Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HelenaExMachina

R+L=J v.154

Recommended Posts

Don't make me laugh. Do you really believe that they would leave the current head of the state unprotected? (Unless, of course, it was in their capacity to split forces and do both, which is what the KG might have done but didn't)
 



Except that our special forces in question state that they don't feel compelled to and that a non-special forces guy will do.
 

They possessed neither crystal balls nor teleports, so this is a moot point.

Feel free to laugh. President is the person to give you order, not the person who ask your opinion: hi, this is my suggestion. Please think about it and then do whatever you think the best.

No. Boss is boss.

There were also kings or presidents who asked their own soldiers to kill them or burn them. By your logic they should just protect them and refuse the order. But they did what they were told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to laugh. President is the person to give you order, not the person who ask your opinion: hi, this is my suggestion. Please think about it and then do whatever you think the best.

No. Boss is boss.

There were also kings or presidents who asked their own soldiers to kill them or burn them. By your logic they should just protect them and refuse the order. But they did what they were told.

Two words: priority and duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, time for my teacher spiel:

 

Class A is on an excursion far away from their school, with three teachers assigned to look after the kids. Class B is on an excursion nearby but loses all its teachers in an accident. By your logic, the teachers from class A should just sit on their asses and follow their original assingment when, in reality, they would split up because the kids must not be left unattended, and they would do so on their own, without any instructions from the school, because the kids' safety takes highest priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, time for my teacher spiel:
 
Class A is on an excursion far away from their school, with three teachers assigned to look after the kids. Class B is on an excursion nearby but loses all its teachers in an accident. By your logic, the teachers from class A should just sit on their asses and follow their original assingment when, in reality, they would split up because the kids must not be left unattended, and they would do so on their own, without any instructions from the school, because the kids' safety takes highest priority.


Firstly, military action is way stricter than your case. Each KG was bounded by their own oath.

Secondly, even in your case, it sounds like class B should try to get help from the nearest people or try to contact the school master to arrange some emergency help, not expecting class A teachers to abandon their own kids and run from far away to help class B. Especially kids in class A is in critical condition too( lyanna is dying and baby jon is new born and enemy would come at any time to kill them or capture them)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just find an example of a KG in ASOIAF needing to go to the king's side over finishing out their order instead of making up your own scenarios about what you think that they should have done based on your subjective understanding of the KG order? If you have an objective basis for believing that the KG must abandon their orders to protect the king then surely this should be something that you can find the KG having done in 300 years of service rather than creating make belief scenarios instead to support your subjective claim.

 

As long as we're just making up scenarios these discussions are going to go nowhere. None of us are GRRM. He is not bound to have his characters in his universe do anything that you personally think that they should do in your scenarios which are not actual events in his universe. Your scenarios are your creations, not his. His characters have no objective reality in your scenarios because they are no longer his characters once you start spinning your own stories. I cannot argue against something that exists only in your head as you're the sole source of whether or not anything has to make any sense in your scenario.

 

So instead of just making up whatever scenario you want to "prove" your point, why not just pull a similar scenario to the one you've created out of the text to prove your point? That would actually be a valid comparison because GRRM would have been the one to have made the precedent or scenario instead of a fan trying to prove their subjective interpretation as the only possible solution to an objective situation. Either the KG must abandon their current orders in favor of protecting their king in GRRM's universe or they do not. GRRM should have provided evidence for the side that says that they must abandon their orders if this was the case as they're his creations and they can only do what he tells them to do. They do not need to do what a fan tells them to do.

 

So find some scenario in GRRM's work that shows that the KG would abandon their orders to go protect the king otherwise this is all just useless as we're not discussing GRRM's universe. We're discussing yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A prince's order did make three of them forsake their king by staying away from the battle and the sack of KL. 

And Hightower seems a little bit unhappy to be kept away from the king by his dialogue.

How do you know his real feeling? maybe he is not happy with Rhaegar's order but due to his vow to obey the royal order, he had to do it anyway. 

You abandon Lyanna and run to DS immediately, you break your vow. 

You wait for Lyanna to die and take the baby to DS to join viserys after that, you keep both of your vows. 

By your logic, they already broke their vow after the battle of Trident, because they should immediately run to KL to protect their king who is apparently in danger. 

 

After the Trident, Aerys is protected by thousands of troops within one of the most fortified fortresses in all of Westeros, he has control over the seas with a navy the rebels lack, and he is personally guarded by one of the members of the Kingsguard in the person of Ser Jaime Lannister. The war is not over and the loyalist side still has tens of thousands of troops in the field. As such, an order by the crown prince to guard Lyanna stands as the guiding rule for Hightower, Dayne, and Whent. It is only after the news of the sack reaches them that the three Kingsguard must make a choice between their first duty and their standing orders. If, as it seems likely, they also know of Aerys's action in naming Viserys as his heir, then the fact the three men did not send someone to Dragonstone tells us they made a choice against following their first duty when it came to Viserys. That doesn't mean the priority of the first duty isn't just that. It only means these three men chose not to follow that duty in the circumstances they found themselves. The why of this choice is the real question. Are they making the same choice Selmy does based on the same reservations about Viserys? Do they think they have a better prince with them and don't care if Aerys named Viserys or not? Or would they just rather follow Rhaegar's orders protecting Lyanna, and perhaps her child, than continue to fight for a mad young prince who has no chance of ever becoming a real king? Pick your reason among these or others, but the motives of the Kingsguard trio are wide open to question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, military action is way stricter than your case. Each KG was bounded by their own oath.

Secondly, even in your case, it sounds like class B should try to get help from the nearest people or try to contact the school master to arrange some emergency help, not expecting class A teachers to abandon their own kids and run from far away to help class B. Especially kids in class A is in critical condition too( lyanna is dying and baby jon is new born and enemy would come at any time to kill them or capture them)

Not a teacher, right? The school is responsible for its students at all times, fullstop, and no, both the teachers and the KG have a collective duty. If your colleagues can't do their duty for whatever reason, it falls up to you.

 

Also, you apparently didn't read what I wrote. I wrote split up, not abandon completely (or, if they cannot split up for some reason, then bring the classes together). You cannot leave the kids unattended, or attended by non-school person, until a replacement arrives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is actually no proof that the Kingsguard decided anything about their 'first duty' even if you buy the whole stuff. Perhaps they were still deliberating what they want to do? Wait and see, don't really know what had happened (regardless what the fever dream says). But Viserys III and the Queen Dowager were pretty safe on Dragonstone prior to the destruction of the royal fleet, right? And there are countless examples how Kingsguard decide to abandon this so-called 'first duty' in favor of other stuff - Thorne/Fell abandoned Aegon II during the Dance, Barristan Selmy chose 'to guard Meereen' rather than try to find his queen, personally, in the wake of Daenerys' disappearance.

 

The whole 'head of state' example is misleading here. While a modern state has a fixed succession in case the head of state/government dies, the medieval Targaryen monarchy does not. Laura Roslin ascends to the Presidency of the Colonies in 'Battlestar Galactica' because of the constitutional succession in such a case. Nothing like exists for Westeros.

 

It is wrong to pretend that such rules existed, so that the Kingsguard had a 'law book' or 'fixed rules' and check them, so that they knew what they should do now. Creating a scenario about what they may have done isn't the same as knowing what they actually did. You cannot create a hypothetical and then use that explain the facts as if the hypothetical was a reality.

 

Assuming that the knights at the tower thought that Lyanna's son 'was king now' means they were playing their own game of thrones - they are no longer Kingsguard, they have become kingmakers. Not to mention that, again, you aren't king just because a previous king has died, even if you are his chosen heir. You have to be anointed and crowned. Else Ned couldn't have possibly have offered the crown to Stannis, right? Joffrey would have been king from the moment Robert died since nobody told him that he wasn't his son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thorne and Fell did not 'abandon' Aegon II. Who's to say that Aegon II did not approve of Larys' plan to send Thorne and Fell with Jaehaera and Maelor? Dany's bloodriders (the Dothraki version of KG) went to find Dany. Barristan chose to guard her interests in Meereen. See how easy it is to fulfil two duties simultaneously. The three KG could have fulfilled Rhaegar's order as well as their first duty by one or two of their number attempting to go to DS.

 

 

 

If the queen had commanded me to protect Hizdahr, I would have had no choice but to obey. But Daenerys Targaryen had never established a proper Queensguard even for herself nor issued any commands in respect to her consort. The world was simpler when I had a lord commander to decide such matters, Selmy reflected. Now I am the lord commander, and it is hard to know which path is right.

 

So in the absence of clear cut orders from the King, or in this case the Queen, it is the LC who has the discretion to decide the right path. As for the 'anointed' and 'crowned' business: under normal circumstances this would be true but this fails to take into account the exceptional circumstances the three KG found themselves in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consigliere,

 

but Viserys III and the Queen Dowager were already safe on Dragonstone. They weren't in need of another guy with a sword and a white cloak, they had the Dragonstone garrison, and the royal fleet.

 

It is stated that Larys Strong, not Aegon II made the decisions there - since we have no way of investigate the details we have to buy it or keep silent on it - but that is not the point. The point is that the Kingsguard actually can (be made to) consider the safety of some royal princes to be more important than the king's own safety - which would be exactly the mirror image of Rhaegar commanding (or asking/making) the Kingsguard to protect Lyanna and her unborn child rather than himself or Aerys II in KL. The idea that they could only do that because Aerys had other KG in KL is swept away by this fact - unless you use special pleading and say 'This is a special situation you are not allowed to compare to others' or you come up with an ad hoc argument explaining why this doesn't apply here.

 

If Barristan's first duty is to protect his queen, then guarding her interests in Meereen isn't his job. In fact, it makes little sense to do that if he doesn't even know that she is still alive, right? Just hoping that she will return one day is silly and naive. For all he know she could be in dire need of his help and protection right now, and not trying to do everything in his power - including to go search for her personally - isn't him following his 'first duty' there. Or are you trying to say that, say, guarding the king's horses and stables (or castle) is the right way to go about that duty if you know the king is alone and possibly in mortal danger but you just don't know where exactly he is. One would assume that searching for him is the best thing to do, not to guard stuff the king has no use of if he does not survive.

 

What Barristan later does is to stage a coup. He doesn't have the legal right to abandon or challenge his Hizdahr. Hizdahr zo Loraq is Daenerys Targaryen's consort and king, and her co-ruler and only heir in case she disappears and dies. Dany's disappearance makes Hizdahr sole ruler of Meereen, and he should actually have sworn his loyalty to him now. Not doing so, and trying to weasel his way out of duties isn't honorable. And he actually knows this. Yes, he has reason to believe that Hizdahr is involved in an attempt on Dany's life, and he also knows that he is endangering what she has built. Not to mention that Hizdahr doesn't even want his service (one wonders what would have happened if Hizdahr had been a great fan of Westerosi chivalric culture and given Barristan a high place of honor at his side). But he has no right to stage a coup, nor would he necessarily be doing the right thing if Dany was dead. Protecting the interests of a dead person is silly.

 

Not to mention Dany not having a proper Queensguard also means that Selmy isn't really 'the Lord Commander'. But invent or decides who the king should be is a very risky way to interpret your role as Lord Commander or KG. Arys Oakheart does that when Arianne convinces him that Myrcella is queen because she was in Dorne when Joffrey died. While you can see it that way this is clearly treason. Just as it would be treason if the three knights decided to proclaim Lyanna's son king on their own. The fact that they may not have known (or did not know, in this scenario) about Aerys' decision to make Viserys his heir, doesn't get them off the hook. You don't have to know the law to break. It is enough to break it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[url=http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/134726-the-puppets-of-ice-and-fire/]This[/url] is a pretty good OP by Kingmonkey that a lot of people here might like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a follow-up question (and related questions below) for people who don't believe the KG concluded that Jon was the rightful heir. Why do people think the KG and Ned's group fought?

 

For those of us who believe that the KG considered Jon to be King under normal succession, the answer is easy -- Ned was a leader of the rebels and just put Robert on the throne. He is an inherent threat to the "rightful Targ King" (as the KG would see it), and nothing Ned could say could convince them he is not a threat. The KG needed to keep the location a secret as long as possible to have Lyanna either die or recover so that they could take Jon (and Lyanna if still alive) into hiding to prepare for a Targ restoration.

 

But I am not looking to debate why the KG would fight Ned if the KG conclude that Jon is the rightful heir. My question is for anyone else who does not believe that the KG considered Jon to be the rightful heir -- why would they battle Ned at all? 

 

Some have suggested a "death wish" given that the Targ dynasty was finished. But then why fight hard enough to kill 5 of the 7 opponents. That hard a fight risked winning. Why not just go through the motions and allow the 7 to kill the 3 and let all 7 live?

 

Some have suggested that the KG "turned sides" from Aerys to Rhaegar -- but the KG indicate to Ned that if they had been there to stop Jaime, Aerys would still be on the throne (and yes, it is a dream but Ned needs to have a reason to dream that the KG would think Aerys would still be on the throne in that case to have dreamed it), which seems to contradict the theory as in that case, would Jon or Aegon (if they also saved him) be on the throne as Rhaegar's heir (if they really considered Rhaegar King)? After all, if Rhaegar's death meant that they were back to supporting Aerys, then it would again be a question of who is the heir to Aerys and not Rhaegar. So that line of thought does not hold up.

 

So what is the reason? If Jon is not the rightful heir (or the KG don't think it is their place to determine who is the rightful heir), then why not let Ned talk to Lyanna? How is Ned a threat to his sister under those circumstances? From the conversation, it seems clear that Ned wants to avoid a fight but the KG insist. Why do they insist on fighting Ned if all they are guarding is Ned's sister and her bastard son (or even if legit, the "second in line to the throne" behind Viserys)? And what exactly are they guarding her from at that point? The war is over. Rhaegar and Aerys are dead. Who are they protecting Lyanna from? In what sense does she even need guarding at that point (assuming she had lived)? What do Rhaegar's orders even mean any more under those circumstances? Who is a threat to Lyanna that the KG are guarding her from now that the war has ended and active fighting ended?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV,

 

What makes you say that the KG in the Aegon II situation considered the safety of a royal prince and princess to be more important than that of the king? While we are told that Lord Larys came up with this plan, I find it very hard to believe that Aegon II had no say in this matter whatsoever. I find it to be far more likely that Aegon II approved of this plan, which lets be honest was a good one, and therefore Thorne and Fell did not "abandon" him in any way, shape or form.

 

As for Barristan: Did you miss the part where Dany's bloodriders, who are effectively Dothraki version of KG, went in search of Dany. Defending the name and honour of the king is part of the KG duties, so Barristan remains in Meereen. This situation shows that multiple duties can be fulfilled simultaneously. Furthermore, should Barristan just assume that Dany is dead? Isn't that silly and naive as well?

 

The rest of your post just argues 'technicalities' without taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances. The Arys Oakheart situation as well as the KG during the DoD clearly show that the KG can (and have) chosen sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UL,

 

first I don't think we have the pieces to explain everything. I'm reasonably convinced that I know where they might be missing pieces and potential for twists and the like, but I'm pretty sure that we don't have enough information to explain everything. That is also the main reason why I'm not happy with painting things in dogmatic colors bright enough to overshadow any doubts or uncertainties that remain.

 

In regarding to your scenario one assumes that Ned bending the knee to the rightful king, denouncing Robert, and promising the three knights that he would ensure that he eventually sits the Iron Throne could convince them not to attack him, right? I mean, Ned may actually not have known about 'Lyanna stuff' in general and could only have realized how things are when he arrived at the tower (not very likely but still a possibility).

 

The assumption that the knights intended to work in favor of a Targaryen restoration is also not clear. Could be, but then, the dream never mentions the true king. Did Ned just omit those lines in his dream, or did they never actually mention him - if that's the case that would be one possible scenario for the fight there - Ned and his gang is attacked, and they have to defend themselves. There is no conversation as to why they are fighting besides that given in the fever dream (an unlikely scenario in my opinion, but one you could take without going with 'the true king').

 

The 'death wish' scenario doesn't exclude them from wanting to also take down the treasonous rebel Eddard Stark and his gang. Say, it could have been that they allowed themselves to be severely/mortally wounded by Ned's people, but had sufficient strength left to kill their attackers in the process - just as Roddy the Ruin took out the Hightowers at Tumbleton.

 

The switch from Aerys to Rhaegar could have been an internal matter, something they did not discuss with an outsider/traitor/rebel like Eddard Stark. Or if you insist on them knowing about the manner of Aerys' death they could have been abhorred about Jaime's betrayal (which they actually are in the dream) and simply saying that 'Aerys would still sit on the throne if they had been there' because they honestly never intended that anyone - especially not one of their brothers - betrayed and treated their king like that.

Another way to interpret the stuff in the dream is that Ned only has the KG mentioning Aerys there because he feels guilt that he didn't succeed in punishing Jaime for the whole thing. Something his subconscious could have woven into the dream especially in light of the fact that Aerys was, after all, Jon's grandfather.

 

We don't actually when exactly the KG confrontation takes place. There are people who suggest it only happened after Lyanna's death when Ned was trying to take the child with him. I find that interesting, but don't think we can now. For the KG barring entrance to the tower it could simply be that Rhaegar gave them an order there and they felt honor-bound to obey and were expecting that Ned Stark might harm a child of Rhaegar if they had received garbled reports on what had transpired in KL (say, people reporting the rebels had killed Elia and her children, and not specifying the manner). Or they actually intend to reunite Lyanna's son with Viserys III and Rhaella on Dragonstone and have no intention of letting near him or his sister.

 

I'm not sure we can see the dream essentially as Ned trying avert conflict there. This whole speech about where he expected them doesn't necessarily indicate he didn't want to face/fight/kill them, but rather that he is actually trying to buy time/control the impact of the meaning their presence at the tower could have on him - i.e. that Lyanna is pregnant with/had given birth to Rhaegar's child. You could see it as him dancing around the facts in the dream as long as he could, something that is actually quite common in dreams that deal with deeply personal tragedies - and in that light it is quite telling that we never get to the end of that dream.

 

Consigliere,

 

Aegon II could actually have been drugged when the dragons showed up, and Larys made his escape plan. We know he slept nine out of ten hours each day at this time. It may easily be that the KG had to carry him into the tunnel and out of the castle, and he only awoke on the boat bringing him to Dragonstone.

Even if the king had had a say in the matter, he would be without KG protection in this scenario, and if the Kingsguard's first duty is to protect the king then at least one of them should have been with Aegon II. Unless, of course, they can take other missions and duties 'first' as well if they have orders or make up their own. But then it is no longer possible to use the fact that the three knights were with Lyanna as 'proof' that they thought her son was 'the rightful king' or that they thought Viserys wasn't the rightful king - since they could simply have decided to not send anyone of their own to Dragonstone (yet) for various reasons (making up orders of their own, following Rhaegar's commands, etc.).

 

As to the other stuff: Dothraki are Dothraki, they aren't Queensguard. Barristan shouldn't believe Dany is dead, but if his first duty is to the safety and protection of the queen, he should do anything in his power to save and protect her. That would include searching for her himself. One person more on the search is inevitably raising the chances of finding her.

 

The Kingsguard can, of course, take sides in a quarrel. But they shouldn't cause that quarrel. It is not up to them to decide who is king or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV,

 

I think it is premature to say that Aegon II was without KG protection. Ser Marston Waters was with him and Aegon theoretically could have named him to the KG at any point once they fled KL, while only making it 'official' i.e. giving him a white cloak once DS was taken. We simply do not know and therefore should not simply presume that Aegon II had no KG with him.

 

On the Dothraki: we probably have to agree to disagree here. I feel that it is quite clear that the bloodriders are the Dothraki equivalent of KG/Queensguard. Barristan remains in Meereen fulfilling a duty to his Queen while her bloodriders and Dothraki, who know the Dothraki Sea better than anyone else, set out to find her. Barristan is not foresaking his first duty here.

 

The three KG did pick a side; they chose Jon over Viserys and rejected Robert as king. They did not cause of this situation. That was the rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a follow-up question (and related questions below) for people who don't believe the KG concluded that Jon was the rightful heir. Why do people think the KG and Ned's group fought?

 

For those of us who believe that the KG considered Jon to be King under normal succession, the answer is easy -- Ned was a leader of the rebels and just put Robert on the throne. He is an inherent threat to the "rightful Targ King" (as the KG would see it), and nothing Ned could say could convince them he is not a threat. The KG needed to keep the location a secret as long as possible to have Lyanna either die or recover so that they could take Jon (and Lyanna if still alive) into hiding to prepare for a Targ restoration.

 

But I am not looking to debate why the KG would fight Ned if the KG conclude that Jon is the rightful heir. My question is for anyone else who does not believe that the KG considered Jon to be the rightful heir -- why would they battle Ned at all? 

I think the KG tell us why they fight: "our knees do not bend easily" and "the KG do not flee."

 

They've failed their king. Ned brings that up a couple of times. It wasn't their fault--they were "far away."

 

But they don't say why they were far away. They focus on what they could have done if only they could have been at the Trident, if only they could have been in King' Landing with Aerys to stop the "false brother."

 

This "failure" galls them--they clearly imply Darry fled, as we talked about last thread. They admire and praise Darry--but he still fled. With their queen and Prince Viserys (as Ned calls them)--but "fled."

 

If Jon is in that tower, giving him to Ned is kneeling, bending, yielding. These 3 will not bend. They may think they can win. They may not. But whether or not they see Ned as a threat, he is with the Usurper. They couldn't stop the Usurper at the Trident. They couldn't stop Jaime from killing Aerys. But they will not bend to Ned.

 

As has been said above and many times before, this is a dream. A lot could be missing. But Ned's narration makes it clear that this part of the dream is clearest. Not the wraiths, not the fight, but the conversation, with the men waiting before the tower, faces burning clear.

 

So, at least one option has to be that we're hearing what Ned remembers them saying--no bending. No yielding, no matter what. Because they are focused on what they have lost, and they will give no ground to the Usurper and his dogs. No matter what. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I stick to what we know, and that is that Marston Waters only was named to the Kingsguard after Aegon II had taken Dragonstone.

 

But, then, Viserys III had the power to threw a white cloak to anyone he wanted to, right? Meaning that there was no need to go to him even if you insist that a king needs to have KG protection. A king can see to that himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the KG tell us why they fight: "our knees do not bend easily" and "the KG do not flee."

 

They've failed their king. Ned brings that up a couple of times. It wasn't their fault--they were "far away."

 

But they don't say why they were far away. They focus on what they could have done if only they could have been at the Trident, if only they could have been in King' Landing with Aerys to stop the "false brother."

 

This "failure" galls them--they clearly imply Darry fled, as we talked about last thread. They admire and praise Darry--but he still fled. With their queen and Prince Viserys (as Ned calls them)--but "fled."

 

If Jon is in that tower, giving him to Ned is kneeling, bending, yielding. These 3 will not bend. They may think they can win. They may not. But whether or not they see Ned as a threat, he is with the Usurper. They couldn't stop the Usurper at the Trident. They couldn't stop Jaime from killing Aerys. But they will not bend to Ned.

 

As has been said above and many times before, this is a dream. A lot could be missing. But Ned's narration makes it clear that this part of the dream is clearest. Not the wraiths, not the fight, but the conversation, with the men waiting before the tower, faces burning clear.

 

So, at least one option has to be that we're hearing what Ned remembers them saying--no bending. No yielding, no matter what. Because they are focused on what they have lost, and they will give no ground to the Usurper and his dogs. No matter what. 

But in the conversation, Ned never really asks them to bend. He does not really ask them to do anything -- just implies that he would let them leave to go to DS. What seems clear to me is that he wants to go into the tower to talk to Lyanna and they won't let him (I know some people don't agree even on that point). Letting Ned talk to Lyanna is not bending the knee. Letting Ned talk to Lyanna is only a problem if Lyanna has information they don't want Ned to know (like Jon being the Targ heir). So are they just being irrational -- "we have our orders to let no one in the tower and that means no one." At the risk of dying and leaving Lyanna to Ned in any event? For what purpose? How is that really guarding Lyanna? I really am not following your explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll stick to the fact that the DoD account is told from the pov of a maester a century after the fact. So I do not take it as a given that Ser Marston was named to the KG only after the fall of DS. At the very least it shouldn't be stated as fact that Aegon II had no KG with him.

Sure Viserys could have named Willem Darry or anyone else to the KG but that point is completely irrelevant. The KG at the tower would certainly not be aware of that and as far as they would know, Viserys had no KG with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×