Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II


Werthead

Recommended Posts

According to the Kingslayer Jon Connington quickly drank himself to death after he was exiled or at least that's what I remember. I believe that information is avaiable in the Kinglayer's chapter at Harenhall when he talks to the Red Ronnet(sp?) by the bear pit.

I think it was (or is also) when he goes to Darry in AFFC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Kingslayer Jon Connington quickly drank himself to death after he was exiled or at least that's what I remember. I believe that information is avaiable in the Kinglayer's chapter at Harenhall when he talks to the Red Ronnet(sp?) by the bear pit.

Thats correct. And this is actually a very good reason to suspect that he is alive.

Connington should be alive. There are too many mystery and secrets around Rhaegar so somebody who was close to him should be alive. Just like Reed knows Ned's secrets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats correct. And this is actually a very good reason to suspect that he is alive.

Connington should be alive. There are too many mystery and secrets around Rhaegar so somebody who was close to him should be alive. Just like Reed knows Ned's secrets.

Mezeh, I'd love to see Lord Connington alive and answering questions, but I think snake's right on this one. Unless there is something more to go on, one should expect that Jon Connington is dead, just as Jaime remembers (AFfC 408.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*groan*

Heh-heh. Come on, snake. It wouldn't surprise me if Varys was the source of the information Robert and his council received about the fate of Jon Connington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

No doubt, since he and Littlefinger are the reasons for everything that happens in Westeros. That and half the characters are Faceless Men. :)

It's starting to resemble a daytime soap opera. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before becoming knights of the KG, Whent, Hightower and Dayne became plain and simple knights. And knights vow to protect the weak, among other things.

Then later they swore the additional vow - to protect the king.

Then these 3 KG were put in a position where they could either protect the weak (Lyanna and child) OR protect their king (Viserys). A conflict of oaths.

Is it therefore fair to say that these three chose to keep the first of their oaths, and were at the TOJ, not protecting their king, but instead fulfilling their duty as true knights, by keeping the first of their knightly vows?

I mean, what kind of knights would they be if they broke their first oath as a knight, and abandoned the weak on this occasion?

ETA: Sorry, its "Protect the innocent. Defend the weak." according to Jaime, not protect the weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before becoming knights of the KG, Whent, Hightower and Dayne became plain and simple knights. And knights vow to protect the weak, among other things.

Then later they swore the additional vow - to protect the king.

Then these 3 KG were put in a position where they could either protect the weak (Lyanna and child) OR protect their king (Viserys). A conflict of oaths.

Is it therefore fair to say that these three chose to keep the first of their oaths, and were at the TOJ, not protecting their king, but instead fulfilling their duty as true knights, by keeping the first of their knightly vows?

I mean, what kind of knights would they be if they broke their first oath as a knight, and abandoned the weak on this occasion?

They would be like every other Knight in the realm who is pledged to uphold the established order and place their King before all others - only much more so. Time after time, we see Knights who choose their Lord or King over helpless people (Queen Rhealla, Mycah, etc.) and very, very few who follow the path of Ser Duncan the Tall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right. And a lot of stock has been put in how these three KG were the truest of all knights. Surely they would sway more Duncan's way than the other.

They would be like every other Knight in the realm who is pledged to uphold the established order and place their King before all others - only much more so. Time after time, we see Knights who choose their Lord or King over helpless people (Queen Rhealla, Mycah, etc.) and very, very few who follow the path of Ser Duncan the Tall.

Where in their vows does it say that protecting the king comes before the primary vows of a knight? I ask this because I think it is left open to interpretation for case by case decisions. This certainly seems to be the case in Jaime's mind.

E.g. Rhaella wasn't in mortal danger and stopping Aerys would conflict with "obey the king" and potentially "protect the king" if restraining him resulted in some harm to him. So the KG used their discretion to put the KG vows above their knightly vows on that occasion.

Could it be that when Lyanna and Jon were in mortal danger, the knightly vow came before the KG vow? Especially because leaving them defenceless would be a clear-cut breaking of their knightly vow, and not going to Viserys immediately is not actually inconsistent with the KG vow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right. And a lot of stock has been put in how these three KG were the truest of all knights. Surely they would sway more Duncan's way than the other.

Where in their vows does it say that protecting the king comes before the primary vows of a knight? I ask this because I think it is left open to interpretation for case by case decisions. This certainly seems to be the case in Jaime's mind.

E.g. Rhaella wasn't in mortal danger and stopping Aerys would conflict with "obey the king" and potentially "protect the king" if restraining him resulted in some harm to him. So the KG used their discretion to put the KG vows above their knightly vows on that occasion.

Could it be that when Lyanna and Jon were in mortal danger, the knightly vow came before the KG vow? Especially because leaving them defenceless would be a clear-cut breaking of their knightly vow, and not going to Viserys immediately is not actually inconsistent with the KG vow.

Martin shows us the problems when vows conflict - especially in the character of Jaime Lannister, but we see what people of Westeros think of him when he makes the decision he can't allow the people of King's Landing to burn because of mad designs of Aerys. They call him "Kingslayer" not savior.

This is a highly class stratified society and in it the fealty one owes to your Lord or King is paramount. It's what keeps it going. We may agree that it's nonsense, but honor - especially of the Kingsguard - is defined, first and foremost, by their fealty to their King, not by how they treat others. It doesn't matter what 21st century readers would do in such circumstances, but rather what is consistent with a fantasy feudal society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin shows us the problems when vows conflict - especially in the character of Jaime Lannister, but we see what people of Westeros think of him when he makes the decision he can't allow the people of King's Landing to burn because of mad designs of Aerys. They call him "Kingslayer" not savior.

They don't know of Aerys plan, iirc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't know of Aerys plan, iirc.

Good point. But they do know Aerys is mad and has brought misery on them in terms of a war. They know Jaime killed a lunatic who endangered them all. I have my doubts that any of the Kingsguard who were at the Tower of Joy would have made the same decision Jaime did, if they had been there. Being the epitome of a member of the Kingsguard means putting your King first. It may not be honorable to us, but it is in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin shows us the problems when vows conflict - especially in the character of Jaime Lannister, but we see what people of Westeros think of him when he makes the decision he can't allow the people of King's Landing to burn because of mad designs of Aerys. They call him "Kingslayer" not savior.

Because they don't know that. Recall how Brienne is shocked to hear the full story and asks why people don't know it? And then her opinion changes about Jaime.

GRRM also shows us what a true knight is. The likes of Dunk and Brienne, who do not discriminate based on class. We are told a true knight behaves like Dunk - protecting the weak (even if it is to the detriment of royalty) - and Brienne - staying true to your vow no matter what the cost. Then we are told that not only are the KG true knights, they are the truest knights. Seems like a contradiction that the truest knights would abandon the weak.

Add also that they were ordered to protect Lyanna and Jon by the crown prince, that Viserys is safe, and that waiting a bit before going to Viserys does not break any vow, and it seems pretty obvious that they will choose to stay. Staying doesn't break any of their vows or orders. Leaving breaks both.

This is a highly class stratified society and in it the fealty one owes to your Lord or King is paramount. It's what keeps it going. We may agree that it's nonsense, but honor - especially of the Kingsguard - is defined, first and foremost, by their fealty to their King, not by how they treat others.

Where does it say that? I bet the KG didn't feel honourable while they let Aerys beat and rape Rhaella. I bet they didn't feel honourable watching Rickard Stark roast in his armour. Fealty to the king isn't the definition of honour, and I really doubt any character in the book believes it is. Else Ned Stark has no honour for lying to Robert by saying Jon is his bastard, and for harbouring a Targaryen bastard during Robert's reign.

The fact is, that the KG stayed at the TOJ. I say it is because they were the truest of knights and staying at the TOJ was the right and knightly thing to do. There is plenty of evidence for this. We are told in the text that the KG are the truest knights, and we are told in the text that knights vow to protect the innocent and defend the weak.

There is more evidence for the above than that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they don't know that. Recall how Brienne is shocked to hear the full story and asks why people don't know it? And then her opinion changes about Jaime.

GRRM also shows us what a true knight is. The likes of Dunk and Brienne, who do not discriminate based on class. We are told a true knight behaves like Dunk - protecting the weak (even if it is to the detriment of royalty) - and Brienne - staying true to your vow no matter what the cost. Then we are told that not only are the KG true knights, they are the truest knights. Seems like a contradiction that the truest knights would abandon the weak.

Add also that they were ordered to protect Lyanna and Jon by the crown prince, that Viserys is safe, and that waiting a bit before going to Viserys does not break any vow, and it seems pretty obvious that they will choose to stay. Staying doesn't break any of their vows or orders. Leaving breaks both.

Martin plays with the theme of conflicting vows throughout the books. The only other theme that comes close to as much use is the conflict between love and honor. It's why Jaime talks about all the vows one is forced to make and how they don't tell you how to keep them all. What is clear however is that the three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy are viewed in this setting as extremely honorable men. It is also clear that the Kingsguard views its primary mission is to safeguard the King, and secondly his family. That oath mandates they go to Viserys, who is very much in danger, and not stay around - at least not all of them - to guard a bastard.

Where does it say that? I bet the KG didn't feel honourable while they let Aerys beat and rape Rhaella. I bet they didn't feel honourable watching Rickard Stark roast in his armour. Fealty to the king isn't the definition of honour, and I really doubt any character in the book believes it is. Else Ned Stark has no honour for lying to Robert by saying Jon is his bastard, and for harbouring a Targaryen bastard during Robert's reign.

The fact is, that the KG stayed at the TOJ. I say it is because they were the truest of knights and staying at the TOJ was the right and knightly thing to do. There is plenty of evidence for this. We are told in the text that the KG are the truest knights, and we are told in the text that knights vow to protect the innocent and defend the weak.

There is more evidence for the above than that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married.

There is evidence that Westeros is a highly stratified class based society in almost every aspect of the books. This is a feudal world. Feudalism is by definition highly stratified with obedience to one's Lord and King as the functioning basis for everything. When it works well, if one can ever say such a society works well, there is also some responsibility from the King to his vassals and from his vassals to their people, but noblesse oblige isn't a necessary component of the system.

Sarella, I'm sure you're right that the Kingsguard didn't feel honorable when they witnessed Aerys acts of madness, but they stand by anyway. More than anything this shows us what they view as their primary duty - and it isn't justice as we think of it.

What Martin shows us over and over again, and what makes these books stand out from others, is the complexity of the characters. Not only do we get to know the "villains" in ways that make us understand their motives and actions, but we also get to know the "good" characters and get to understand that their actions are not always good. That is true of the Kingsguard as it is of every character. While Westeros thinks of them as the epitome of honor, we are supposed to question their actions and ask ourselves if what they do is really honorable.

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...