How can Jaime justify his kingslaying?

[Lady Sharya]

And there's the timing. Jaime wears his golden armor, instead of his white one, and obvioiusly killed the king while the Lannisters sacked KL, who only came out of the Casterly rockwork after the Trident was won, and basically all of the rebllion fought. Even his own father's men respond as if they think Jaime acted as a Lannister loyalist over his KG vows. Then he finds him wsitting arrogantly on the throne, and Ned is still suspicious of Tywin's throne intentions.
 
I very much wonder whether Ned wasn't thinking, "Oh, now you can slay the king and foreswear your vows, when daddy's in town, but where were you when my father and brother were executed?"
 
Not that I blame Jaime for that, but I think a resentment of late-Tywin coinciding with Jaime's kingslaying from Ned's pov here seems quite logical.

Exactly! His own fathers men gave him looks. I don't doubt Ned had more on his mind about Jaime sitting on the throne than "OMG you kinglsayer."

I feel like you're latching onto the "not pride" portion of my responses and ignoring the rest.
Futility? Impotence? and to some degree pride.
And okay, Ned is acting as Lord of Winterfell, Warden of the north, calling his banners. As far as I'm aware he made no attempt to seperate from the seven kingdoms, he was Aerys' subject, plotting to dethrone him. That's why it was called a rebellion.
It's hypocritical.

I responded to every point you made.;) Ned made no direct oath to Aerys like Jaime did. He was not a hypocrite for negatively judging Jaime's behavior.

[JaegrM]

 

As I said... Jaime's not wearing the KG armor, but the golden one (a Lannister armor). Tywin just sacked the city, while he did not fight during the rebellion. And he has his ass on the throne. So, by all the evidence, Jaime hasn't slain Aerys to join the rebellion, but as a Lannister for Tywin, and Ned is not even sure whose side Tywin really is on. And Jaime didn't do anything when Ned's father and brother were executed without a trial. Ned has no reason to regard Jaime in a positive way, but that of an opportunist.

 

Sure, Ned is wrong in his assessment, but you can hardly call him hypocritical for coming to his conclusion about Jaime under the circumstances, especially without the necessary information.

I understand this.
Ned nor Jaime however tried to see from the other's POV.
Ned see's a daddy's boy opportunist sitting on the throne.
Jaime see's a righteous hypocrite that's ungrateful he slayed his family's killer.

[INCBlackbird]

 

Sometimes it feels like your not thinking Eddard was operating with the evidence he had nothing else.  Jamie could of told him otherwise he chose not to.  Nothing else happened here but Jamie being stupid and Eddard putting together the sack as Jamie colluding with his father and not defending his side of things.

Ned judging without the evidence = prejudice, if you don't know, you don't judge. and either way he's still a hypocrite, he's fighting against the king himself for very good reasons, so why wouldn't jaime have good reasons to do the same thing? perhaps because he's not Ned and Ned is higher than everyone and so he's the only one who gets to break vows? he's the only one who ever has good enough reasons to do so?

[OldGimletEye]

When he easily could've overpowered Aerys and left the killing to someone who wasn't sworn to protect him?

Maybe he didn't want to pass the buck to someone else.

 

Anyway, I think from our modern perspective, Jaime clearly did the right thing in taking down Aerys.

 

In Westeros, some people obviously have trouble with it.

[Darksnider05]

Maybe he didn't want to pass the buck to someone else.

 

Anyway, I think from our modern perspective, Jaime clearly did the right thing in taking down Aerys.

 

In Westeros, some people obviously have trouble with it.

 

He did do the right thing he just is completely at fault for everyone thinking he was an asshole who did it for back stabby Lannister reasons.  God dam it's not complicated he didn't explain why to anyone just pouted about Eddard thinking what anyone would think given the circumstances.

[JaegrM]

Ned judging without the evidence = prejudice, if you don't know, you don't judge. and either way he's still a hypocrite, he's fighting against the king himself for very good reasons, so why wouldn't jaime have good reasons to do the same thing? perhaps because he's not Ned and Ned is higher than everyone and so he's the only one who gets to break vows? he's the only one who ever has good enough reasons to do so?

 

Exactly! His own fathers men gave him looks. I don't doubt Ned had more on his mind about Jaime sitting on the throne than "OMG you kinglsayer."

I responded to every point you made. ;) Ned made no direct oath to Aerys like Jaime did. He was not a hypocrite for negatively judging Jaime's behavior.

We as readers are able to see the big picture.
Ned and Jaime are not able to read the series.
While Ned technically may not have sworn any vows directly to Aerys, he is operating as the Warden of the North. The Lord of Winterfell. Positions which are granted via the Iron Throne.
Ned may very well not see himself as an oathbreaker... but what do you think the Iron Throne has said about his actions? 
Ned's conclusions that he draws about Jaime may seem perfectly logical to him, or anyone in Ned's position, but Ned makes zero effort to ascertain the truth.
Likewise, Ned doesn't explain how he's totally justified to act against Aerys to Jaime, leaving Jaime to believe Ned is a big hypocrite, which again is a logical conclusion.

Another example;
According to Lannisters- Stannis is an usurper
According to Stannis- Lannisters are usurpers
They're people believe different things and this could easily lead to misunderstandings and harsh judgements similar to the Ned/Jaime situation

[Ghost of Shireen]

Pycelle had advised Aerys to let in Tywin who was sacking King's Landing. Aerys had only kept Jaime close to prevent Tywin from moving against him and the straw that broke the camel's back was Aerys ordering Jaime to kill his father.

 

Jaime saw the writing on the wall is all. King's Landing was falling to his father so he's not going to lay down his life for a lost cause particularly when it goes against his own father.

[Darksnider05]

Why would Eddard have to explain why he is rebelling against the King which is common Knowledge to near literally everyone in Westeros.  Jamie was literally most likely in the room when Eddard got his reason to rebel when Aerys sent a letter for his head. 

 

Jamie's reasons for killing the King are something he has to explain because their his reasons no one else.  He remained silent he's at fault there is nothing complicated about this.

[Lady Sharya]

This needs to be dropped Eddard wouldn't of given a fuck about Oaths had Jamie opened his mouth.  He did not because of pride end of story Jamie was an idiot.

One would think.....

I see Cersei having very much responsibility in that act but Cersei refuses to admit it - unlike Jaime, who's a pretty straight forward guy compared to his sceming sister or brother.
Of course, the thing Cersei resents isn't Jaime's missing hand but the fact that he isn't her lapdog anymore.

Where in this scene is Cersei responsible except being present?

Faces appeared in the window above him.
The queen. And now Bran recognized the man beside her. They looked as much alike as reflections in a mirror.
"He saw us," the woman said shrilly.
"So he did," the man said
Bran's fingers started to slip. He grabbed the ledge with his other hand. Fingernails dug into unyielding stone. The man reached down. "Take my hand," he said. "Before you fall."
...The man yanked him up to the ledge. "What are you doing?" the woman demanded.
The man ignored her. He was very strong. He stood Bran up on the sill. " How old are you, boy?"
"Seven," Bran said, shaking with relief. His fingers had dug deep gouges in the man's forearm. He let go sheepishly.
The Man looked over at the woman. "The things I do for love," he said with loathing. He gave Bran a shove.
Screaming, Bran went backwards out the window into empty air.

I understand this.
Ned nor Jaime however tried to see from the other's POV.
Ned see's a daddy's boy opportunist sitting on the throne.
Jaime see's a righteous hypocrite that's ungrateful he slayed his family's killer.

That's right, neither had the necessary information from the other. Which of them withheld that?

[King Ned Stark]

If he changed into his Lannister golden armor then it's plausible to assume he had time to determine his course of action, and was possibly trying to justifiably "switch sides", at least internally. Therefore he had time to consider his options; arrest the king, fight and die for him, or kill him. I think most people agree that continuing to fight for the Mad King was wrong and would increase the chances of Kings Landing burning to the ground, although beyond Aerys and Rossart there couldn't have been very many people left to die of in a raging inferno simply because you were ordered to do so. For the sake of argument, let's say that arresting him still posed a "clear and present danger" to Kings Landing, so he was right for killing the king.

In his arrogance and stupidity, he decides that he shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone for what happened, mainly a sworn brother of the kingsguard murdering his king.some might even argue the Aerys deserved a fair trial, even though he did not give one to the Starks. So it's basically every decision he made after the kingslaying that is wrong and indefensible. Ned essentially broke his oath to his friend and king to protect a newborn child, so I think Ned would have understood better than a lot of people think. However, sitting on the throne, making a flippant remark, and then not explaining his actions to the guys who spent the better part of a year risking their lives to overthrow a corrupt and powerful regime does not cut it. Had Ned been like his ancestor Cregan, he may have had him killed for that.

Added to the fact that Jaime's. Own father waited until the war was all but won and then brutally sacked a city, killing a lot of innocent people, only makes it look, and justifiably so, that Jaime did what he did out of self-preservation. It comes across as cowardly and immoral.

I believe, had Jaime humbly explained his actions, admitted that he still broke his oath even though he was trying to save half a million people, and offered to take the black, that even Ned would have understood and quite possibly forgiven him for his "crime". Yet he chose to do the exact opposite.

Better men than Jaime have taken the black for no other reason than it's an honorable calling.

The fault is not necessarily in his actions, but lack of properly owning up to said actions and facing the consequences, even if those consequences are not exactly fair.

Admittedly, though, this comes from a guy that thinks Jaime's "redemption arc" is one of Martin's weakest plot lines. He can do with Jaime what he likes, doesn't mean it's good, or even believable writing. His attitude changes pretty drastically as soon as he gets a POV, yet even his actions afterward, for me at least, are hard to redeem.

[Darksnider05]

He doesn't have to take the Black Eddard would of hailed him as a hero had he spoken up he chose not to.  Eddard is mister do the right thing fuck oaths and laws that's him.

[JaegrM]

That's right, neither had the necessary information from the other. Which of them withheld that?

Both of them? That's my point, they both see themselves as justified.

[Lady Sharya]

Ned's conclusions that he draws about Jaime may seem perfectly logical to him, or anyone in Ned's position, but Ned makes zero effort to ascertain the truth.
Likewise, Ned doesn't explain how he's totally justified to act against Aerys to Jaime, leaving Jaime to believe Ned is a big hypocrite, which again is a logical conclusion.
Another example;
According to Lannisters- Stannis is an usurper
According to Stannis- Lannisters are usurpers
They're people believe different things and this could easily lead to misunderstandings and harsh judgements similar to the Ned/Jaime situation

Are placing the blame for the realm's absence of knowledge of Aerys plans to burn KL on Ned?
Do you think Jaime was NOT aware of the order Aerys gave Jon Arryn to send Robert & Ned's heads to him?
Jamie was present when Aerys murdered Ned's father and brother. He knew that reason also.
Ned was NOT a hypocrite to judge Jaime.

[Lady Sharya]

In his arrogance and stupidity, he decides that he shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone for what happened, mainly a sworn brother of the kingsguard murdering his king.some might even argue the Aerys deserved a fair trial, even though he did not give one to the Starks. So it's basically every decision he made after the kingslaying that is wrong and indefensible. Ned essentially broke his oath to his friend and king to protect a newborn child, so I think Ned would have understood better than a lot of people think. However, sitting on the throne, making a flippant remark, and then not explaining his actions to the guys who spent the better part of a year risking their lives to overthrow a corrupt and powerful regime does not cut it. Had Ned been like his ancestor Cregan, he may have had him killed for that.
Added to the fact that Jaime's. Own father waited until the war was all but won and then brutally sacked a city, killing a lot of innocent people, only makes it look, and justifiably so, that Jaime did what he did out of self-preservation. It comes across as cowardly and immoral.

This is exactly right. His pride got in his way and his honor paid the price. Ned played no part in that.;)

[JaegrM]

Are placing the blame for the realm's absence of knowledge of Aerys plans to burn KL on Ned?
Do you think Jaime was NOT aware of the order Aerys gave Jon Arryn to send Robert & Ned's heads to him?
Jamie was present when Aerys murdered Ned's father and brother. He knew that reason also.
Ned was NOT a hypocrite to judge Jaime.

Not at all is that what I'm doing.
Okay....
I don't know how else I can explain this.... From where Jaime is sitting. Him and Ned have done more or less the same thing. FROM JAIME'S POINT OF VIEW Ned is being a hypocritical judgemental jerk..
Aerys killed Ned's dad and bro, Ned rebelled.
Aerys ordered Jaime to kill his own father, and let KL burn down around him, Jaime rebelled.
Ned Looks at Jaime like he's a criminal. 

Ned's point of view shows him Lannister forces sneak attacking a king they were sworn to.
He enters the throne room and see's Tywin Lannister's son has killed the king he was sworn to protect, right at the moment when his daddy showed up, probably another lannister sneak attack, and why the heck is he sitting on the iron throne?

Neither of them thinks the other one is being very cool, screw that guy, they don't wanna hear that crap.

Both of their assumptions are LOGICAL, but both of them are unfair. If they'd discussed things like normal people and not just passed judgement like entitled nobility, everyone might have been happier, but that's not what happened.

[LordDireStark]

I think Jaime was justified to a certain extent. We all know Jaime reacts first and then thinks

of the consequences.But at that moment it wasn't like he could just stand there and think about

what he's doing. And when he killed Aerys,he was running away from Jaime because he just killed Rossart. It came down to what was morally right or his vow as a kingsguard.  Kill a mad king,who ordered jaime to kill his father and watch as rossart burned the city or protect a mad insane king.

 In a way I don't think Jaime was lying when he told

Ned he remembered what happened to rickard and brandon and that they didn't deserve to die

that way,because it was Jaime who was  going to stand up and say something,but he was stopped

by selmy or hightower saying it wasn't his place to do so. But I think there was something else

going on, that Ned didn' believe or trust Jaime. Ned said that Jaime served the mad king in a

time when serving was safe. This makes me think that Ned felt Jaime never had to put himself

on the line when he was surrounded by one of the best kingsguard ever,not to mention a

powerful army of tywin lannister. And then he always thought Jaime was arrogant. I also

think that there was something else going on that we don't know about that made Ned say that

or I'm just reading more into it.

[LordDireStark]

I think Jaime was justified to a certain extent. We all know Jaime reacts first and then thinks

of the consequences.But at that moment it wasn't like he could just stand there and think about

what he's doing. And when he killed Aerys,he was running away from Jaime because he just killed Rossart. It came down to what was morally right or his vow as a kingsguard.  Kill a mad king,who ordered jaime to kill his father and watch as rossart burned the city or protect a mad insane king.

 In a way I don't think Jaime was lying when he told

Ned he remembered what happened to rickard and brandon and that they didn't deserve to die

that way,because it was Jaime who was  going to stand up and say something,but he was stopped

by selmy or hightower saying it wasn't his place to do so. But I think there was something else

going on, that Ned didn' believe or trust Jaime. Ned said that Jaime served the mad king in a

time when serving was safe. This makes me think that Ned felt Jaime never had to put himself

on the line when he was surrounded by one of the best kingsguard ever,not to mention a

powerful army of tywin lannister. And then he always thought Jaime was arrogant. I also

think that there was something else going on that we don't know about that made Ned say that

or I'm just reading more into it.

[Lady Sharya]

Not at all is that what I'm doing.
Okay....
I don't know how else I can explain this.... From where Jaime is sitting. Him and Ned have done more or less the same thing. FROM JAIME'S POINT OF VIEW Ned is being a hypocritical judgemental jerk..
Aerys killed Ned's dad and bro, Ned rebelled.
Aerys ordered Jaime to kill his own father, and let KL burn down around him, Jaime rebelled.
Ned Looks at Jaime like he's a criminal. 
Ned's point of view shows him Lannister forces sneak attacking a king they were sworn to.
He enters the throne room and see's Tywin Lannister's son has killed the king he was sworn to protect, right at the moment when his daddy showed up, probably another lannister sneak attack, and why the heck is he sitting on the iron throne?
Neither of them thinks the other one is being very cool, screw that guy, they don't wanna hear that crap.
Both of their assumptions are LOGICAL, but both of them are unfair. If they'd discussed things like normal people and not just passed judgement like entitled nobility, everyone might have been happier, but that's not what happened.

First, we can't really compare Ned's participation in RR to Jaime killing the king. I understand you wish to do this so that you may show that Jaime's annoyance at Ned's reaction was warrented.
I assume that you know the circumstances behind the RR. Lyanna's abduction, Aerys killing the lords and heirs of many northern houses and the heir to the Vale, WF and Lord of WF, then he demanded the heads of the Lord of SE & new Lord of WF. The king did not hold up his end of any alliances, oaths, fealty or anything else when he simply murders those men with no pretence of justice.

Jamie knows all of this. There isn't any information for Ned to give him.

Ned doesn't know why Jaime really killed Aerys, but the conclusion he draws is a sensible one since his father just sacked the city and there are Lannisters everywhere. It wasn't Ned's responsibility to press for information he had no way of knowing even existed. Jaime appeared to kill the king for his father, against his sworn vow as the king's guard.

There was nothing in Ned's reaction that wasn't anticipated and his "look" wasn't any different than the Lannister Lord's who first found him. The only difference was Jaime was sitting on the throne when Ned road in. What part of Jaime's omission seems logical For any other reason than arrogant pride?

[mediterraneo]

It has been noted before in this thread, but the point that Jaime HAS NOT TRIED TO JUSTIFY HIS ACT cleans the field of much of any accusation of hipocrisy on his part.

 

He killed the king. Deliberately. He entered his room with a sword with the intention of killing him. Wearing the armour he had wore that morning in the wait for a fight. Possibly it was just better than the white one, or heavier or something. He didn't change for that, when the messenger came he wouldn't have had the time.
In the same way that he didn't push Bran out of a whim, or being manipulated by Cersei. "I heard you when you said that the first time" he said her. Than he thought, he decided, he pushed.

Deliberatedly, as he acts. Mercyless, as he acts, doing what he believes it is necessary. And without offering excuses or attenuating causes. He didn't tell anyone of the wyldfire. He didn't argument to Catelyn that he had to defend more children, from Robert's wrath. "I pushed him" "Why?" "Because I wanted him to die". Jaime is not the hiding type.

You can say everything you want of the Lannister part in the Rebellion's end. But not that they didn't earn their place with the winners by taking charge of all of the dirty, unhonourable acts that Robert would have had to do himself if Tywin and Jaime didn't do them first. Things not suitable to a king that wants to endure. Expecially if he is an usurper with quite a shaky claim and no dragons.

The Frey were on board with Robert before the Lannister, and are publicly told to be latecomers.
Nobody sais that of Tywin Lannister's family. Because of the brutal things Tywin was able to do for the new King, things that the new King sanctioned.
Of course Robert kept Jaime with him. He was the one that killed his enemy.

 

That's one of the reasons why every rebel accusing Jaime of betrayal is either short sighted or in contraddiction.

The other layer of the contraddiction is about the treatment given to the rest of Aerys's Kingsguard members. They were standing there too, with the exception of two that were with Rhaegar.

 

Cheers everybody.

[mediterraneo]

sorry, double post.