Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II


Werthead

Recommended Posts

OiL, I am not saying they should have gone to Aerys AFTER The Trident. That would require teleportation. In fact I'm not saying they should have stayed with Aerys or gone to Aerys at all. I am saying that the Aerys and Viseys situations are comparable. King Aerys faced the biggest threat of his life (it says this in the text), yet these three KG stood guard at the TOJ. Viserys faced the biggest threat of his life, yet these three stood guard at the TOJ.

I'll also add that they knew Aerys was mad and that he had caches of wildfire throuout the city, and that he had cooked his warden of the north in his armour. They knew this BEFORE they left to go to the TOJ. IMO, leaving Aerys in that situation (mad and surrounded with wildfire) is akin to leaving Viserys fleeing.

And, I am saying that if the only reason three KG were at the TOJ was to guard Lyanna's unborn child (third in line to the throne if male), then it doesn't make sense that they left only one KG with Aerys and Aegon (the king and second in line) BEFORE The Trident.

Rhaegar's orders must have superceded protecting Aerys before The Trident, and after The Trident, superceded protecting Viserys. Perhaps because the KG deemed Aerys imcompetent and looked at Rhaegar as their king, or perhaps because Rhaegar convinced them of the importance of this guard duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never said the three KG should have stayed with Aerys. All I have said is if you are going to insist that if Jon=bastard, then the three KG should have gone to Viserys, then to be consistent you must also insist that they should have stayed with Aerys before The Trident....

<snip>

Then you are misreading what I am saying.

<snip>

Let me clear up one misunderstanding I've caused that is evident in your response. The three enumerated points you are quoting are not all directed at things you have said. They are my attempt to set out, in the clearest possible way, my thinking on the matters under debate, with you and others, but not a direct criticism of things you have written. So when you point out that you agree with parts of my statements and have never argued otherwise, I'm not trying to say you don't or have. What follows after that is a response to you. Sorry, for the misunderstanding.

Perhaps our differences are best summed up in your last post to Other-in-law when you write,

Rhaegar's orders must have superceded protecting Aerys before The Trident, and after The Trident, superceded protecting Viserys. Perhaps because the KG deemed Aerys imcompetent and looked at Rhaegar as their king, or perhaps because Rhaegar convinced them of the importance of this guard duty.

It was my intent by dividing my thoughts into three timeframes (before the Trident, after the Trident, and after the Sack of King's Landing) to be able to show why the response of the Kingsguard would be different in each period. So why, if I'm right, should have Rhaegar's orders governed the conduct of the Kingsguard before the Trident, but not afterwards - instead of the consistent role you advocate? First, Rhaegar dies at the Trident. He is the commander of all the loyalist forces and gives the orders all must follow. Obviously after his death he no longer has this role. While we are not sure who has Rhaegar's former command (the new Hand? Aerys himself?) it is from that person that the Kingsguard must look to for new orders. Similarly, when Aerys is dead the new king is, or his designated commander is, the one the Kingsguard must look to for guidance. In the absence of new orders they must decide how to best fulfill their oaths - in both the "post-Trident, pre-Sack" period and afterwards. Now, the most important part of this is the new context after each major event that the Kingsguard finds themselves. So, it isn't enough to say Rhaegar's orders should supersede all other considerations throughout each period. They don't. As Mezeh, so ably asks, "[h]ow could possibly orders from dead crown prince supersede a duty to guard living King?" They can't because since those orders were given far too many things have changed. The war has changed from a stalemate to a rout, the Targaryen line has dwindled to Viserys and two unborn children, and the number of Kingsguard still loyal to the Targaryens has been reduced to only the three at the Tower of Joy. These are major changes of circumstances and as such the Kingsguard has to evaluate their actions as guided by their oaths after each change. My point, that I've been trying to make for pages and pages now, is that the new conditions that the Kingsguard finds themselves in after the fall of King's Landing mandates that they no longer just follow the out-of-date orders of Rhaegar, but they must seek out and protect their new King - unless those two things coincide with their new King being born under their protection at the Tower of Joy. Have I stated our differences correctly and laid out my position clearly? I hope so.

Now, I've yet to see you state what you think are the "other reasons" why the Kingsguard stays at the Tower. I'd like to see the idea. Even if it's just speculation.

edit: OOPS, this time I didn't read your post. I missed #638 where you layout what you see as our differences and give the reason you think the Kingsguard stays at the Tower of Joy. My humblest apologies for missing it. I'll try to respond tomorrow to some of the points not dealt with in this one. Although I think OIL gives a good start on it. Sorry, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhaegar's orders must have superceded protecting Aerys before The Trident, and after The Trident, superceded protecting Viserys. Perhaps because the KG deemed Aerys imcompetent and looked at Rhaegar as their king, or perhaps because Rhaegar convinced them of the importance of this guard duty.

I think this is it. From the 3 (at least) KG's perspective, Rhaegar was king in everything but name (& that was to follow soon enough). They saw the future of the kingdom in him, as Aerys was off his rocker and thus, I believe, had to go along with Rhaegar (though I'm sure it was full-willing). Add to that the possibility that Rhaegar told them about the prophecy & it seems like a no-brainer to me: following Rhaegar was really their only choice. I'm sure it caused some heartache to have to do it, but it was the right decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
OiL, I am not saying they should have gone to Aerys AFTER The Trident. That would require teleportation. In fact I'm not saying they should have stayed with Aerys or gone to Aerys at all. I am saying that the Aerys and Viseys situations are comparable. King Aerys faced the biggest threat of his life (it says this in the text), yet these three KG stood guard at the TOJ. Viserys faced the biggest threat of his life, yet these three stood guard at the TOJ.

Except that Aerys is still protected by at least one KG brother, has at least one massive army in the realm still loyal to him (Mace's) and the stout walls of KL and the Red Keep, secret exits and all. Viserys has no KG, no army, and the war is over. He's already on the road to exile, as Aerys never was.

I'll also add that they knew Aerys was mad and that he had caches of wildfire throuout the city, and that he had cooked his warden of the north in his armour. They knew this BEFORE they left to go to the TOJ. IMO, leaving Aerys in that situation (mad and surrounded with wildfire) is akin to leaving Viserys fleeing.

First we're only sure that Hightower knew about burning Lord Stark before leaving the king. The other two may have been with Rhaegar all along (imo, to facilitate his plans for a return to Harrenhal and then Dorne; the two KG the locals would be most likely to trust)Are we certain that the other KG knew about the wildfire plot?

Jaime seems indicate that he was the only one to hear about all of it. On the other hand Jon Darry was there for the burning of Chelsted, and the wildfire plot seems to have been the reason for his resignation as Hand...though he may not have come right out and said it while Darry or Selmy were present. Either way, Darry wasn't at the ToJ he was with the Trident force, who left later. That says that the Trident KG did knowingly abandon Aerys to his fate, while the ToJ KG may not have known.

Given the absolutist language that they employ when speaking of their vows, it makes more sense to me that the unfortunate outcome is the result of them keeping their vows rather than breaking them.

And, I am saying that if the only reason three KG were at the TOJ was to guard Lyanna's unborn child (third in line to the throne if male), then it doesn't make sense that they left only one KG with Aerys and Aegon (the king and second in line) BEFORE The Trident.

The complication is that they're taking orders from two different men whose agendas do not precisely coincide, and they aren't really supposed to make up their own orders. We know that Hightower was with Aerys for the burning of the Starks, and Darry (and presumably Selmy) were with Aerys later for the burning of Chelsted. Hightower seems to have been the one sent to fetch Rhaegar back from his love nest, and Aerys may have assumed (without specifically ordering it) that he would return with Rhaegar. My theory is that Rhaegar took advantage of a lack of explicit orders from the king to ensure that his eventual coup would go a little easier.

Had Hightower returned, the breakdown would have been closer to reasonable, 2 at the ToJ, 2 (including the LC) at the Red Keep, and 3 with Rhaegar at the Trident. While Hightower may have expected that he would be returning to KL with Rhaegar, if the King failed to specifically order it and the Prince orders otherwise, he has to obey...He can't just call up KL on the telephone to have the order superceded, and there were probably no ravens or maesters at the ToJ.

Rhaegar's orders must have superceded protecting Aerys before The Trident, and after The Trident, superceded protecting Viserys. Perhaps because the KG deemed Aerys imcompetent and looked at Rhaegar as their king, or perhaps because Rhaegar convinced them of the importance of this guard duty.

Or perhaps Aerys neglected to give the order to return at all. If so, strict obedience to the orders they have been given explains their failure to protect Aerys. I don't think those three would be going on about their vows quite so arrogantly if they had just broken their vow to obey their lawful king. A R+L marriage explains their failure to hasten off to protect Viserys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what the time lapse is between Rhaegar dying & Ned reaching the TOJ?

It is difficult to say since GRRM never provided it. Still there are a couple of weeks between the battle of Trident and the sack of KL. The distance between KL and SE is about the same and Ned went the capital almost immediately.

Ned never mention that he was seeking in other places so we could assume that after lifting the siege he left directly to the Tower of Joy. After Tyrrels bent a knee Ned was looking for his sister. We don’t know the exact Tower of Joy location – somewhere on the Dorne border. The distance could be several times greater then the one between KL and SE but since Ned that time traveled only with a few companions and not with army he could cover much greater distance during a day. So probably a few weeks again.

So it would be safe to assume that Ned had found Lyanna some two month after Rhaegar death probably a bit less probably a bit more.

How this fits to R+L=J theory? Not bad actually. According to GRRM Jon is nine of eight month older then Dany. So he was born or around the suck of KL or perhaps a month later. This means that by the time Ned had arrived to TOJ Jon would be maximum a few weeks old probably just a week or even less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is difficult to say since GRRM never provided it. Still there are a couple of weeks between the battle of Trident and the sack of KL. The distance between KL and SE is about the same and Ned went the capital almost immediately.

Ned never mention that he was seeking in other places so we could assume that after lifting the siege he left directly to the Tower of Joy. After Tyrrels bent a knee Ned was looking for his sister. We don’t know the exact Tower of Joy location – somewhere on the Dorne border. The distance could be several times greater then the one between KL and SE but since Ned that time traveled only with a few companions and not with army he could cover much greater distance during a day. So probably a few weeks again.

So it would be safe to assume that Ned had found Lyanna some two month after Rhaegar death probably a bit less probably a bit more.

How this fits to R+L=J theory? Not bad actually. According to GRRM Jon is nine of eight month older then Dany. So he was born or around the suck of KL or perhaps a month later. This means that by the time Ned had arrived to TOJ Jon would be maximum a few weeks old probably just a week or even less.

So, is it possible that the 3 KG didn't know about what happened at the Trident & KL? I've never known whtether to take dream-Ned's version of their final meeting as literal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is it possible that the 3 KG didn't know about what happened at the Trident & KL? I've never known whtether to take dream-Ned's version of their final meeting as literal or not.

Barely. Unless they have all contacts with outer world cut that seems to be very unlikely crows fly faster then horses run. Besides as Ned recollect his final conversation with them they accepted all that he said to them as already known facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin has said it's not literal (it's a dream, after all), but I think we can assume that the general attitude of the KG is accurate.

In Ned's memories, ToJ seems to be almost empty when he gets there. We hear that he can smell blood in Lyanna's chamber, but we don't hear of any medical personnel on hand (much less anyone trying to keep her clean). This suggests to me that once Rhaegar died, whatever people were at ToJ fled in panic.

As for the 3 KG's knowledge, when Ned gets to ToJ they seem quite aware of Aerys' death, so I think it reasonable that they knew of Rhaegar's earlier demise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin has said it's not literal (it's a dream, after all), but I think we can assume that the general attitude of the KG is accurate.

In Ned's memories, ToJ seems to be almost empty when he gets there. We hear that he can smell blood in Lyanna's chamber, but we don't hear of any medical personnel on hand (much less anyone trying to keep her clean). This suggests to me that once Rhaegar died, whatever people were at ToJ fled in panic.

As for the 3 KG's knowledge, when Ned gets to ToJ they seem quite aware of Aerys' death, so I think it reasonable that they knew of Rhaegar's earlier demise.

Then I'm thinking that the KG had to know about (& believe) Rhaegar's prophecy about the child. Could Rhaegar also have told (& convinced) them that Vis wouldn't/couldn't be king (maybe another prophecy?)? That the child they were guarding was the only hope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
Then I'm thinking that the KG had to know about (& believe) Rhaegar's prophecy about the child. Could Rhaegar also have told (& convinced) them that Vis wouldn't/couldn't be king (maybe another prophecy?)? That the child they were guarding was the only hope?

From their words in that dream and Jaime's memory, they're all about hard-headed, stubborn literal-minded devotion to duty. They don't sound like some pie-in-the-sky prophecy talk is going to sway them from their sworn duties, imo. They also sound like they wanted Aerys to still sit the throne, and that he would if they had any say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From their words in that dream and Jaime's memory, they're all about hard-headed, stubborn literal-minded devotion to duty. They don't sound like some pie-in-the-sky prophecy talk is going to sway them from their sworn duties, imo. They also sound like they wanted Aerys to still sit the throne, and that he would if they had any say about it.

If you think they wanted Aerys to stay on the throne, then would you also have to think Rhaegar either lied to them or at the very least, misled them? If they (as I think) were knowingly behind Rhaegar even if it meant going against Aerys, then I take their words to mean "he may have been a nut, but he was our nut". Of course, in my scenarion, they were also planning (or at least aware of) an act that could also be considered a form of treason....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
If you think they wanted Aerys to stay on the throne, then would you also have to think Rhaegar either lied to them or at the very least, misled them?

Their stances may not have been monolithic anymore than Rhaegar and Aerys' attitudes need be. If their attitudes differed, I'd put Hightower at the more rigid "strict constructionist interpretation of the KG oath" end of the spectrum, and Dayne maybe more willing to accomodate Rhaegar. Don't know much about Whent. I do think Hightower would have been an obstacle to Rhagar's "changes", just as Ned saw Selmy as an obstacle to his coup against the Lannisters.

Deliberately staying away from Aerys for the purpose of letting him die, would seem very out of character (not saying that anyone is suggesting that they did).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny, sorry - I did get a bit frustrated yesterday. It seems like you're not getting my point, which is likely because I am not expressing it clearly enough. So I'll try to be clearer.

The heart of the argument is that you think Jon=heir, and I think Jon=bastard. And in order to argue these points, we are using the presence of the KG at the TOJ.

You say KG at TOJ means Jon=heir. I say that KG at TOJ doesn't mean Jon=heir.

Support for your argument is the presence of the KG AFTER The Trident and the sack of KL. They had a king to go to, but stood guard at the TOJ instead.

Support for my argument is the presence of the KG BEFORE The Trident and the sack of KL. They had a king to go to, but stood guard at the TOJ instead.

Now, you say that my argument is inferior because Jaime was in KL defending Aerys (and the city guard), but Willem Darry, who isn't a white cloak (and was on his lonesome), was guarding Viserys. I agree a little bit, but would like to point out that at these times Aerys wasn't safe, but Viserys was (and lived to be a man grown). But that DOES require the benefit of hindsight, so I withdraw it as an argument.

What I have said, however, is that Aery's safety was as ambiguous as Visery's safety, yet the KG went to the TOJ instead of staying in KL with Aerys, just as they stayed at the TOJ instead of going to Viserys.

To that you say that it would require foresight to know that Aerys was in enough danger to warrant disobeying Rhaegar. I disagree, considering this was the biggest threat Aerys (and Aegon and Rhaenys) had ever faced and this was known to the KG BEFORE they left for the TOJ, before The Trident, and before the sack. I do not see how you can't understand that this did not require foresight on the part of the KG, and is not based on my own hindsight, but instead on what the KG themselves knew at the time.But we have reached an impasse there.

So debating the Jon=heir/bastard point using the KG presence at the TOJ isn't going to go anywhere. You think the only reason they would stay there is if Jon=heir. I think the reason they were there in the first place, and the reason they remained, was more important than personally guarding Aerys and Viserys. They left Aerys in what they thought were good hands, and left Viserys in what they thought were good hands, to fulfill this important duty.

Note that I do not think the KG did the wrong thing or shirked their duty at any stage. I think they did the right thing by leaving Aerys in danger, and the right thing by leaving Viserys in danger, to fulfill the orders Rhaegar gave them.

I think Rhaegar convinced them of the importance of the prophesy, how Aegon was the PWWP and destined to save the realm in the war for dawn, and that he must have two siblings to make up three heads of the dragon. When they left to guard the TOJ, Lyanna was still pregnant, and could have been carrying a girl, for all they knew. So even if Lyanna and Rhaegar were married, the KG left in the first place not to guard Prince3 (because they didn't know it would be a boy), but to guard the third head of the dragon, whether it be male or female.

As it turns out they were very successful in that mission, although it didn't turn out like Rhaegar thought. These 3 gave their lives for Dany's third head of the dragon, not Aegon's third head :).

Sarella, I responded to some of this already in the previous post, and I want to say I think others - especially Other-in-law - have raise excellent points about your ideas. Let me just respond to two points.

(1) - I don't doubt that before the Trident Aerys was in the greatest danger of his reign. His replacement of his Hand was an indication that the old approach to the rebellion had seriously underestimated the threat to his crown. The move by Rhaegar to leave the Tower of Joy and take up command himself and change the strategy is the most glaring indication that finally they understood the threat Robert and Ned represented. Where I think you go wrong is that you translate that into an immediate danger on the life of Aerys, and therefore the only explanation why the Kingsguard didn't leave the Tower of Joy is they accept Rhaegar's orders as superseding their oaths to protect Aerys. There is not an immediate danger to Aerys. He is guarded by all the defenses of King's Landing, including a member of the Kingsguard. He is also defended by Rhaegar's plan to take on the rebels - it's all of one piece. So, the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy are not confronted with the decision between their oaths to protect Aerys and following Rhaegar's orders. They are doing their part in the overall battle plan and there is no reason to think they should do otherwise. For why I think they are confronted with this choice later, please look at my previous post.

(2) - Thank you, I now understand why you think Rhaegar's orders would supersede the Kingsguard's oath. I have to say your view makes a lot more sense than the idea that Rhaegar's orders meant they must simply guard his mistress and her bastard child because he said so. If the Kingsguard did understand and agree with Rhaegar's ideas concerning the prophecy and his children's place in it, then it would make more sense for them to forego their oaths to Viserys. I still don't agree with you, but it makes more sense than what I thought the previous argument put forward. Why don't I agree with you? Well, for one thing there is no evidence that Rhaegar shared this with the Kingsguard there or that they agreed with him. I don't find it hard to accept he might have shared this with Ser Arthur at least, but still we are dealing with assumptions. That wouldn't stop me from accepting your idea in and of itself, but it doesn't help. More importantly, if they did believe Rhaegar's vision, wasn't it just shattered at the Sack of King's Landing with the deaths of his other children? So, we would have to accept they violated their oaths to protect Viserys for a understanding of an ancient prophecy they have just seen disproved, right? Also, I see nothing in these men's characters that would allow them to just leave Viserys without some protection. Why, if they must protect a bastard child for what they know to be a false vision, did they not send any of their number to Dragonstone? While it is a much better argument, it still has huge holes in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deliberately staying away from Aerys for the purpose of letting him die, would seem very out of character (not saying that anyone is suggesting that they did).

I'm starting to lean towards this scenario myself or else they would have been with Aerys. Maybe not all three need be there but certainly two of them should have been with the king. Could one have been spared? Probably but I'm sure the job they were doing could have been done by loyal soldiers just as well, so the fact that three of them were there suggests some sort of treasonous behavior towards Aerys. The only way to explain it away is to go with Enguerrands scenario and while it is intriguing I do not follow that line of thinking.

So yeah, I think their actions were treasonous. They probably did act this way because Rhaegar told them he was going to remove Aerys from the throne and take it for himself and they didn't want to be present when that happened.

Or perhaps they were idiots and felt they were doing something important while Robert took the Iron Throne. Somehow I don't think that is a reasonable scenario. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to lean towards this scenario myself or else they would have been with Aerys. Maybe not all three need be there but certainly two of them should have been with the king. Could one have been spared? Probably but I'm sure the job they were doing could have been done by loyal soldiers just as well, so the fact that three of them were there suggests some sort of treasonous behavior towards Aerys. The only way to explain it away is to go with Enguerrands scenario and while it is intriguing I do not follow that line of thinking.

So yeah, I think their actions were treasonous. They probably did act this way because Rhaegar told them he was going to remove Aerys from the throne and take it for himself and they didn't want to be present when that happened.

Or perhaps they were idiots and felt they were doing something important while Robert took the Iron Throne. Somehow I don't think that is a reasonable scenario. :)

Or perhaps, snake, they were doing their part in a wide ranging and reasonable strategy developed by their Prince and commander, and then when it all fell apart they had no time to do anything to save their King. Unlike your perhaps, this one doesn't have us assume treason with nothing to support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhaegar wasn't stupid as far as we know.(Or perhaps he was. He did abduct Lyanna which led to the destruction of his House) So I cannot see how he would think leaving three of the finest knights in the realm out in the middle of nowhere was sound strategy. The fact they had four of the major Houses allied against them and the Lannisters were staying home and the Dornish were only in it half-heartedly because of his actions must have given him an inkling of the dire situation he faced. So with this enormous threat he decides that these three particularly gifted warriors are better off babysitting? It doesn't make any sense.

And your scenario would have them sitting on their laurels while the Targaryen dynasty was destroyed. I know you think that their was nothing they could have done to stop it once Rhaegar fell but the fact that they allowed themselves to be put in that position calls their loyalty to Aerys into question. They had to realize that once they agreed to stay at the ToJ they effectively took themselves out of the war and that they would be of no use to Aerys or Rhaegar or anyone. Somethings not right with that and that's why I disagree with how you believe events unfolded. To me things just don't add up.

Have to comment on an early post by you.

Wow, were does the venom towards Lyanna come from? She deserved her fate? Really?

Regardless of your personal feelings towards her, she is described in the books as much more than a child. She is describe as a brave, kind soul who fights for those who are shunned and belittled. She isn't willing to settle for Robert when her love leads her to Rhaegar. She is, in short, a strong willed and proud woman who I've serious doubts would settle for the role of mistress and mother of bastard children.

Where does the venom come from? I'm the Red Viper my friend. :)

Seriousy though, if Lyanna willingly went off with Rhaegar and caused all this to happen then yes she deserved what she got. She was not quite a woman but she was old enough to have better sense. To shame Elia like that, to shame her family and Robert. To do something that would send Brandon into such a black rage that he did what he did. To basically have caused the death of her father and brother and what could have been the complete destruction of House Stark if Jon Arryn had been a different kind of man. Yup, if she didn't think or care about all that then she got a kinder fate than she deserved.

Wow again. The only person in the books that sees him in this light is Robert. I don't buy that idea that Rhaegar would want Lyanna as his mistress or his child to be a bastard when he also believes that he can marry more than one woman. It fits his character to do so.

Well, we don't know that Rhaegar believed he could marry more than one women. He might well have but it is never stated to be the case. And I don't really want to get into this again. I've had very long discussions in the past as to why I despise Rhaegar and why I think that a thousand deaths was less than he deserved. IMO, he was an arrogant man who's obsession with a prophecy caused untold suffering and pain. He's one of the characters I think truly deserved his fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhaegar wasn't stupid as far as we know.(Or perhaps he was. He did abduct Lyanna which led to the destruction of his House) <snip>

Where does the venom come from? I'm the Red Viper my friend. :)

<snip>

I've had very long discussions in the past as to why I despise Rhaegar and why I think that a thousand deaths was less than he deserved. IMO, he was an arrogant man who's obsession with a prophecy caused untold suffering and pain. He's one of the characters I think truly deserved his fate.

snake, I loved the post. I agree with almost none of it, but I love it. :)

P.S. - Thanks for the warning, I'll remember to carry anti-venom with me at all times when I wade into these forums!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) - Thank you, I now understand why you think Rhaegar's orders would supersede the Kingsguard's oath. I have to say your view makes a lot more sense than the idea that Rhaegar's orders meant they must simply guard his mistress and her bastard child because he said so. If the Kingsguard did understand and agree with Rhaegar's ideas concerning the prophecy and his children's place in it, then it would make more sense for them to forego their oaths to Viserys. I still don't agree with you, but it makes more sense than what I thought the previous argument put forward. Why don't I agree with you? Well, for one thing there is no evidence that Rhaegar shared this with the Kingsguard there or that they agreed with him. I don't find it hard to accept he might have shared this with Ser Arthur at least, but still we are dealing with assumptions. That wouldn't stop me from accepting your idea in and of itself, but it doesn't help. More importantly, if they did believe Rhaegar's vision, wasn't it just shattered at the Sack of King's Landing with the deaths of his other children? So, we would have to accept they violated their oaths to protect Viserys for a understanding of an ancient prophecy they have just seen disproved, right? Also, I see nothing in these men's characters that would allow them to just leave Viserys without some protection. Why, if they must protect a bastard child for what they know to be a false vision, did they not send any of their number to Dragonstone? While it is a much better argument, it still has huge holes in my view.

Wouldn't Lyanna's child be next in line after Rhaegar? And wouldn't the KG's allegiances primarily be to him & not Viserys?

On another note - and I hate to even bring this up when this thread & countless others have stirred such a grand debate - is it possible that GRRM screwed up here by not thinking this through? I don't really mean this negatively (though I suppose it has to be), but could it be that we have inconsistencies because they're built in? And that there's no other info that's going to "solve" this mystery about the KG & their motives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't Lyanna's child be next in line after Rhaegar? And wouldn't the KG's allegiances primarily be to him & not Viserys?

On another note - and I hate to even bring this up when this thread & countless others have stirred such a grand debate - is it possible that GRRM screwed up here by not thinking this through? I don't really mean this negatively (though I suppose it has to be), but could it be that we have inconsistencies because they're built in? And that there's no other info that's going to "solve" this mystery about the KG & their motives?

Lyanna's child would be next in line for the throne, after the death of Rhaegar and his son Aegon, if he was both male and legitimate. And, yes, that would mean the Kingsguard owes its allegiance to him, and their presence, not to Viserys. A point of view I've been advocating for quite some time now.

Now, could Martin have made mistakes here? No, no, NO - it's not possible, for that way lies madness! :)

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...