Why Do You Hate Jamie?

[Anath]

You're right in stating that it was personal but after all, Jaime didn't do it before. He was a man of divided loyalties, true, and he was trying to syncretize them - till the last moment he was trying to make the king sign a truce. I suppose that the news of Aerys' last madness was just the final straw for Jaime who already hated him and wanted him dead.

However, throwing Bran through the window and being ready to deliver Arya to Cersei where he knew that she would be maimed, just to satisfy his mad sister, are more horrible crimes in my book and since the topic of the thread is Could Jaime ever be redeemed for Bran, I should say that although Jaime is one of my favorite characters and he has morals of his own, he shows no remorse for this concrete act, at least not yet. He himself doesn't feel it like a crime that should be redeemed. Maybe one day he would, but until then, I suppose we should treat his later deeds by their own value and not by whether they are enough to redeem him for Bran or not.

[snake]

Well if these sins have some supernatural ability to blur from one to the other the way you seem to suggest, would Lewyn Martell have beaten Sansa, or killed Aerys? Golly, must be, if you break one vow, stands to reason you'll break them all. rolleyes2.gif That Prince Lewyn, he just wasn't fit to wear the white.

Ya know, I forgot about Prince Lewyn's paramour. That is a knock against him and does diminish him in my eyes. He should have kept his vows, assuming Arianne wasn't just saying that to convince Ser Arys to forswear himself. Or do you think his planning to put Myrcella on the throne was a honorable thing to do since you seem to dismiss his treason out of hand?

He was drunk off his ass. Barristan could tell that he was in danger because he tried to stop Robert, but the king ordered him to stand aside. The comparing him to a wetnurse or Cersei is ridiculous...this was a real, honest to goodness danger to the king, and Barristan knew it. How do we know? The damned boar killed him, that's how!

It doesn't say that Ser Barriston tried to stop Robert, just that Robert commanded them all, including Renly to stand aside and let him take the boar alone. As Ned said "Even the truest knight cannot protect a king against himself." and that "No one could know this one would be his death." And Ser Barriston seems to think he failed and perhaps that is so, but I still think he was a good Kingsguard. Unlike the Kingslayer.

[Darcia]

Snake,

I not saying that Barristan was a failure, or that he was a bad memberof the Kingsguard, just that he follows orders, no matter what.

According to Barristan, himself, Robert was so drunk that he was reeling in his saddle. Barristan swore an oath to protect Robert, letting a very drunk person tackle a wild boar alone is not protecting them, but as Robert commanded him to stand aside, he did so.

So it would seem that obeying the king is more important than protecting him.

Therefore, it follows, that if Barristan had stayed in KL, and Joffery had ordered him to hit Sansa, he might have objected, but he would have done so, because he does as his king commands.

[Guest Other-in-law]

He should have kept his vows, assuming Arianne wasn't just saying that to convince Ser Arys to forswear himself. Or do you think his planning to put Myrcella on the throne was a honorable thing to do since you seem to dismiss his treason out of hand?

I'm neither defending nor condemning Arys participation in Arianne's plot. I'm simply saying that it is utterly irrelevant to the question of why Arys obeyed the royal order to beat Sansa. For you, it seems, one misdeed is the explanation for every other action that a person commits; a ridiculous notion.

Q: Why did Arys join Arianne's scheme? A: Because he allowed himself to be seduced by her.

Q: Who sucked Arys' cock to get him to beat Sansa Stark then? Arianne? Nope, she wasn't there. Who then? Cersei? Shae? Lollys? A: Nobody. He didn't want to beat her and tried to get out of it, but he had to in the end because Joffrey ordered him to.

He swore an oath to obey the King, and that's exactly what he did. Just like Barristan, Hightower, Dayne, Darry, and Whent all would have, because those oh so honourable men were a shining lesson to the world, and they would not break their vows.

Arys proves that there is no out save oathbreaking when the king gives a command, otherwise he would have taken it. Quod est demonstrandum.

[snake]

Darcia,

Therefore, it follows, that if Barristan had stayed in KL, and Joffery had ordered him to hit Sansa, he might have objected, but he would have done so, because he does as his king commands.

I don't think so. The impression I get is that he wouldn't and I don't think I'm gonna change my mind until I see something that suggests that he would. I doubt anyone would respect a man who would beat little girls and Ser Barriston was respected by all.

I'm neither defending nor condemning Arys participation in Arianne's plot. I'm simply saying that it is utterly irrelevant to the question of why Arys obeyed the royal order to beat Sansa. For you, it seems, one misdeed is the explanation for every other action that a person commits; a ridiculous notion.

Of course it's relevant. It shows the character of the man. He wasn't strong enough to resist Arianne even though he knew it was wrong. he wasn't strong enough to stay loyal to tommen although he knew what he was doing was treason. He wasn't strong enough to refuse Joffery although he knew that was wrong as well.

He swore an oath to obey the King, and that's exactly what he did. Just like Barristan, Hightower, Dayne, Darry, and Whent all would have, because those oh so honourable men were a shining lesson to the world, and they would not break their vows.

You're wrong there. Those men would not have beaten Sansa even if ordered to do so. You may think it but you are wrong.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Of course it's relevant. It shows the character of the man. He wasn't strong enough to resist Arianne even though he knew it was wrong. he wasn't strong enough to stay loyal to tommen although he knew what he was doing was treason. He wasn't strong enough to refuse Joffery although he knew that was wrong as well.

He wasn't "strong enough" to break his oath to obey the king, huh? But Aerys shining lesson six would have been strong enough to be oathbreakers?It's just bizarre that you can deny the only two possibilities, just because you want to think these were such nice guys.

What's the rule you're positing? Breaking your oath is dishonorable if it saves the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but it's not dishonorable if it hurts a single girl. And that wouldn't even count as oathbreaking, somehow, even though it would be breaking your oath.

You're wrong there. Those men would not have beaten Sansa even if ordered to do so. You may think it but you are wrong.

Either they would beat Sansa or they would be oathbreakers. One or the other. If they're oathbreakers, the ones that were giving Jaime shit about his duty were hypocrites and full of shit. My impression, based on their compliance with Aerys' crimes against humanity, is that they value oathkeeping over morality.

ETA:

I doubt anyone would respect a man who would beat little girls and Ser Barriston was respected by all.

And yet in that thread about Rhaegar, you believe that everyone (including Barristan) whose name isn't Robert Baratheon respected Rhaegar, even though he was a rapist and a kidnapper. Real consistent there, bub.

[snake]

He wasn't "strong enough" to break his oath to obey the king, huh? But Aerys shining lesson six would have been strong enough to be oathbreakers?It's just bizarre that you can deny the only two possibilities, just because you want to think these were such nice guys.

What's the rule you're positing? Breaking your oath is dishonorable if it saves the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but it's not dishonorable if it hurts a single girl. And that wouldn't even count as oathbreaking, somehow, even though it would be breaking your oath.

I don't want them to be nice guys, they were nice guys.

Killing the king is wrong if you are a Kingsguard and refusing to beat harmless little girls is right if you're a Kingsguard. Simple enough for you.

Either they would beat Sansa or they would be oathbreakers. One or the other. If they're oathbreakers, the ones that were giving Jaime shit about his duty were hypocrites and full of shit. My impression, based on their compliance with Aerys' crimes against humanity, is that they value oathkeeping over morality.

Well that's your impression. I however don't feel the same.

And yet in that thread about Rhaegar, you believe that everyone (including Barristan) whose name isn't Robert Baratheon respected Rhaegar, even though he was a rapist and a kidnapper. Real consistent there, bub.

Well, I try to be.

And I don't think Ned really respected Rhaegar. But it's not me who's inconsistent. I think Rhaegar was not such a nice guy and deserved what happened to him.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I don't want them to be nice guys, they were nice guys.

Nice guys who stood and watched and did nothing while Rickard Stark was roasted in his own armor. Interesting definition of "nice".

And I don't think Ned really respected Rhaegar. But it's not me who's inconsistent. I think Rhaegar was not such a nice guy and deserved what happened to him.

It's abundantly clear how readily you ignore any evidence that contradicts your fatuous opinions, but I'll make one last attempt before resorting to the ignore function:

Dany: "There is some good to be said of my father, surely?"

Barristan: "There is, Your Grace. Of him, and those who came before him. Your grandfather Jaehaerys and his brother, their father Aegon, your mother...and Rhaegar. Him most of all."

Barristan, who you consider so flawless, admired Rhaegar "most of all". You think Barristan is so admiring of a rapist? Hopeless. Unlike the KG, Rhaegar was not under oath-bound orders to obey anyone else, so that couldn't be admiration for loyalty alone, as the Ned's admiration for Aerys' seven was. Nope, Barristan must have admired Rhaegar for raping Lyanna of his own volition.

And claiming that Rhaegar "got what he deserved" while Aerys didn't is just priceless.

[Daemrion]

Killing the king is wrong if you are a Kingsguard and refusing to beat harmless little girls is right if you're a Kingsguard.

Not so simple.

This statement assumes that:

1. The Kingsguard oath is not one of total obedience to the King. Or

2. If the oath of a Kingsguard and oath of a knight comes into conflict, the oath of a knight trumps the oath of a Kingsguard

And as Enguerrand is so fond of pointing out, both 1 and 2 are not true.

[Descent]

I think that Jaime is no better and no worse than most of the other characters in this series. The thing that torments him is that like Tyrion he has no illusions left. Unlike Tyrion he was not robbed of them at a very early age.

Jaime is no different from people in myth, legend and story who are actually rather noble characters but make bad and immoral decisions at times. This is one of the reasons why I like this series, the moral decisions are never easy and are often made mistakenly or poorly, so that it is a struggle for Jaime to deal with his lost sense of honor.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Killing the king is wrong if you are a Kingsguard and refusing to beat harmless little girls is right if you're a Kingsguard. Simple enough for you.

Snake, I'm only just beginning to see how astonishingly inconsistent and bizarre your opions are. From the "Regarding Jaime and his oath to Catelyn" thread, you said this:

IMO, the oath of a Kingsguard to his king trumps all other oaths so he was duty bound to obey the person who he has taken for his king.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showt...15609&st=20

So the KG oath comes before all else, but they do have the right to refuse to obey the king's command to beat little girls, even though their oath to obey the king trumps his knightly oath? I'm starting to suspect that you just might be crazy. These endless self-contradictions are not rational.

[snake]

Nice guys who stood and watched and did nothing while Rickard Stark was roasted in his own armor. Interesting definition of "nice".

I know. There job was to defend their king and they were doing it.

It's abundantly clear how readily you ignore any evidence that contradicts your fatuous opinions, but I'll make one last attempt before resorting to the ignore function:

Dany: "There is some good to be said of my father, surely?"

Barristan: "There is, Your Grace. Of him, and those who came before him. Your grandfather Jaehaerys and his brother, their father Aegon, your mother...and Rhaegar. Him most of all."

Barristan, who you consider so flawless, admired Rhaegar "most of all". You think Barristan is so admiring of a rapist? Hopeless. Unlike the KG, Rhaegar was not under oath-bound orders to obey anyone else, so that couldn't be admiration for loyalty alone, as the Ned's admiration for Aerys' seven was. Nope, Barristan must have admired Rhaegar for raping Lyanna of his own volition. rolleyes2.gif

Well it doesn't say he admired him actually, just that he has a lot of good to say about him, which doesn't necessarily mean Rhaegar never did anything bad.

And claiming that Rhaegar "got what he deserved" while Aerys didn't is just priceless.

I never claimed Aerys never got what he desreved. All I contend that it was wrong for the Kingslayer to kill him as he was a sworn brother of the Kingsguard.

Not so simple.

This statement assumes that:

1. The Kingsguard oath is not one of total obedience to the King. Or

2. If the oath of a Kingsguard and oath of a knight comes into conflict, the oath of a knight trumps the oath of a Kingsguard

And as Enguerrand is so fond of pointing out, both 1 and 2 are not true.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. IMO, it is as simple as that. Their main duty is to keep the king safe and beating little girls has nothing to do with that.

I e-mailed GRRM about this back in 2000 and this is what he had to say:

Q - I was wondering if the vows of

the Kingsguard take precedence over the vows they take

when they first become knights? That is, was Jaime

justified in his killing of Aery's because Aery's was

going to burn the city, or was he guilty of betraying

his vow to protect the king?

A - Some might say, "both." As Jaime himself says in the dungeons of Riverrun,

the vows you swear are sometimes in conflict with each other.

So there doesn't seem a clear cut answer on the question.

[Antonius Pius]

I think Jaime is clearly aware that killing Aerys was the wrong thing to do. I agree with Enguerrand on that. Jaime's reflections, his dream of his former brothers foremost, imply that he knew it was the wrong thing to do. I think he did not care, and simply wanted to kill Aerys for personal reasons. He may have convinced himself sixteen years later that Aerys' plan was the reason for killing him, but I do not believe it. That he still regards it as his greatest deed is telling in that respect. If it were necessity, it would not have been a great deed, it would have been the action required to accomplish a deed (like taking stair one step at a time to get to the next floor). That he considers it a great deed suggests he has a personal feeling of accomplishment invested in it. Jaime-apologist will suggest the accomplishment of preventing the burning of King's Landing, but as I said, I don't buy that. I'm sure he did not want KL to burn, but IMO killing Rossart was enough for that.

Other-in-Law,

I think you may be overstating or exaggerating the conduct of Aerys' seven. AFAIK, we have only three instances/passages whereby we can judge them: 1) Hightower telling Jaime it's not for them to judge the king, 2) Darry telling Jaime they are not supposed to protect the queen from the king, 3) Darry telling Jaime to shut up and guard Aerys when he wants to ride to war with Rhaegar. Maybe a fourth, when Ned recalls Hightower saying if it'd be up to them, "Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne". I'm not sure it's connected to the matter of obedience which is the general theme. These remarks may warrant a pattern, but perhaps not to the degree that you hold them. As it is, this is prescious little material to make serious, sweeping statements about them all. There is little evidence either way, to be sure. But of the instances I have mentioned above (I don't recall other passages with direct quotes from Aerys' seven).

If you take the staments apart, I think Darry's remark about not protecting Rhaella is the worst, and least ambiguous; cleary he doesn't feel they should restrain the king from commiting rape. "Spousal privileges" from the Westerosi pov be damned, it's clearly wrong.

The other istance with Darry is less clear (I'm going from memory here, so maybe there are details I'm missing), but as I recall the conversation, Jaime asks Rhaegar to be allowed to come to war with them. Rhaegar comments on how he had wanted to make changes but was to late, and how Jaime is a crutch Aerys needs, out of fear for Tywin. Jaime subsequently gets mad: "I'm no crutch, I'm a knight of the Kingsguard!", to which Darry replies something like "then do your duty, Ser!" This does not necessarily imply that he is rebuking Jaime for protesting against his orders. It could very well be the case, but I submit that Darry could equally be upset by the method of Jaime's reply, which is in essence, throwing a tantrum before the crown prince. That could well be read as undignified behaviour, and, what's worse: childishness, for which there is no place amongst the white brothers. If Jaime had stated his case with more composure, he might not have been rebuked by his sworn brother.

The first instance with Hightower, which I take it is your main reason for condemning Hightower, is after the burning of Rickard and the death of Brandon. Yet there are some sidenotes to be placed here as well: we do not know what Jaime was doing, and we do not know what was in Hightower's head. Jaime said he was filling his head with thoughts of Cersei (to Catelyn, I believe), or perhaps going away inside. But at the same time, he may have been fidgety or something, and thereby earned himself a talking-to from Hightower. As others pointed out, the idea of Hightower disciplining a younger brother is not unrealistic. It does not immediately follow that Hightower is as strict on obeying as you suggest. I submit it MIGHT, but not necessarily. We do not know how pronounced Aerys' madness was in the period up until the death of the Starks. It grew steadily worse after Duskendale, that's the general trend. That can mean anything. If we hear evidence that Aerys was burning people by the hundred before lunchtime we can be sure that you are correct in dismissing the other KG for blind lackeys. On the other hand, it could also be that his lapses were still periodic and of lesser gravity. And neither do we really know that Hightower and the other, more senior men of the KG had no qualms about obeying a mad king. Just because they did not discuss it with Jaime (a hot-headed youth with a reckless and arrogant demeanor, I remind you) that does not mean they did not discuss it AT ALL. They probably did. I think Hightower as LC at least had some sort of discussion/talk with Rhaegar about the worsening of the king's condition.

The fourth statement about Hightower "Or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne", can mean just about anything, from "King's Landing would not have fallen" to "even though our king is dead, we still defy you rebels"... It does not warrant drawing extreme conclusions IMO.

A further matter I suggest is that there is a personal dynamic in regard to the oath of obedience: as Jaime says to his scummy companions about coming to him if the king wants to kill someone, or chastise a little girl. I think there may be some room for personal interpretations. That is not to say that the KG can choose which orders to obey, but if, say, Rhaegar ordered Darry to saddle his horse, and Darry told his page to saddle Rhaegar's horse, by your vigorous standard (or the one you suggest the KG adhere to) he would have broken his oath of obedience. I think that would be overstating things. In the same vein, I do not see Aerys' seven chastising a Sansa Stark. I think Barristan would have refused Joffrey. Look at how he reacts when he is dismissed from the KG. He has no qualms about calling things by their name then. It suggests he does have a measure of personal interpretation to regard his service with.

On the whole, I think there is some validity to your position, but I think you are going a bit far in the conclusions you draw from the instances I have recited (if there are more instances upon which you judge them, please bring them up because I haven't found any which allow for a direct statement of their personalities). It's not that I think the direction you're taking is wrong, just that we cannot know from the meagre evidence.

[Antonius Pius]

I e-mailed GRRM about this back in 2000 and this is what he had to say:

....

A - Some might say, "both." As Jaime himself says in the dungeons of Riverrun,

the vows you swear are sometimes in conflict with each other.

So there doesn't seem a clear cut answer on the question.

You've been sitting pretty on this statement by GRRM all this time?! Not that it solves a lot of questions, but still!

[snake]

It's in the SSM at Westeros. Still, why ruin all the fun.

[Antonius Pius]

It's in the SSM at Westeros. Still, why ruin all the fun.

Hmmm, that does spoil the fun a bit... But it's not dynamite material, I grant you.

[Dickums]

First of all we don't know the kingsguard's oath exactly. We have evidence that you must obey the king, but we probably have to assume that protecting the king comes first i.e. the king orders you to stab him with your sword you say no. Yes, you can say Barristan obeyed Robert over protecting him, but that's not quite true as Barristan didn't know for sure Robert would get gutted. The thing is Robert has killed many a boar the same way, and I'm going to assume that many times he was also drunk off his ass since he liked to drink especially while hunting. Even afterward Barristan feels he is at fault, which means he feels that he believes he should have ignored Robert's order and stopped him from trying to kill the boar. Either way this argument is completely moot in the case of Jaime as Jaime really didn't seem concerned with the city going up in flames at all when he killed Aerys. If he had been concerned he wouldn't have taken his merry time about killing the other pyromancers and probably would have told others about the plot so that they could be hunted down quicker, and oh yeah gotten rid of the highly volatile wildfire pots all over the city, which Jaime just let sit because he was so concerned about the city. In my opinion Jaime uses the I had to kill Aerys because he would have destroyed the city as a total excuse for his actions after the fact, and mostly just to convince Cat to let him out.

[snake]

Hmmm, that does spoil the fun a bit... But it's not dynamite material, I grant you.

It's far from dynamite material. At best it allows differing POV's about what happened to think they're right.

And that was good post by the way.

[Daemrion]

The SSM answer sounds like a dodge on the question. And it still doesn't answer at all the issue of what happens when the Kingsguard oath and the Knightly Oath come into direct conflict.

[Guest Other-in-law]

AP,

First, I wish that you weren't so stingy with the paragraph breaks...that monster block of text isn't very easy on the eyes.

I think Jaime is clearly aware that killing Aerys was the wrong thing to do. I agree with Enguerrand on that. Jaime's reflections, his dream of his former brothers foremost, imply that he knew it was the wrong thing to do. He may have convinced himself sixteen years later that Aerys' plan was the reason for killing him, but I do not believe it. That he still regards it as his greatest deed is telling in that respect.

It tells me that he thinks it was the right thing to do. Obviously it was against the rules, and oathbreaking and treason, but it was morally right. Just the same as the von Stauffenberg plot was.

There are two different systems for judging right and wrong, here: common morality and following the rules. The latter is named honour and given a lot of fancy cosmetic work to make it look appealing, but the rules themselves are all about protecting the power of an entrenched status quo. Why is that so good, especially when the powers that be become heinous and cruel? It's not. But that fact doesn't mean that people like the old KG can easily recognise that the system they've devoted their lives to serving is rotten. Barristan seems to have finally realised as much when he secretly appraised Dany and her character before openly swearing his sword to her. He did not want to get caught in that same trap again.

I'm sure he did not want KL to burn, but IMO killing Rossart was enough for that.

Not a risk I'd be willing to take with the lives of several thousand people in the balance. I can imagine Jaime riding out to meet Ned Stark, beaming proudly and telling how he prevented the mad king's evil plot, but without technically breaking his oath. Then KL explodes behind him....oops!

Aerys needed to be stopped, Aerys deserved to die. What's the big deal about Jaime putting that mad dog down? The fact that people are stuck in a ridiculously hide-bound ethos that prevents them from seeing the forest for the trees, that's what.

I think you may be overstating or exaggerating the conduct of Aerys' seven. AFAIK, we have only three instances/passages whereby we can judge them: 1) Hightower telling Jaime it's not for them to judge the king, 2) Darry telling Jaime they are not supposed to protect the queen from the king, 3) Darry telling Jaime to shut up and guard Aerys when he wants to ride to war with Rhaegar. Maybe a fourth, when Ned recalls Hightower saying if it'd be up to them, "Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne". I'm not sure it's connected to the matter of obedience which is the general theme. These remarks may warrant a pattern, but perhaps not to the degree that you hold them. As it is, this is prescious little material to make serious, sweeping statements about them all. There is little evidence either way, to be sure. But of the instances I have mentioned above (I don't recall other passages with direct quotes from Aerys' seven).

Those are pretty much it, and they all support my position. What evidence supports the other side; that Aerys' seven would break their oaths by refusing to obey a direct order? Why nothing but wishful thinking.

If you take the staments apart, I think Darry's remark about not protecting Rhaella is the worst, and least ambiguous; cleary he doesn't feel they should restrain the king from commiting rape. "Spousal privileges" from the Westerosi pov be damned, it's clearly wrong.

Yes, incredibly wrong. It's worth noting that the Queen was disfigured by Aerys' chewing her flesh. If defending him is honorable, than honour itself is shit. They didn't need to kill Aerys then, just break in and separate them, and take the Queen to safety. Doing nothing is just disgusting. Aerys is very similar to D.C.Stephenson, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._C._Stephenson

Would anyone consider one of his bodyguards to be admirable, keeping watch over his sex crimes?

It could very well be the case, but I submit that Darry could equally be upset by the method of Jaime's reply, which is in essence, throwing a tantrum before the crown prince.That could well be read as undignified behaviour, and, what's worse: childishness, for which there is no place amongst the white brothers.

Yeah, undignified behaviour has no place among goons watching over a man chewing his wife's breasts off or getting an erection while watching men be slowly roasted to death in their armor. If Darry and Hightower are worried about that, they've got seriously screwed up priorities.

But at the same time, he may have been fidgety or something, and thereby earned himself a talking-to from Hightower.

A slavering psychopath sits the throne, who incinerates his Hand for trying to resign, and Hightower is getting upset about fidgeting????

In the same vein, I do not see Aerys' seven chastising a Sansa Stark.

I don't see how such a reading is possible from the text. They swore an oath to obey, and nothing is more important than their oaths. If their honour forbade them from rescuing Lord Rickard from the king's wrath...which it did....why would it permit them to protect Sansa from the king's wrath?

Note that we have no evidence that the KG received any instructions to do anything while Lords Stark and Chelsted burned. If they gutted the pyromancers and either freed the victims or gave them the mercy of a swift death, they would not actually be breaking their oaths. The king would be angry of course, and possibly order them to be killed instead, but their honour would be intact, would it not? But they would not oppose him in anything. And somehow people want to believe that these same men would refuse to obey a direct order? Absurd.

I think Barristan would have refused Joffrey. Look at how he reacts when he is dismissed from the KG. He has no qualms about calling things by their name then.

After. That's the key word.

It suggests he does have a measure of personal interpretation to regard his service with.

No it doesn't. His service was over. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Barry. Yeah, then he finds the courage to speak up. Good job.

It's not that I think the direction you're taking is wrong, just that we cannot know from the meagre evidence.

The evidence for may not be abundant but it is strong. The old KG took their oaths seriously. The evidence against is simply non-existant.

Long years later, Barristan Selmy has finally wised up enough to be cautious before pledging his unconditional service to Dany, and scopes her out before committing himself. Jaime tries to temper the ghastly absolutness of the vows with common sense. The Old Guard did neither.