that there aren't some situations when they should change from orders to just king. But I can't see that the books have told us exactly what those are and how exactly the KG are supposed to act in any given situation. Books give examples of confusion, interior monologues of tortured decisions, complaints about conflicts--so, they have to use their judgment. Not an objective reality. Books spend a lot of time showing people having to make the "best" choice in a muddle. KG seem to be in the same boat. They have their ideals, vows, and orders. Best ones try their best--and get confused, too.

 

That's the point--we don't know exactly what they'd do because they are human KG doing their best in a terrible situation. So, assuming that they are at the tower because they think Jon is king--a reasonable assumption. But not definitive. Not with this many variables.

 

The whole situation is a mess--Viserys should be a heir even if Jon is king. And no guard? It's a mess--can't see how the text has defined what the KG think. Allowed for reasonable readings, including your own? Yes. Made the text exclusive to any one reading? No.

[Sly Wren]

 

Thats true, but I didn't have the rest in front of me. However, since we also got that bit of information in Dance, it sounds like a deliberate clarification on the authors part and that we can't take Jons being the last Targaryen king for granted, though that is my personal opinion.

Again, just referencing history, it would be a dishonor beyond all dishonor to take the Warden of the norths only maiden daughter who is betrothed to another great House, and force her to become his mistress.

He would have to marry her, and taking her takes that choice out of EVERYONES hands, especially if he can get a child on her as quickly as possible, (see tPatQ).

Yeah--coming up with a "good" way for Rhaegar and Lyanna to "run off"--I haven't managed it yet. The above is only one of the problems. No one in text denies it happened (though the people who would actually know are "conveniently" dead or missing). So, so far, seems like it happened. How? And will either of them look good when we find out? No idea. Just hope it's well written.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Jon stuff:
 
I actually think the fact that Ned made Jon his bastard rather than Lyanna's bastard child by Rhaegar (or Arthur, or whoever, really) is a strong sign for a public/well-known marriage. Ned doesn't like to lie, and a Targaryen bastard in control of Eddard Stark certainly wouldn't have been a threat to Robert - if all the world knew about Lyanna and Rhaegar was that he abducted her then he could easily have been raised at Winterfell as Lyanna's bastard rather than Ned's. The whole Ned angle of the thing caused all the internal Stark family trouble, and the chance that Robert would ever have hurt Lyanna's child and Ned's bastard nephew simply doesn't make any sense.

How is that a strong hint of a public marriage? If there had been a marriage that was well known, wouldn't people sooner suspect that Jon was Rhaegar's?

[SFDanny]

Considering all the above, this conclusion requires two assumptions to be true.

1. That the first duty is not just to ensure the king is safe, but to do it personally by his side at all times. We can't be certain either way, but this is counter-indicated by the "who guards the king" ritual and by Fell & Thorne. If it is not so, then being convinced that the king is currently safe ("...a good man and true") would allow the order to be followed without contradicting the first duty.

2. That Rhaegar's order was outdated. We don't know what Rhaegar's orders were. He might have been quite explicit that they ALL had to stay there to perform a duty that was not yet complete. In that case it would not yet be outdated, and they would have to chose to disregard their direct orders to protect a king who was already safe.

 

Like the post, but let me respond to parts of it. First, I've tried to go over some of these points many times in the past and did so at length in posts three and four in my signature, so I won't try to duplicate that here. What I want to highlight is that I think there are two different questions that often get confused in the debate over the Kingsguard Oath. First, is what does the oath itself say and mean? We don't have the oath itself quoted, unless you agree with me that part of it is quoted by Selmy when he is dismissed from the Kingsguard by Joffrey, and there we have only a part. We do get a detailed explanation of the oath from Ser Barristan and we get Jaime's lesson to the Kingsguard, along with bits and pieces from examples throughout the novels, novellas, histories, and author's comments that allow us to draw some conclusion about the oath and what it means. I have reached certain conclusions about all of that and if anyone is interested in those conclusion, please read the aforementioned posts. As interesting as all this discussion is in trying to nail down what the oath says and means, it is a separate, if related, discussion to why individual members of the Kingsguard do what they do in the specific instances mentioned in the stories.

 

As I said this second part often gets confused and mixed up with the first. So when we talk of the actions of Fell and Thorne, or of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent we are talking about what these men as individuals did, likely influenced by their understanding of their oaths, but also by trying to apply everything else we know of the men to see their motivations for their actions. Too often we have very little to go on when it comes to motivations.

 

Certainly that is the case of Fell and Thorne. We don't know if they place the need to follow their first duty to their king over following orders from someone they see as in authority. Do they weigh the option of insisting one of the two of them goes with the king, and come to the conclusion his safety is better served by their not being with him for fear of drawing attention to his location? Or are they merely listening to the orders of a member of the King's small council and following orders? We don't know. We have no view into their thinking. It is therefore a mistake, imo, to then make too much of their decision and believe it tells us much about our first discussion concerning the contents and meaning of the oath itself. The two are also in very unique and extreme circumstance, So, using it as an example to prove the absenting themselves for extended periods of time from the first duty of guarding the king is something all other Kingsguard would find consistent with their oaths is a conclusion I don't think we can come to.

 

With Hightower, Dayne, and Whent we have much more information, if not the all important personal POV chapters we get from Jaime, Ser Barristan, and Ser Arys, but in the form of many other people's view of the men and their character. Still it is important to note the difference between what may have motivated the Tower of Joy trio from what we think the oath tells them to do. They are not necessarily the same thing. We know Dayne is said to be Rhaegar's closest friend. We know Whent is said to have been the go between to set up the tourney at Harrenhal in which it maybe the replacement of Aerys was to be discussed. We know all three would have likely had similar experiences to Selmy regarding Viserys, and that it is likely he isn't the only one to notice Viserys similarity to Aerys. And we have many other hints to what maybe motivating factors for their actions. I think all of these factors need to be taken into account as well as the context of the time, place, and circumstance the three find themselves in when Ned arrives, not just our reading of what the oath tells them to do.

[Alia of the knife]

Yeah--coming up with a "good" way for Rhaegar and Lyanna to "run off"--I haven't managed it yet. The above is only one of the problems. No one in text denies it happened (though the people who would actually know are "conveniently" dead or missing). So, so far, seems like it happened. How? And will either of them look good when we find out? No idea. Just hope it's well written.

Completely agree. Whatever it is, there should be a resolution.


Also love your avatar as I love birds, and I have a crow "buddy" who likes to come by for breakfast and mock the cats.

[Lord Varys]

Rhaenys,

 

well, I guess Ned made him his bastard and tried to obscure when exactly the child was born so that people do not suspect just that. Making the boy his bastard rather than Lyanna's makes it clear that he didn't want people to know he was Lyanna's son. Whether there was a marriage or not isn't critical for people concluding that the child was actually Lyanna's - anyone who knew Ned Stark's character would have found the bastard story doubtful, and pretty much everybody apparently knew that Lyanna was with Rhaegar for a rather long time.

 

But if Rhaegar and Lyanna were actually known be married then Ned could not possibly have passed Jon Snow as Lyanna's bastard since he would have been born in wedlock. But Lyanna's bastard wouldn't have really been a threat to Robert.

[The Agency of Sansa Stark]

Why is it that this thread is pinned but the A + J = T thread is not? Seems exclusive and discriminatory to me.

[SFDanny]

Why is it that this thread is pinned but the A + J = T thread is not? Seems exclusive and discriminatory to me.

 

 

It's not. Get enough people to generate the same amount of discussion in that thread as happens in this or the heretics thread and it will get pinned as well. No need to look for conspiracies.

[The Agency of Sansa Stark]

Just because you say something isn't exclusive and discriminatory doesn't make it so.

[Sly Wren]

Just because you say something isn't exclusive and discriminatory doesn't make it so.

Wait--you mean just because one person on the forums says something is true doesn't make it so? Curses! I was hoping to start a cult. Oh well. . . 

 

Completely agree. Whatever it is, there should be a resolution.


Also love your avatar as I love birds, and I have a crow "buddy" who likes to come by for breakfast and mock the cats.

Agreed. And thanks! Was doing a production of 12th Night. Did lots with Hunting of the Wren. Had wrens on the brain.

 

And I, too, loved Dune. Should re-read now that I'm old enough to understand it fully.

[Consigliere]

Why is it that this thread is pinned but the A + J = T thread is not? Seems exclusive and discriminatory to me.

Probably best to PM a moderator with this question since regular members have no say in which threads get pinned and therefore cannot possibly answer this question.