The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II

[Godot]

Which begs the question... wasn't Harren an Ironman? Why would he include a godswood in his castle?

[Shewoman]

About Robb declaring Jon as his heir: Catelyn pointed out that it's not just a matter of Robb's trust in Jon not to betray him and his siblings but of Robb's trust in Jon's as-yet-nonexistent descendants not to attack the Stark bloodline. She mentions the events we find in the backstory of The Sword Sword as evidence that this can happen. Since we don't know which way he jumped, it's certainly possible that on reflection he took her advice more seriously.

Or, of course, that due to a temporal accident involving a historian's library and a Babel Fish a history of the War of the Roses in the Common Tongue appeared on his nightstand.

[snake]

I’m not sure how you determine there was “ample opportunity and time for Ned to find out if Lyanna and Rhaegar were wed†when we know so little of how the events at the Tower of Joy unfolded. As I’ve said, it is entirely possible you are right and Ned learned of the marriage, but it is also entirely possible Lyanna did not live long enough for her to tell him about it. Nothing we know indicates it has to be one way or the other.

Well, Ned arrived there and fought the Kingsguard and was victorious. After that he goes to his sister and sometime later she dies. Then Ned has the tower torn down and uses the bloody stones for cairns for the slain. He then travels to Starfall with Dawn and after that starts the journey home. IMO, all this would take some considerable time. But I will agree that nothing is known either way but IMO the time and opportunity was there for Ned to find out the truth.

What the above tells us is that Ned thinks the three kingsguard should have been at the places he names in order to fulfill their oaths to the King and family. Their oath is not to follow blindly the last order given to them by a member of the Royal Family. It is to defend that family with their lives if need be. Perhaps kingsguards such as Ser Mandon or Ser Boros think blind obedience to an order is following their vow, but not these three men. Even Jaime and Tyrion know that such behavior is not worthy of a knight of the kingsguard. Rather they know they must follow orders, but they also know they must think and act to save the lives of their King and his family. What you two propose is to believe they became fools bound by a order from their dead prince and they abandon their mission, their vow, their entire way of life with regards to the new King who desperately needs them on Dragonstone in favor of a bastard who never will have a claim to their protection or the throne. It is not believable. It transforms the three most respected knights of the realm into participants in a Monty Python sketch.

Now, I can buy the idea the three of them were trapped at the Tower of Joy and couldn’t get away to join up with Viserys, but just barely. We are told the Tower of Joy sits with the Mountains of Dorne to its back. If this means it is in the Reach it may have happened that way, but Dorne is still loyal to the Targaryens at this point and would be a safe haven to the three knights if they could just leave a former mistress and her bastard. But they can’t because the child isn’t a bastard, but is the heir to the throne. In that light their actions of abandoning Viserys and staying with Lyanna and child make sense.

You left out the part where one of them says the Kingsguard does not flee, then or now. And recall that Ser Gerold was probably the one who was sent to find Rhaegar and for some reason stayed at the ToJ when he did. It must have been because Rhaegar ordered him to. I always found it strange that the Kingslayer never thinks how odd it was that three of his brothers were not to be found when the Targaryen's were being overthrown. I still think they were following through with their orders.

A bastard child represent little to no threat to Robert (which doesn't mean he wouldn't want to kill it.) Such a child is forbidden by law and custom to inherit unless the King declares him legitimate. Aerys never did this to any child of Rhaegar’s (of course Jon appears to be the only possible bastard but idea any Targaryen would do so after the Blackfyre rebellion is slim at best,) and most especially I can’t see he would do it for Lyanna’s child. If he mistrusted the Dornishmen and kept Elia and her children close to him to ensure their loyalty, just think what he would have felt towards a child of the rebellious Stark clan. Therefore he has to be a bastard unless a secret marriage has taken place, and under the former circumstances Jon would represent no threat to Robert’s claim on the throne.

Bastards might not be able to inherit by law but there are always ways around these things. If Jon was Rhaegar's son he was a threat to Robert, bastard or no.

[Godot]

Bastards might not be able to inherit by law but there are always ways around these things. If Jon was Rhaegar's son he was a threat to Robert, bastard or no.

No, a bastard would have to be legitimized by a king to be any threat. It wasn't that Jon was a threat to Robert's throne, it was that Robert loathed Targaryens and would snap every branch of their family tree with his bare hands if he had the chance.

[SFDanny]

Well, Ned arrived there and fought the Kingsguard and was victorious. After that he goes to his sister and sometime later she dies. Then Ned has the tower torn down and uses the bloody stones for cairns for the slain. He then travels to Starfall with Dawn and after that starts the journey home. IMO, all this would take some considerable time. But I will agree that nothing is known either way but IMO the time and opportunity was there for Ned to find out the truth.

I think everything you cite is in order, but the critical question is the time period from Ser Arthur's death to Lyanna's death, and the only clue we are given is the scream of Lyanna at the beginning of the battle. This would give us the hint she either is screaming to Ned to stop the fighting or she is in child birth while the battle is going on. Nothing to say how long she would have held out after the battle is done.

You left out the part where one of them says the Kingsguard does not flee, then or now. And recall that Ser Gerold was probably the one who was sent to find Rhaegar and for some reason stayed at the ToJ when he did. It must have been because Rhaegar ordered him to. I always found it strange that the Kingslayer never thinks how odd it was that three of his brothers were not to be found when the Targaryen's were being overthrown. I still think they were following through with their orders.

Sorry, I left out a little on the front end as well, but I was trying to get all the stuff that reflected on Ned's questions as to why they were at the Tower of Joy.

My point is not that the three kingsguards are not there as part of Rhaegar's orders, far from it, but rather it stretches the imagination that they would still be there following the same order if the events of the last month had meant they had a new king and he was in Dragonstone. If that had been the case, their responsibility to Viserys clearly would have superseded the old orders of their dead prince to guard his mistress and her bastard. What makes sense is that they were there following orders that lead to their deaths, and more over those orders were part of their basic vow to defend their liege. These guys did not die because they couldn't adjust to the rapid changes of the fortunes of the Targaryen House. They died because they did what they had always vowed to do - to put their bodies between any threat to their king. In this case that meant the baby Jon.

I'm with you about Jaime. He seems clueless as to how or why his brothers died at the Tower of Joy.

Bastards might not be able to inherit by law but there are always ways around these things. If Jon was Rhaegar's son he was a threat to Robert, bastard or no.

From the standpoint of Westrosi law and custom I don't see a way around it shy of a King's intervention. Of course, anyone, a bastard included, could participate in a rebellion against Robert, and in that way Jon could be a threat.

snake, on the question of what Eddard thought Jon was - bastard or true born - let me admit to a bias. I hope you are right that Ned believed Jon was the bastard child of Lyanna and Rhaegar, because if he knew his actions of allowing Jon to go to the Night's Watch and take an oath that Eddard knew, but Jon didn't, would give up Jon's birthright, then Ned acts without honor towards Jon. It casts Ned in a light that I don't like to see him in. I'm not saying Ned couldn't be that cold with what he allowed Jon to do, but I hope he wasn't.

[Ser Bruce the Hound KG]

I often though that the line "a good man but not Kingsguard" as an other meaning that a trustworthly man would trusted to protect the heir (Viserys would have been Jon heir) and his mother, but there Duty is to the king

[the silent speaker]

I have no idea what ground you have to be certain that Harrenhal's weirwood grew after the Andals came.

It's that there was no Harrenhal before the Andals came. I don't think there was a Riverrun, either, but Harrenhal I'm sure of.

[Sarella]

Whether or not Lyanna had ample time to tell Ned that she and Rhaegar were married is a non-issue, IMO. If she had time to explain that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she had time to say that Jon was Rhaegar's trueborn son.

The stronger argument is that she left out the bit about the wedding because she feared Ned wouldn't harbour the true Targ heir for fears about Robert.

The argument that the KG wouldn't just blindly follow an order is pretty weak, IMO. They let their vows get in the way of protecting Rhaella, so I think they would let their vows get in the way of protecting Viserys.

It is clear from Ned's flashback that the KG considered going to Viserys as "fleeing". This doesn't mean Visery's isn't the heir. Perhaps they knew Viserys was safe, so instead stood and defended Jon, who wasn't safe. Yes, he's a bastard, but he is a highborn bastard, and still Rhaegar's son.

[SFDanny]

Whether or not Lyanna had ample time to tell Ned that she and Rhaegar were married is a non-issue, IMO. If she had time to explain that Jon was Rhaegar's son, she had time to say that Jon was Rhaegar's trueborn son.

The stronger argument is that she left out the bit about the wedding because she feared Ned wouldn't harbour the true Targ heir for fears about Robert.

Good point.

The argument that the KG wouldn't just blindly follow an order is pretty weak, IMO. They let their vows get in the way of protecting Rhaella, so I think they would let their vows get in the way of protecting Viserys.

It is clear from Ned's flashback that the KG considered going to Viserys as "fleeing". This doesn't mean Visery's isn't the heir. Perhaps they knew Viserys was safe, so instead stood and defended Jon, who wasn't safe. Yes, he's a bastard, but he is a highborn bastard, and still Rhaegar's son.

We're talking Apples and Oranges here. The Kingsguard does nothing to protect Rhaella from the King, not because they have previous orders to protect someone else. When they decide to stay at the Tower of Joy they are, in your view, following the old orders of a dead prince while not fulfilling their vow towards their new King. Very, very different situations. The first shows the preeminent role of their vow to the King over that of needs of his Queen. The second would have us believe that their vow to their King is subservient to the needs of a bastard child or a former mistress. If anything, the lack of action to protect Rhaella from Aerys shows the weakness of your argument that they would ignore Viserys need of their protection at Dragonstone.

And, no, the idea of "fleeing" isn't against the oaths of the Kingsguard. They won't flee to save themselves when they protect their King, but retreating to Dragonstone to protect their King is part of what they have to do to follow their vows - if the child at the Tower of Joy isn't their new King. They reject the idea of fleeing, precisely because they are putting their lives between their King (Jon) and a perceived threat (Ned and his six companions.) These guys are not some macho idiots - they know what it means to wear the white cloak.

I don't dispute that the three had confidence in Darry's loyalty to Viserys, but he isn't a substitute for the oaths of the Kingsguard - at least not on a long term basis. If Jon is a bastard, the Kingsguard should be in Dragonstone.

[Sarella]

Yes, they are apples and oranges I suppose. I'm just trying to make the point that the KG don't always do what's right. They do what they've vowed to do or are ordered to do.

If protecting the heir superceded orders, they would have ridden with Rhaegar to the trident no matter what he said. But no, instead of protecting the heir at the trident, they did what they were ordered to and guarded a tower. Their orders superceded protecting the heir on that occasion. Who's to say the case wasn't the same when the heir changed from Rhaegar to Viserys?

And, no, the idea of "fleeing" isn't against the oaths of the Kingsguard. They won't flee to save themselves when they protect their King, but retreating to Dragonstone to protect their King is part of what they have to do to follow their vows - if the child at the Tower of Joy isn't their new King. They reject the idea of fleeing, precisely because they are putting their lives between their King (Jon) and a perceived threat (Ned and his six companions.) These guys are not some macho idiots - they know what it means to wear the white cloak.

I think it would break KG vows to grab your king a flee. Part of protecting your king is protecting his reign. These three KG were not going to flee with Viserys, Jon, or anyone into exile. They were going to stand and fight for the reign of the Targs. That is how I interpreted the statement "The KG do not flee", at least.

[SFDanny]

Yes, they are apples and oranges I suppose. I'm just trying to make the point that the KG don't always do what's right. They do what they've vowed to do or are ordered to do.

Certainly you are right that not all members of the Kingsguard always do what is right, but these three are special. They aren't perfect I'm sure, but they embody the best of the Kingsguard in their day.

If protecting the heir superceded orders, they would have ridden with Rhaegar to the trident no matter what he said. But no, instead of protecting the heir at the trident, they did what they were ordered to and guarded a tower. Their orders superceded protecting the heir on that occasion. Who's to say the case wasn't the same when the heir changed from Rhaegar to Viserys?

At the Trident, Rhaegar is guarded by three members of the KG. They aren’t forsaking their vows by trusting Rhaegar's safety to Ser Barristan, Prince Lewyn, and Ser Jonothor Darry. With Viserys, there is no one of their number to protect him. I could even see an argument for leaving one of their number at the Tower of Joy and sending the other two to Viserys, but they don't do that. As far as we know, they do nothing to protect Viserys. The only reason this would be acceptable to these three knights is, assuming again they have a choice, if their vow is being fulfilled at the Tower of Joy.

I think it would break KG vows to grab your king a flee. Part of protecting your king is protecting his reign. These three KG were not going to flee with Viserys, Jon, or anyone into exile. They were going to stand and fight for the reign of the Targs. That is how I interpreted the statement "The KG do not flee", at least.

We're not talking about grabbing a King against his will and fleeing. Even that could be, given the right circumstances, following the needs of their vows if the King was in imminent danger - for instance, if Jon is the heir and already born before Ned's party arrives it would make sense to grab the child and leave if they knew they were in danger of discovery. Fighting to the death against overwhelming odds because "the Kingsguard doesn't flee" and thereby putting the infant at much greater risk is a perversion of their oaths. But leaving Lyanna and child to go to their King is not fleeing in any sense. It is going where their vows tell them they should be - that is what Ned is saying to them in his questions. In terms of protecting the Targaryen's rule, how does dying at the Tower of Joy, or winning there for that matter, help that? It doesn't. Keeping their King alive and helping him build support, from Dragonstone or in exile, to reclaim their throne would be consistent with their vows - in fact it is what Ser Barristan is doing with Daenerys.

But none of this need be considered by Ser Arthur, Ser Gerold, and Ser Oswell if Jon is the heir. Then their actions are the very embodiment of their oaths. Doesn’t that make a whole lot more sense given what we are told about these men?

[Godot]

But none of this need be considered by Ser Arthur, Ser Gerold, and Ser Oswell if Jon is the heir. Then their actions are the very embodiment of their oaths. Doesn’t that make a whole lot more sense given what we are told about these men?

It's entirely possible that Rhaegar ordered the three of them to keep Lyanna safe. There's no conflict between that and Rhaegar's character or the timeline.

[SFDanny]

It's entirely possible that Rhaegar ordered the three of them to keep Lyanna safe. There's no conflict between that and Rhaegar's character or the timeline.

In fact it is almost a certainty that he did. That's not the problem. The problem is what does a member of the Kingsguard do when the situation changes after they are given their orders? Do they merely follow the last order given them, or do they look at the new situation and decide what to do based on their oaths to protect the King? If it is the latter (which I think there isn't really much of an argument it shouldn't be,) then the Kingsguard should move to protect their new King. If that King is in Dragonstone they should go there, as Ned suggests. If the new King is being born in the Tower behind them, then clearly their duty is to stay with Lyanna and protect her child from the rebels at the cost of their lives if need be. Their actions tell us which of these two scenarios is true.

[Godot]

In fact it is almost a certainty that he did. That's not the problem. The problem is what does a member of the Kingsguard do when the situation changes after they are given their orders? Do they merely follow the last order given them, or do they look at the new situation and decide what to do based on their oaths to protect the King? If it is the latter (which I think there isn't really much of an argument it shouldn't be,) then the Kingsguard should move to protect their new King. If that King is in Dragonstone they should go there, as Ned suggests. If the new King is being born in the Tower behind them, then clearly their duty is to stay with Lyanna and protect her child from the rebels at the cost of their lives if need be. Their actions tell us which of these two scenarios is true.

They considered falling back on Dragonstone to be "running". As they said, they won't run away, instead remaining true to the prince's command to their last. Besides, how would they get to dragonstone? It was the last targaryen outpost, and I doubt they'd have an easy time getting there on a ship. I also doubt that they could go anywhere without being recognized. So they remain, whether Rhaegar married Lyanna or not(not, most likely).

[SFDanny]

They considered falling back on Dragonstone to be "running". As they said, they won't run away, instead remaining true to the prince's command to their last. Besides, how would they get to dragonstone? It was the last targaryen outpost, and I doubt they'd have an easy time getting there on a ship. I also doubt that they could go anywhere without being recognized. So they remain, whether Rhaegar married Lyanna or not(not, most likely).

The only reason for these men to consider it fleeing to go to Dragonstone and Viserys, is if their King sits in the Tower they are defending. Running to defend your king is not fleeing, and dying stupidly while your king is in danger is an absurd twisting of the oath.

How easy would it be to get to Dragonstone? I don't know, but if they can't leave or get to Dragonstone, it is the one reason (other than defending the heir to the throne - Jon) I can see that has a chance to explain the three knights actions. However, as I said before, the Tower of Joy is located near the border of Dorne, which is still allied with the Targaryens (this doesn't change until Jon Arryn travels to Sunspear,) and should be open to the Kingsguard if they need to travel there. The more interesting question is why does Ned risk the infant by traveling to Starfall, through a still hostile Dorne, after the events at the Tower of Joy, but that's another topic altogether.

[Godot]

The only reason for these men to consider it fleeing to go to Dragonstone and Viserys, is if their King sits in the Tower they are defending. Running to defend your king is not fleeing, and dying stupidly while your king is in danger is an absurd twisting of the oath.

I'm not trying to be rude, but why exaclty do you believe that Rhaegar married Lyanna again?

How easy would it be to get to Dragonstone? I don't know, but if they can't leave or get to Dragonstone, it is the one reason (other than defending the heir to the throne - Jon) I can see that has a chance to explain the three knights actions. However, as I said before, the Tower of Joy is located near the border of Dorne, which is still allied with the Targaryens (this doesn't change until Jon Arryn travels to Sunspear,) and should be open to the Kingsguard if they need to travel there. The more interesting question is why does Ned risk the infant by traveling to Starfall, through a still hostile Dorne, after the events at the Tower of Joy, but that's another topic altogether.

They may be able to pass through Dorne unopposed, but they couldn't hope to pass unnoticed. and from there sailing to Dragonstone would require them to pass through the hostile Stormlands. And again, "running". King Viserys had the remnants of the targaryen army to protect him, and a castle as well. While Rhaegar's bastard had no one but them.

As to your question, It's possible that the Dornish didn't see a point in fighting anymore. True, they hadn't yet surrendered, but neither were they still fighting Robert's armies. Oh, and IIRC ned travels to Starfall to return Dawn to house Dayne.

[snake]

SFDanny,

I recall that GRRM said something about the vows of a Kingsguard were not structured in a way to handle a successful rebellion, or something like that. I mean, when Ned arrives at the ToJ Robert is the King of Westeros. Not Viserys or anyone else. The Tyrells, Lannisters, Starks, Baratheons, Tullys and Arryns have all taken him for their king and the Greyjoys and Martells were not in rebellion against Robert at that time. He was probably crowned by the High Septon so the Faith have also recognized his regency. So that leaves the three knights at the ToJ in a bit of a predicament, IMO. Their duty was to protect Aerys, which they failed at. Now they have no king to guard because IMO their pride will not let them serve Robert, who is the recognized and accepted ruler of Westeros, and they're not about to flee into exile with Viserys. That whole dream sequence illustrates the pride these men had and, again IMO, the shame they felt at having failed in their duty. When Ned tells them about Ser Willem having fled with Viserys Ser Gerold points out that the Kingsguard does not flee. Ser Arthur says "Then or now". IMO he's saying they wouldn't have fled Kingslanding with Viserys and they are not going to run to him now although I believe that Ned probably gave them the opportunity to go.

Why would they stay there and fight when they had nothing to gain? Perhaps it was to try and salvage their own honor or at least what they saw as salvaging their honor for their previous failings.

Take Ser Cortney Penrose for example. He dies protecting Edric Storm from Stannis even though Renly was dead and Stannis intended the boy no harm. You could almost parallel it with those three protecting Lyanna even though Rhaegar was dead and Ned meant his sister no harm. It's a very similar situation IMO.

Or maybe not.

[SFDanny]

I'm not trying to be rude, but why exaclty do you believe that Rhaegar married Lyanna again?

Try reading my response to you in post #533 again.

They may be able to pass through Dorne unopposed, but they couldn't hope to pass unnoticed. and from there sailing to Dragonstone would require them to pass through the hostile Stormlands. And again, "running". King Viserys had the remnants of the targaryen army to protect him, and a castle as well. While Rhaegar's bastard had no one but them.

As to your question, It's possible that the Dornish didn't see a point in fighting anymore. True, they hadn't yet surrendered, but neither were they still fighting Robert's armies. Oh, and IIRC ned travels to Starfall to return Dawn to house Dayne.

They don't need to pass through Dorne unnoticed. They merely need to get to their King to be able to fulfill their oaths. This should not be as hard as it sounds as the rebels have no fleet to storm Dragonstone at the time. A ship from Dorne to Dragonstone should have a reasonable chance of getting there in this timeframe.

And I know the reason we are given about Ned's trip to Starfall, but it makes little sense to risk Jon in order to return Ser Arthur's sword. The sword could have been returned later. It seems to me Ned needs urgently to speak to Lady Ashara or some other time pressed reason. But as I said, this is a topic for another thread.

[SFDanny]

SFDanny,

I recall that GRRM said something about the vows of a Kingsguard were not structured in a way to handle a successful rebellion, or something like that. I mean, when Ned arrives at the ToJ Robert is the King of Westeros. Not Viserys or anyone else. The Tyrells, Lannisters, Starks, Baratheons, Tullys and Arryns have all taken him for their king and the Greyjoys and Martells were not in rebellion against Robert at that time. He was probably crowned by the High Septon so the Faith have also recognized his regency. So that leaves the three knights at the ToJ in a bit of a predicament, IMO. Their duty was to protect Aerys, which they failed at. Now they have no king to guard because IMO their pride will not let them serve Robert, who is the recognized and accepted ruler of Westeros, and they're not about to flee into exile with Viserys. That whole dream sequence illustrates the pride these men had and, again IMO, the shame they felt at having failed in their duty. When Ned tells them about Ser Willem having fled with Viserys Ser Gerold points out that the Kingsguard does not flee. Ser Arthur says "Then or now". IMO he's saying they wouldn't have fled Kingslanding with Viserys and they are not going to run to him now although I believe that Ned probably gave them the opportunity to go.

Why would they stay there and fight when they had nothing to gain? Perhaps it was to try and salvage their own honor or at least what they saw as salvaging their honor for their previous failings.

Take Ser Cortney Penrose for example. He dies protecting Edric Storm from Stannis even though Renly was dead and Stannis intended the boy no harm. You could almost parallel it with those three protecting Lyanna even though Rhaegar was dead and Ned meant his sister no harm. It's a very similar situation IMO.

Or maybe not.

snake, first let me say I appreciate the thoughtfulness and tenor of your posts, even if I disagree with them. With regards to the above, the critical part is how these three particular men would handle the events of Robert's Rebellion. Not just the problems of the Kingsguard as an institution. Ser Gerold Hightower, Ser Oswell Whent, and, most especially, Ser Arthur Dayne are held up as the epitome of knighthood and what a member of the kingsguard should be. For them the idea that their oaths meant loyalty to the Iron Throne, whoever sat on it, is totally unbelievable. Certainly their responses to Ned rule out the possiblility they would ever consider Robert the rightful King of Westeros. Yes, they must feel they have failed because Rhaegar, Aerys, Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys are all dead. But they have a vow to fulfill still, and that vow is to defend their king at all cost. That includes at the cost of their own honor, if as you suggest they felt leaving the Tower to be running away. I don't see it that way. It seems clear to me that these men fulfilled there vows, dying in defense of the heir to the throne, not throwing away their lives when their king sat on Dragonstone. I see them as intelligent, honorable men who make a purposeful decision to stand and fight, knowing that fulfilling their oaths will likely lead to their deaths. I don't see them as men who are governed by pride or a mindless obedience to their last order. I'm not sure what more I can say at this point to convince you of what seems obvious to me. Perhaps I'm delusional on this topic, but I think not.

[Guest Other-in-law]

It's that there was no Harrenhal before the Andals came. I don't think there was a Riverrun, either, but Harrenhal I'm sure of.

But there was land were Harrenhal would later be built, no? Are you saying that weirwoods can only be located inside castles? There's no castle around the circle of weirwoods where Jon said his NW vows, nor around the groups of three that he remembers in the Wolfswood..

The way I read it, the castles were usually built on sites that had an existing weirwood, rather than weirwoods being planted inside castles. The only case we definitely know of where they tried to do that is the Eyrie, where it didn't work (because of the thin soil). Against that we have the lore of Winterfell's weirwood watching the castle rise around it.