Jump to content

R+L=J v.162


Ygrain

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I've been involved in a few of the legitimacy debates that focused on the KG and the ToJ. Arguing back and forth about the details dozens of times caused me to take a step back and ask: what is the author trying to convey to the audience by having three kingsguard present at the ToJ? Forget the in-universe details and consider the literary function of having three protectors called kingsguard present.

Indeed. Kingsguard, not mistressguard, not bastardguard, but the very epitome of Kingsguard. Three living legends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Neither the wildlings nor the Northmen will be enough to seriously impress or challenge the kings and pretenders down south. Especially not Daenerys after her arrival. The size of the combined forces of Northmen and wildlings does not matter because neither force would be interested to march down south and put Jon on a throne down there. That would mean they would abandon the Wall. Not to mention that the wildlings are no army and thus easily defeated by any military force in the Seven Kingdoms. Not to mention the Dothraki.

In the books that's not a very likely scenario. Even if it worked that way there is little reason that either the Northmen or the wildlings would give a damn about his 'legal claim' to the Iron Throne. Why should they? The wildlings have never even seen King's Landing and the Northmen most likely no inclination to wage another hopeless war against the South with a mere fraction of their surviving men.

As I've said, the question is not whether they believe him. They might privately believe his story or consider it at least plausible. But that doesn't mean they will publicly reveal they believe his story and then declare for him.

Those people are savvy politicians, not naive dreamers waiting for 'the Return of the King'. Jon Snow could only hope to be backed by a significant number of lords in a campaign for the Iron Throne if he had to offer them something in return. And it is not likely that he'll be ever be in such a position. The other way would be to convince them by force. But the Northmen and the wildlings will be at best cause the people in the South to laugh at him. They won't intimidate them one bit.

If Justin Massey does hire those 20,000 sellswords there might be a decently sized army up there. But then, those should be Stannis' men, not Jon's. And unless the Iron Bank gives Jon a loan as large as the one they gave to Stannis he would not be able to pay so many soldiers. They would live after Stannis' death.

But considering the threat the Others pose it is really out of the question that either Stannis or Jon begins a campaign for the Iron Throne in the middle of winter before the Others are defeated. If they recruit men and assemble armies they will use it to strengthen the defenses of the Wall, not plunge Westeros into another fruitless war. And if the Wall falls - which is likely to happen - then they will also not try to conquer the Iron Throne. They will do anything in their power to make an alliance with the people down south to fight the Others.

I agree that Jon's claim is insignificant politically, even more so in a potential future political situation including at least one major Targaryen player in Westeros, which is why I believe Jon would never embark on a campaign for the Iron Throne. As you said, Jon's parentage is far more mystically/magically significant than politically, and so revealing Jon's secret is likely to be more conducive to him playing a central role in the war against the Others than to his being a long-lost Targaryen heir. In fact, I believe that the only political consequence of Jon's secret would be that by its coming to light, some or all of Rhaegar's Scheme might be revealed in-story as well, which I suspect would influence Daenerys' actions once she comes into power (as in, appeasing the North my naming a Warden of the North that is both a Targaryen and a Stark once the battle against the Others has been won).

7 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I've been involved in a few of the legitimacy debates that focused on the KG and the ToJ. Arguing back and forth about the details dozens of times caused me to take a step back and ask: what is the author trying to convey to the audience by having three kingsguard present at the ToJ? Forget the in-universe details and consider the literary function of having three protectors called kingsguard present.

Absolutely no literary function, as that would be utterly uncharacteristic of GRRM's writing thus far. Three of the most celebrated knights of their time guarding an isolated tower in the middle of red nowhere is just bizarre, and other than screaming "this is significant!" there is absolutely no hidden meaning to be gleaned from the psychedelic pipe-dream scene that we've gotten our information from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

Absolutely no literary function, as that would be utterly uncharacteristic of GRRM's writing thus far. Three of the most celebrated knights of their time guarding an isolated tower in the middle of red nowhere is just bizarre, and other than screaming "this is significant!" there is absolutely no hidden meaning to be gleaned from the psychedelic pipe-dream scene that we've gotten our information from.

Sounds legit, bud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I've been involved in a few of the legitimacy debates that focused on the KG and the ToJ. Arguing back and forth about the details dozens of times caused me to take a step back and ask: what is the author trying to convey to the audience by having three kingsguard present at the ToJ? Forget the in-universe details and consider the literary function of having three protectors called kingsguard present.

Well, if we we would make a fuzz about the literary function of people being guarded by a Kingsguard all the time then a lot of people would be the true king in this story. Tyrion is guarded by the Kingsguard, too, in the Battle on the Blackwater. Does this mean he is the true king? Or that the true king will be murdered by a false Kingsguard just as Tyrion was nearly murdered by Ser Mandon Moore?

What is the literary function of Ser Arys Oakheart protecting and (sort of) betraying Princess Myrcella?

What I think you can deduce from the Kingsguard presence at the tower is the following:

1. Somebody/something in that tower is connected to House Targaryen and very important to (one of) the members of that house.

2. It is very likely that said somebody has royal blood in his or her veins since it would else not be very likely that the Kingsguard would have been present.

But that's it, really. The idea that 'someone is protected by the Kingsguard' equals 'he must be/become the king' is obviously nonsense.

And you can even doubt the second point if you want to because in the story the Kingsguard are also used to guard or chastise hostages/prisoners of the Crown.

The idea that we should just search for the literary function of the Kingsguard in the fever dream and not also ask what the hell the literary function of Oakheart slapping Sansa Stark was does not exactly convince me.

1 hour ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

I agree that Jon's claim is insignificant politically, even more so in a potential future political situation including at least one major Targaryen player in Westeros, which is why I believe Jon would never embark on a campaign for the Iron Throne. As you said, Jon's parentage is far more mystically/magically significant than politically, and so revealing Jon's secret is likely to be more conducive to him playing a central role in the war against the Others than to his being a long-lost Targaryen heir. In fact, I believe that the only political consequence of Jon's secret would be that by its coming to light, some or all of Rhaegar's Scheme might be revealed in-story as well, which I suspect would influence Daenerys' actions once she comes into power (as in, appeasing the North my naming a Warden of the North that is both a Targaryen and a Stark once the battle against the Others has been won).

I'm pretty sure there will be a (marriage) alliance between Dany and Jon long before the Others are defeated. And in such a scenario he could easily be recognized as a Targaryen prince and included in her reign as a Prince Consort or the Protector of the Realm. He could even become her successor if she names him heir and predeceases him (however considering his current death-and-resurrection predicament I'm not very exactly putting much money on Jon Snow actually surviving the entire series - that would be as likely as Gandalf the White becoming King of Middle-earth at the end of the War of the Ring).

Appeasing the North should be a complete non-issue at any point in Dany's story. The North is already a non-factor in the grand scheme of Westerosi politics due to the losses it suffered in the War of the Five Kings. The current civil war up there as well as the Others will only cause greater losses which means that especially the North will be very happy indeed when Dany finally arrives with a huge army. They will want to team up with her not resist her.

Jon Snow himself makes that clear in ADwD when he quips that they definitely could use a dragon at the Wall.

And Dany is definitely looking for the other two dragon heads. She is the promised princess, the one who woke dragons from stone, but the savior trinity is not yet complete. Tyrion might be another dragon head if he turns out to be Aerys' bastard but the third head must be Jon Snow. The tricky thing will be to get Jon to claim a dragon in the end. Brown Ben Plumm has sufficient Targaryen blood to become the third dragonrider alongside Dany and Tyrion back in Essos, not to mention that Dragonbinder could act as a complete game changer. If all three dragons are claimed before Dany reaches Westeros then it might be more difficult to the three dragon heads to eventually unite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

Absolutely no literary function, as that would be utterly uncharacteristic of GRRM's writing thus far. Three of the most celebrated knights of their time guarding an isolated tower in the middle of red nowhere is just bizarre, and other than screaming "this is significant!" there is absolutely no hidden meaning to be gleaned from the psychedelic pipe-dream scene that we've gotten our information from.

 

1 minute ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Sounds legit, bud.

Thanks, man.

Now that I think about it, though, it could be viewed as a Red Herring. At first glance, the narrative of the five books seems to suggest that Lyanna's kidnapping by Rhaegar has been made out to be the catalyst to Robert's Rebellion and the downfall of House Targaryen (and therefore, the single-most important event in recent history), and therefore the Tower of Joy is made to be pivotal in that whole storyline. However, we do know now, thanks to the collective efforts of fellow posters on the Forum, that in all probability, there are grander plots in the background of the current arcs which have only been hinted at so far. I am with @Lord Varys on this -- in the grand scheme of things, the Tower of Joy is probably of far less significance than it has been made out to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon will probably end up being forced to claim the Throne. Hell, he may even be forced to embark upon that campaign after beating the Boltons. If it becomes known he is Robb Stark's heir, than frankly, he will have no choice but to secure his rule over the North to appease the Northmen. From there it just escalates into him claiming the Iron Throne once his parentage is laid bare. Basically, his supporters are more concerned with avenging themselves against the Lannisters than his actual claim, and try to use him as a way to do that.

Sansa will probably be the person who actually makes sure that Jon becomes King. Something he won't want to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read AGoT for the first time one could easily interpret the Kingsguard at the tower as Lyanna's gaolers, left there by Rhaegar to protect his prize from his enemies.

One can also interpret the fever dream sequence in that way. The knights don't have to be good to obey commands, right? And even if they are, if they are good little Kingsguard they still obey the commands they are given to the letter. Which very likely is also the reason why the insisted on fighting Ned in any scenario. If they had not felt bound to an oath/command given to them by either Aerys or Rhaegar they would have tried to reach an agreement with Ned first.

The whole thing sort of clashes with Ned's high opinion of Ser Arthur Dayne, though. But then, we still don't know as of yet what made Ser Arthur so special in Ned's mind. It certainly seems to be connected to the tower but we don't know how exactly nor why he is singled out rather than all three.

I remember once suggesting that Howland successfully convinced Ser Arthur to turn against Oswell and Gerold and dying in the process, saving Ned that way. The idea that those three great fighters could defeat seven men of whom at least two (Ned and Howland) were not exactly great fighters. If we exclude them from the great guys it would have been effectively five against seven and the three Kingsguard should have butchered them all. Especially if Ethan Glover wasn't exactly at his best, either.

And nothing whatsoever suggests that the men Ned took to the tower were known to be the greatest warriors in the North. If they were material to challenge the Kingsguard with one should assume we would have learned something about their reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you read AGoT for the first time one could easily interpret the Kingsguard at the tower as Lyanna's gaolers, left there by Rhaegar to protect his prize from his enemies.

One can also interpret the fever dream sequence in that way. The knights don't have to be good to obey commands, right? And even if they are, if they are good little Kingsguard they still obey the commands they are given to the letter...

 

And never forget:

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

And never forget:

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

That quote is sort of irritating considering that as things stand the Kingsguard would not really be bound to obey orders given to them by Prince Rhaegar because Prince Rhaegar wasn't the king.

Now, Dayne and Whent were Rhaegar's friends and thus might have been more inclined to do what their buddy told them than following commands issued by the Mad King but that would have had nothing to do with them being Kingsguard and everything with them being Rhaegar's friends.

From a Kingsguard perspective they would have been traitors to their kings. And it seems that Oswell Whent actually betrayed his king back when he helped Rhaegar to arrange the tourney of Harrenhal through his brother Lord Walter - that is, if we assume the whole covert Great Council idea is true (which I think it is).

Considering that Arthur Dayne is supposed to have been Rhaegar's best friend we have every reason to believe he was even more willing to betray Aerys than Oswell was.

But Hightower is really a mystery there if we take the quote up there seriously. He was the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard and a member of the Small Council of the king. Rhaegar had no part in the government of the Realm. He was just the Heir Apparent, bound to become king upon his father's death. In that sense it is rather unlikely that Rhaegar could have actually given Hightower any commands. And as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard Dayne and Whent would actually been honor-bound to obey Hightower's commands rather than Rhaegar's.

One can try to make sense of this three ways:

1. Aerys sent Hightower to Rhaegar with an offer of peace and reconciliation (very likely considering that Aerys had previously named Rhaegar's friend Jon Connington his Hand and apparently actually wanted to give that office to Rhaegar himself - he only chose Connington because he could not find Rhaegar) and gave Rhaegar through Hightower enough authority so that Rhaegar actually could give commands to Hightower.

My idea is that Aerys might have named Rhaegar the Lord Protector of the Realm. In such a capacity Rhaegar could essentially have given pretty much anybody in the Realm commands as long as they were connected to military matters.

2. The other idea has to do with Hightower's overall personality. The assumption is that Jaime's picture of the man as a die-hard Aerys loyalist is wrong or at least incomplete. One could easily imagine that Hightower saw his own doubts about Aerys' sanity reflected in Jaime's discomfort and only advised him to stay true to his oaths because he himself felt a strong urge to disobey them. Not to mention that he might have feared that young Jaime might simply break and desert, shaming the Kingsguard in the process.

Thus I think it is not unlikely that Hightower was glad to be given an opportunity to stay away from court and the king with the new assignment of protecting Lyanna Stark. He could even have volunteered for such a task if it meant he got away from the king he had begun to loath. Especially if he also expected Rhaegar to eventually depose his father and he had no intention to be torn between staying true to his vow and doing the right thing.

3. The third thing has to do with prophecy stuff. Dayne and Whent might have believed whatever Rhaegar believed about the prophecy and thus potentially about Lyanna's child from the beginning, and Hightower might have been very aware of the prophecy, too, considering that he was a member of the Kingsguard apparently since before the tragedy at Summerhall in 259 AC, having firsthand knowledge on the Ghost's prophecy of the promised prince and the forced marriage of Aerys and Rhaella to produce said prince.

If Hightower agreed that a child of Rhaegar and Lyanna might be important for the fulfillment of the prophecy he might very well have decided it was more important to protect it and its mother rather than the king or Rhaegar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I've been involved in a few of the legitimacy debates that focused on the KG and the ToJ. Arguing back and forth about the details dozens of times caused me to take a step back and ask: what is the author trying to convey to the audience by having three kingsguard present at the ToJ? Forget the in-universe details and consider the literary function of having three protectors called kingsguard present.

Surely if we are forgetting the in-universe details, it can't speak to something as fundamentally in-world as the legal considerations of the succession? As a piece of foreshadowing, it could work just fine with an illegitimate Jon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Black Crow said:

 

And never forget:

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

Perhaps what is more telling is Ned's view of those who stood and fought him to their deaths at the tower of joy.  We know how reviled Jaime is for breaking his vow.  Ned revered, honored and respected these three Kingsguard.  He did not erect a communal grave for them, but built each one their own cairn.  He says to Bran that once the Kingsguard had been a shining example to the world, and that the greatest knight among them was Arthur Dayne.  So, what did they do that gathered Ned's respect and admiration?  It seems the most likely explanation is that they held true to their vow and died defending their king. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wayward Sand Star said:

I agree that Jon's claim is insignificant politically, even more so in a potential future political situation including at least one major Targaryen player in Westeros, which is why I believe Jon would never embark on a campaign for the Iron Throne. As you said, Jon's parentage is far more mystically/magically significant than politically, and so revealing Jon's secret is likely to be more conducive to him playing a central role in the war against the Others than to his being a long-lost Targaryen heir. In fact, I believe that the only political consequence of Jon's secret would be that by its coming to light, some or all of Rhaegar's Scheme might be revealed in-story as well, which I suspect would influence Daenerys' actions once she comes into power (as in, appeasing the North my naming a Warden of the North that is both a Targaryen and a Stark once the battle against the Others has been won).

I wonder, maybe knowing he is "The Prince that was Promised" or "Azor Ahai" might have the opposite effect on Jon that it had on Stannis. Stannis thinks he is the rightful heir - and he is, considering his brother didn't leave any living trueborn son or daughter, all Cersei gave him were bastards, but how to prove it? Jon might be legitimate, but how to prove it? Melisandre was at the right time at the right place when counseling Stannis, what about Jon? Not even Maester Aemon is alive anymore, would he really believe he is destined to be the one who will fight the Others? Sometimes when you act without knowing what can happen is better, like when Dany got her dragons. She wasn't sure of anything, she only felt something calling her and she endangered herself, when she have lost everything.

Jon is already the one who can face the Others, meaning his is the one who knows both sides of the Wall, though it would be somewhat better if he knew more about political issues in Westeros. He is still very naive and impulsive, the reason he got "killed" - if you believe he is dead, was not being cautious, too emotional, not very practical. Knowing something like a prophecy would make him even less stable, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

I've been involved in a few of the legitimacy debates that focused on the KG and the ToJ. Arguing back and forth about the details dozens of times caused me to take a step back and ask: what is the author trying to convey to the audience by having three kingsguard present at the ToJ? Forget the in-universe details and consider the literary function of having three protectors called kingsguard present.

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Indeed. Kingsguard, not mistressguard, not bastardguard, but the very epitome of Kingsguard. Three living legends.

The same author that is conveying to the readers, that Ser Willem is a good and loyal man to the Targaryen monarchy, but he's not of the Kingsguard.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That quote is sort of irritating considering that as things stand the Kingsguard would not really be bound to obey orders given to them by Prince Rhaegar because Prince Rhaegar wasn't the king.

Yet GRRM makes it very clear that they are bound to obey orders given by Prince Rhaegar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Yet GRRM makes it very clear that they are bound to obey orders given by Prince Rhaegar

In a random comment to some questioner years ago. He is not bound by that.

If George wanted to establish that the Kingsguard had to obey royal princes then he would have done so in ADwD. Instead we learned in there that a Kingsguard can effectively ignore/not feel bound to protect or obey the consort of a monarch (Hizdahr) if his monarch did not give him orders to that effect.

Thus Rhaegar would only be able to give commands to the Kingsguard (especially Hightower) if Aerys had established that first. But the setting George gave us from ASoS onwards is that Aerys mistrusted everybody, including his own son and heir whom he suspected to plot against him.

There is little chance that Aerys gave Rhaegar authority over the Kingsguard in general. If either Dayne or Whent were his sworn shields they would have to obey him in that capacity, of course, but Hightower would have had the authority to reassign them as he saw fit, without actually double-checking with the king first.

The biggest problem we have is that Hightower seems to have searched for Rhaegar under Aerys' orders. So it is very unlikely indeed that Rhaegar could have issued orders that clashed in general with Aerys'. Hightower could effectively do whatever the hell he liked because Rhaegar could not possibly know what Aerys had commanded the man, so Hightower could easily enough have invented or interpreted orders given to him by Aerys to have a pretext to refuse to do stuff commanded to him by Rhaegar.

In any case:

ADwD established how the Kingsguard behave. Selmy told us that there were no fixed rules and everything depended on the king. So we'll have to wait and see what rules Aerys II set for his Kingsguard. And I'm pretty sure we'll learn that eventually when the story sheds more light on Arthur Dayne, the knights at the tower, Aerys' relationship with his son, and the whole Lyanna affair.

But in general the idea 'the Kingsguard had to obey Rhaegar' and 'Aerys mistrusted his son and suspected he was plotting against him' are not fit well together. One should assume that a king who mistrusted his heir would have revoked any standing orders allowing him to issue orders to the Kingsguard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That quote is sort of irritating considering that as things stand the Kingsguard would not really be bound to obey orders given to them by Prince Rhaegar because Prince Rhaegar wasn't the king.

It seems the quote irritates you because it conflicts with your assumptions about how the KG works. It is straight from GRRM. You can choose to disregard it because he could always write something in the books which contradicts and supersedes it, but don't expect others to disregard it in discussion in the meantime. It carries more weight than any poster's assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black Crow said:

Yet GRRM makes it very clear that they are bound to obey orders given by Prince Rhaegar

I tend to discount the SSMs unless they are supported by something in the books, but in this case the fact that the KGs had to obey Rhaegar is well established in the books.  

The last time Rhaegar saw Jaime, Rhaegar ordered Jaime to stay in King's Landing, Jaime argued, and Jonathor Darry reminded Jaime that the KG vow includes a vow to obey orders:

"When you donned that cloak, you promised to obey."

So I don't think there is any question that the KGs had to obey Rhaegar's commands. 

There is also a more general statement in the Hedge Knight when Prince Maekar orders the KGs to fight for Aerion in the trial of seven and the KGs have to do it.  

And we have two examples where the KG had to obey the Hand.  The first is when Robert dies.

"Ser Barristan was the first to answer the summons, immaculate in white cloak and enameled scales.  'My lords,' he said, 'my place is beside the young king now.  Pray give me leave to attend him.'  'Your place is hear, Ser Barristan,' Ned told him."  

That one is particularly important, because the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard has just been told that King Robert has died and he knows that Joffrey has no Kingsguard protection -- Joffrey's sworn sheild is the Hound, who is not even a knight.  Yet Barristan does not go to Joffrey when he hears the news.  He obeys Ned's summons and goes to the Small Council meeting in Ned's solar instead.

The second, of course, is when Aerys' KG protector is killed during the Defiance at Duskendale, and Ser Barristan wants to go in and rescue him.  He has to ask permission from the Hand (Tywin) before he can do that.  As GRRM says in the SSM you quoted, Barristan can't decide that his duty requires him to go to the king.  He has to look first to his orders.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, if we we would make a fuzz about the literary function of people being guarded by a Kingsguard all the time then a lot of people would be the true king in this story. Tyrion is guarded by the Kingsguard, too, in the Battle on the Blackwater. Does this mean he is the true king? Or that the true king will be murdered by a false Kingsguard just as Tyrion was nearly murdered by Ser Mandon Moore?

What is the literary function of Ser Arys Oakheart protecting and (sort of) betraying Princess Myrcella?

What I think you can deduce from the Kingsguard presence at the tower is the following:

1. Somebody/something in that tower is connected to House Targaryen and very important to (one of) the members of that house.

2. It is very likely that said somebody has royal blood in his or her veins since it would else not be very likely that the Kingsguard would have been present.

But that's it, really. The idea that 'someone is protected by the Kingsguard' equals 'he must be/become the king' is obviously nonsense.

And you can even doubt the second point if you want to because in the story the Kingsguard are also used to guard or chastise hostages/prisoners of the Crown.

The idea that we should just search for the literary function of the Kingsguard in the fever dream and not also ask what the hell the literary function of Oakheart slapping Sansa Stark was does not exactly convince me.

Sure, these things are the same as arguably the central mystery in the series.

3 hours ago, Kingmonkey said:

Surely if we are forgetting the in-universe details, it can't speak to something as fundamentally in-world as the legal considerations of the succession?

But that's the whole point. Forget the legal arguments for a second, and consider the symbolism.

Quote

As a piece of foreshadowing, it could work just fine with an illegitimate Jon.  

If you're saying that the three KG at the tower is foreshadowing Jon's eventual rise to a/the throne, then that's the other option as I see it.

2 hours ago, IceFire125 said:

The same author that is conveying to the readers, that Ser Willem is a good and loyal man to the Targaryen monarchy, but he's not of the Kingsguard.

Something like that. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It seems the quote irritates you because it conflicts with your assumptions about how the KG works. It is straight from GRRM. You can choose to disregard it because he could always write something in the books which contradicts and supersedes it, but don't expect others to disregard it in discussion in the meantime. It carries more weight than any poster's assumptions.

What are you talking about? George tells us through Barristan Selmy in ADwD how the Kingsguard works. I'm not speculating, I'm basing my arguments actually on George's books.

You can take as gospel whatever you want, of course, but I only take information into serious consideration that is actually part of the books. SSMs are semi-canon at best and have already been superseded on many occasions.

[One can even seriously question whether it makes sense to try to collect everything George has ever said about the series. The man is not some kind of a prophet. Not everything he says about his own series is factually correct. He should have the right to be imprecise, speak in hyperbole, or make mistake when talking with people in conversation.]

That said, the SSM we are talking about here is actually potentially at odds with the situation that is described in the books. The problem is that George doesn't give us an explanation as to why Rhaegar supposedly should be able to give the Kingsguard commands. Our KG knowledge from ADwD makes it clear that he would only have such an authority if the king gave it to him. But that is the problem here. We don't know yet whether he has such authority.

If the SSM is (still) correct then Rhaegar must have such authority. But the idea that he has this amount authority in general just because he is a royal prince makes no sense as per Selmy's clarifications about the Kingsguard from ADwD.

I like to see things in context and thus tried to understand and explain how it might be that Rhaegar was able to give commands to the Kingsguard. If it is enough for you that he was just able to do so and you don't care about the reasons that's fine to, I guess.

But then, the whole SSM is just a hypothetical scenario. George says if Rhaegar gave the Kingsguard a command they would have had to obey. But we have as of yet no confirmation that he gave such commands. It is very likely that he would have, of course, but we have as of yet no confirmation why the hell the knights remained with Lyanna and accompany Rhaegar.

36 minutes ago, J. Stargaryen said:

Sure, these things are the same as arguably the central mystery in the series.

What is the central mystery in the series? Jon Snow's true parentage?

I did not doubt that the presence of the Kingsguard at the tower is a strong hint that Lyanna gave birth to Rhaegar Targaryen's child in said tower (or was residing with said child in there at a certain point in time).

But I see no reason to arbitrarily make a big deal about these three Kingsguard dying protecting Lyanna and the child. There is no reason to see that as foreshadowing for Jon's eventual destiny just there is little reason to buy a lot of the other real or alleged foreshadowing. Jon could very well become king in the end - but that has nothing to do with the question whether he was seen as king by the three Kingsguard or by anybody else at the time of his birth.

In fact, I think the chances for that to happen, the chances that Jon Snow was born as the rightful king and just never crowned and raised as a bastard effectively died with TWoIaF. If he becomes King on the Iron Throne he'll only do so after the other Targaryen claimants have died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...