The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread, Part II

[Mezeh]

Or because their KG vows were unclear, they may have chosen to revert to their primary knightly vows that say to defend the weak (i.e. Lyanna and child).

It is clear that in their conversation with Ned they speak about their vows as Kingsguard. Willem Darry was a knight and good man by their judgment yet they say that they are different. So they did not decided to revert to their primal knight oath and acted as members of Kingsgurd.

[Mezeh]

Where is this clear and solid evidence? And even if there is such evidence, Hightower was still subject to the same ambiguity as Dayne and Whent were once Robert was annointed.

The evidence is his statement to Jaime after Aerys had Rickard and Brandon Starks killed. If this could not sway his loyalty then nothing else would.

And they call Robert Usurper so for them there wasn’t any ambiguity.

[Sarella]

It is clear that in their conversation with Ned they speak about their vows as Kingsguard. Willem Darry was a knight and good man by their judgment yet they say that they are different. So they did not decided to revert to their primal knight oath and acted as members of Kingsgurd.

Yes, they acted how they thought they should as members of the KG, in a situation where the Targ dynasty has been overthrown. As GRRM has said, how they should act as members of the KG in a situation where the Targ dynasty has been overthrown, was unclear. Therefore we can draw no conclusion about why they stayed at the TOJ.

We know they thought they were behaving as the KG should behave in that situation, but we don't know how the KG should behave in that situation. Therefore we don't know how they were behaving or why.

[Sarella]

The evidence is his statement to Jaime after Aerys had Rickard and Brandon Starks killed. If this could not sway his loyalty then nothing else would.

And they call Robert Usurper so for them there wasn’t any ambiguity.

There was ambiguity. GRRM has said there was. Amidst this ambiguity, these three KG decided they wouldn't support Robert. There was nothing in their vows that said they must not support Robert. GRRM has said this.

[Mezeh]

Yes, they acted how they thought they should as members of the KG, in a situation where the Targ dynasty has been overthrown. As GRRM has said, how they should act as members of the KG in a situation where the Targ dynasty has been overthrown, was unclear. Therefore we can draw no conclusion about why they stayed at the TOJ.

We know they thought they were behaving as the KG should behave in that situation, but we don't know how the KG should behave in that situation. Therefore we don't know how they were behaving or why.

Sarella there was ambiguity so when Selmy decided to serve Robert his decision wasn’t condemned. It remained questionable and treason from Targaryen’s point of view but due to mentioned ambiguity it wasn’t clear treason and breaking vows by others.

But the nature of ambiguity is that the same things could be seen different. Hightower loyalty for Targaryens was absolute (unlike Selmy’s) so for him there was no question and no ambiguity at all. Robert was usurper plain and clear and their duty was to oppose him and his men. And that was exactly what they did. If Roberts is usurper then whoever was Aerys and Rhaegar’s heir is a rightful king and their primal duty is to protect him with their lives.

[SFDanny]

There was ambiguity. GRRM has said there was. Amidst this ambiguity, these three KG decided they wouldn't support Robert. There was nothing in their vows that said they must not support Robert. GRRM has said this.

Sarella, you are making entirely too much of this quote from Martin. Ambiguity refers to the fact that the vows never anticipated the control of the realm by anyone other than a Targaryen. There is no ambiguity for the Targaryens. They know precisely what the vow means; it means to guard them as the "rightful" rulers of Westeros. As Mezah has pointed out, the quote of the trio at the Tower of Joy shows they buy into the Targaryen view of their oath. Indeed they die because they believe their oaths demand them to do so. There is no ambiguity for these men. There is, however, for Ser Barristan. He does view his oath in a different manner. One he comes to regret. It is in his character that Martin shows us the problem of honorable men trying to square a difficult situation with their oaths. But he is not the Tower of Joy trio. They don't share his view that it is possible for them to serve a usurper.

Jaime is another case altogether. He foreswears his oath and kills the king he is sworn to protect. He does so before Robert is "anointed" king. He does so because he believes Aerys is mad and will kill the people of King's Landing, and he does so because Aerys would force him to kill his own father. He does so for very good reasons, but he still abandons his vow in killing Aerys. The ambiguity of transfer of power to a non-Targaryen has nothing to do with it.

[the silent speaker]

Rhaegar was dead so whatever orders he gave when he was still alive could not possibly supersede a duty of guarding a living king.

Not so. Brienne thinks to herself how no vow is as sacred as that sworn to those now dead.

[SFDanny]

Not so. Brienne thinks to herself how no vow is as sacred as that sworn to those now dead.

There is a big difference between a vow and an order. Are you saying the three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy took a vow to defend Lyanna that superseded the vow they took upon donning the white cloak? If so, I see no evidence for it. What we have is rather what appears to be an order assigning the Kingsguard to various duties - Hightower, Dayne, & Whent to TOJ, Jaime to guard Aerys at King's Landing, and Ser Barristan, Prince Lewyn, & Darry with Rhaegar. If that's the case there is no way such an order from a dead prince given in an entirely different situation would stop the Kingsguard from trying to fulfill their vow.

[the silent speaker]

"Defend" Lyanna? I don't think they were there defending anyone.

[Sarella]

Mezeh and SFDanny,

All I am trying to say is that what the KG's duty was in that situation was not clear-cut.

SFDanny, you say it was clear-cut to the Targs. I agree. But we are talking about whether it was clear-cut to the KG, not the Targs.

SSM:

November 24, 2000

Jaime’s Regicide

Fan: I was wondering if the vows of the Kingsguard take precedence over the vows they take when they first become knights? That is, was Jaime justified in his killing of Aerys because Aerys was going to burn the city, or was he guilty of betraying his vow to protect the king.

GRRM: Some might say, "both." As Jaime himself says in the dungeons of Riverrun, the vows you swear are sometimes in conflict with each other.

Note that GRRM does not state that the vows of the KG come before their other vows.

SSM:

Fan: Does the oath of a Kingsguard include to serve _whoever_ is the king, even if the new king rebelled against the old one, or did Jaime and Barristan _choose_ to continue their service as Robert was crowned?

GRRM: The oaths did not envision rebellion, actually.

But then to this you say that even if their duty wasn't clear to all KG, it was clear to these three that they must support the next Targ king, because of what they say in Ned's fever dream.

Firstly it isn't clear at all from what they say that they believed they must go to and defend the next Targ king. They say they swore a vow. We don't know that they are referring to their KG vow, or to a vow Rhaegar asked them to swear, or any other vow they may have sworn.

Secondly, it was a fever dream.

From SSM:

GRRM: Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal.

So I will say once again, that we can draw no conclusion about what the KG should have done, what they were doing, or why they were doing it. And we certainly cannot say they were definitely defending the next Targ king. It is one possibility out of many that has no more support than any of the other possibilities.

[Ser Romin]

should have done, what they were doing, or why they were doing it. And we certainly cannot say they were definitely defending the next Targ king. It is one possibility out of many that has no more support than any of the other possibilities.

I think it's safe to say that among any other "possibilities" the idea that the Kingsguard were defending Rhaegar's mistress/wife/whatever and child has far more support than any other.

The main reason is that Rhaegar would never have ordered 3 of his Kinsguard, and his top two at that (Dayne and Hightower), to stay at the Tower of Joy to protect some Northern Lady that he kidnapped. Whatever was in the Tower of Joy was more important than anything else to Rhaegar otherwise he wouldn't have left Kingsguard to guard it... or atleast not 3 of them.

I think it is safe to say that with the information provided in the books, Lyanna had a child with her, Rhaegar's child, in that Tower. Whether or not it is Jon is another story, but she certainly had a child. As Martin replied to the fan in regards to the Hound being alive the other day; the answer is in the books.

[SFDanny]

Mezeh and SFDanny,

All I am trying to say is that what the KG's duty was in that situation was not clear-cut.

SFDanny, you say it was clear-cut to the Targs. I agree. But we are talking about whether it was clear-cut to the KG, not the Targs.

What I'm saying is the situation is clear cut to all of the Kingsguard except for Ser Barristan. Selmy gives his reasons to Daenerys when he says,

Some truths are hard to hear. Roberts was a...a good knight ... chivalrous, brave ... he spared my life, and the lives of many others... Prince Viserys was only a boy, it would have been years before he was fit to rule, and ... forgive me, my queen, but asked for the truth ... even as a child, your brother Viserys oft seemed to be his father's son, in was that Rhaegar never did."(ASOS 811)

All of which is to say Ser Barristan shows the problems you talk about. This are the concerns that Martin wants us to consider when we put ourselves in the place of his character. It's part of his brilliance that he has us view the world from so many points of view. It has little to do, however, with the three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy.

SSM:

Note that GRRM does not state that the vows of the KG come before their other vows.

SSM:

But then to this you say that even if their duty wasn't clear to all KG, it was clear to these three that they must support the next Targ king, because of what they say in Ned's fever dream.

Firstly it isn't clear at all from what they say that they believed they must go to and defend the next Targ king. They say they swore a vow. We don't know that they are referring to their KG vow, or to a vow Rhaegar asked them to swear, or any other vow they may have sworn.

Secondly, it was a fever dream.

From SSM:

So I will say once again, that we can draw no conclusion about what the KG should have done, what they were doing, or why they were doing it. And we certainly cannot say they were definitely defending the next Targ king. It is one possibility out of many that has no more support than any of the other possibilities.

First, let me say it doesn't bother me in the least that Ned's memories are in the form of a fevered dream. I'm sure Ned doesn't dream all of the details that happened (other people who were there, time frames from one point of the dream to the next, etc.) But I see no reason to think he dreams false words from the Kingsguard. If we find out that this dialog is just a rather elaborate red herring, I will revise my thinking, but I don't think it likely.

Second, Sarella, what your doing is looking for every way to possibly read this as something other than it most likely is. Don't get me wrong, that's a good approach in all of this, but if we go on what we have laid out before us it is clear, to me at least, that all signs point to the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy as Targaryen loyalists who fulfill their oaths by guarding the heir to the throne at the cost of their lives. Some of the other possibilities are just not believable (especially the idea that the Kingsguard stays at the Tower of Joy because that was what their last order told them to do.)

[Sarella]

What I'm saying is the situation is clear cut to all of the Kingsguard except for Ser Barristan.

It was not clear cut to them. GRRM said their oaths did not envision rebellion. They had no oaths to cover this situation. Whatever they may have decided their duty was in the end, it was not clearly stated in their oaths.

All of which is to say Ser Barristan shows the problems you talk about. This are the concerns that Martin wants us to consider when we put ourselves in the place of his character. It's part of his brilliance that he has us view the world from so many points of view. It has little to do, however, with the three Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy.

It shows that a member of the KG was in conflict with his oaths. This means the oaths for this situation were not clear-cut. Seeing as they all took the same oaths, it is fair to say that all members of the KG had conflicting oaths in this situation. The fact that the three at the TOJ made a decision and appeared sure in that decision, doesn't mean it was the only decision they could come to based on their oaths. We know it wasn't.

First, let me say it doesn't bother me in the least that Ned's memories are in the form of a fevered dream. I'm sure Ned doesn't dream all of the details that happened (other people who were there, time frames from one point of the dream to the next, etc.) But I see no reason to think he dreams false words from the Kingsguard. If we find out that this dialog is just a rather elaborate red herring, I will revise my thinking, but I don't think it likely.

Fine, Ned probably correctly remembered the gist of what they said, or at least how he interpreted what they were saying. I still think a little caution is in order.

Second, Sarella, what your doing is looking for every way to possibly read this as something other than it most likely is.

We just have a difference in opinion about what the situation most likely was. I do not for a second believe that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and that Jon was trueborn is the likeliest explanation.

The gist of that argument is: Three KG were at the TOJ, therefore they MUST have been guarding a Targaryen even though GRRM has said it was unclear what they must do in that situation, therefore Rhaegar and Lyanna must have been married despite there being no textual evidence to support that idea and that if it is true, it is the only surprise GRRM has put in the books that has had no hints associated with it.

When an explanation of something is inconsistent with what the author himself has said, and is inconsistent with the author's writing, it is not the most likely explanation.

[Guest Other-in-law]

I think Barristan's extraordinary choice is due to the impossible situation he was in after being wounded. No doubt he intended to fight to the death on behalf of the Targaryens, but his incapacitation prevented it. He was wounded to the point where he couldn't fight any more, and may well have been unconscious. Then Robert decides to spare him and has the maester's save his life.

What's Barristan supposed to do, try to feebly stab anyone who comes close enough to his sickbed? By the time he's well enough to fight anyone Robert's usurpation is fait accompli. He can't bring Aerys or Rhaegar or the children back no matter what he does, so he goes with flow instead of repaying Robert's mercy with treachery. But in the end, he comes to regret his inconstancy.

[Thoheeks Bili]

Why would the crown Prince keep his BEST FIGHTERS away from the fighting?

What possible reason would he have to do so?

It seems pretty obvious to me but then again, I'm a straight forward kinda guy.

C'mon George, hurry up with those books and give us our dope! We all have serious withdrawl symptoms!!!!

[the silent speaker]

The main reason is that Rhaegar would never have ordered 3 of his Kinsguard, and his top two at that (Dayne and Hightower), to stay at the Tower of Joy to protect some Northern Lady that he kidnapped.

Never is a big word, Ser Romin (the only bigger word is if). If Rhaegar could kidnap Lyanna, why couldn't he order his Kingsguard to hold her prisoner? After all, if she had to be kidnapped, she had to be held, and Rhaegar was needed elsewhere.

[MTGAP]

Don't know if anybody noticed this, but the promise Ned made to Lyanna and the price he paid to keep it fits right in with the R+L=J theory.

[Enguerrand]

Note that GRRM does not state that the vows of the KG come before their other vows.

Absence of evidence is not evidence, And from the books it’s quite clear that the kingsguard vows are paramount. There was a multitude of lords that broke their fealty to Aerys and opposed him with violence, Jaime is the only one that receive universal scorn for it.

But then to this you say that even if their duty wasn't clear to all KG, it was clear to these three that they must support the next Targ king, because of what they say in Ned's fever dream.

I think that what duty required was quite clear to Barristan as well, As he explained it to Daenerys.

“I want the whole truth now, on your honor as a knight. Are you the Usurper’s man, or mine?â€

“Yours, if you will have me.†Ser Barristan had tears in his eyes. “I took Robert’s pardon, aye. I served him in Kingsguard and council. Served with the Kingslayer and others near as bad, who soiled the white cloak I wore. Nothing will excuse that. I might be serving in King’s Landing still if the vile boy upon the Iron Throne had not cast me aside, it shames me to admit.

He took the pragmatic option. Continued defiance would have been the honourable course but rather fruitless, either he would have been executed or kept in prison for life. Even if he had been able to escape and against all odds somehow drag Viserys up on the throne no one would really have been happy about it.

Also if we try common sense, who feels compelled by honour to serve the lord that murdered his liege?

Firstly it isn't clear at all from what they say that they believed they must go to and defend the next Targ king. They say they swore a vow. We don't know that they are referring to their KG vow, or to a vow Rhaegar asked them to swear, or any other vow they may have sworn.

From the context it’s rather clear that the vow they are talking about is the vow that govern their lives. Also notice that whatever they would have promised Rhaegar it could never infringe on the Kingsguard vow. If it did, they would be forsworn.

It shows that a member of the KG was in conflict with his oaths. This means the oaths for this situation were not clear-cut. Seeing as they all took the same oaths, it is fair to say that all members of the KG had conflicting oaths in this situation.

No it means that when honour clashes with reality, people react to it differently.

Many boarders sees Eddard Stark as extremely honourable, yet he died betraying all of his duties so save his daughters.

[SFDanny]

Enguerrand and Other-in-law, great posts. Let me just add a few things to your responses to Sarella.

It was not clear cut to them. GRRM said their oaths did not envision rebellion. They had no oaths to cover this situation. Whatever they may have decided their duty was in the end, it was not clearly stated in their oaths.

Let me try this again.

Martin tells us the oaths of the Kingsguard didn’t anticipate a successful rebellion. That does not mean the oath does not continue to bind the Kingsguard to guard their King, his heir, and his family - in that order. It only means that once Robert has effectively won the war and sits on the Iron Throne as the de facto King of Westeros the Kingsguard is in unforeseen territory. For Hightower, Dayne, and Whent we are told how they react to each of the set backs to Targaryen fortunes. It changes nothing for them in terms of their commitment to their oaths. They are very, very clear what they see as their duty, and it has nothing to do with possibly serving “the usurper.†If it had been possible for them to change sides, why would they fight against better than two to one odds against a foe who would surely have allowed them to bend the knee to Robert?

With Jaime, he foreswore his vows when he killed his king. The “new situation†doesn’t effect him. He is already a kingslayer when Robert finally sits the throne.

Only, Ser Barristan “adapts†his oath to allow him to guard a new king who has come to the throne through rebellion. As Enguerrand and OIL show, and I’ve tried to show as well, he regrets this decision and is shamed by it. Selmy is a wonderful character for the reader because he shows us the problems of the gray area in all choices, unlike the other surviving white cloaks who see it as black and white. It makes no sense to use Selmy’s choices to say that the others have the same ambiguous view of what to do. They obviously and demonstrably don’t.

It shows that a member of the KG was in conflict with his oaths. This means the oaths for this situation were not clear-cut. Seeing as they all took the same oaths, it is fair to say that all members of the KG had conflicting oaths in this situation. The fact that the three at the TOJ made a decision and appeared sure in that decision, doesn't mean it was the only decision they could come to based on their oaths. We know it wasn't.

More than one of the Kingsguard is in conflict with his Kingsguard oath. Both Jaime and Ser Barristan are, for very different reasons. Jaime abandons his oath to his king when he sees the plot to burn King’s Landing to the ground, and when he is told he must kill his father. While many would agree with his actions, including me, it is very “clear-cut†that his actions are in opposition to his vow. Selmy, instead of choosing to abandon his vow, chooses to "accommodate" it to the new situation. The other Kingsguard see no conflict and take no action that shows they consider either Jaime or Selmy’s roads. Far from it, the only road that we would expect these three men to take is to stay loyal to House Targaryen and to their oaths.

So the only thing that is clear-cut is that you can’t do as you do and take one of the three approaches and say it applies to the others.

Fine, Ned probably correctly remembered the gist of what they said, or at least how he interpreted what they were saying. I still think a little caution is in order.

I think we agree, and if there is any future information that the words spoken at the Tower of Joy are not as Ned recalls them in his dream, I’ll be the first to say we need to reevaluate the situation.

We just have a difference in opinion about what the situation most likely was. I do not for a second believe that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and that Jon was trueborn is the likeliest explanation.

The gist of that argument is: Three KG were at the TOJ, therefore they MUST have been guarding a Targaryen even though GRRM has said it was unclear what they must do in that situation, therefore Rhaegar and Lyanna must have been married despite there being no textual evidence to support that idea and that if it is true, it is the only surprise GRRM has put in the books that has had no hints associated with it.

When an explanation of something is inconsistent with what the author himself has said, and is inconsistent with the author's writing, it is not the most likely explanation.

Martin never says that it is unclear in the minds of the trio at the Tower of Joy what they should do in order to fulfill their oaths. He only speaks of the new reality of a successful rebellion not being anticipated. If you could show where Martin calls into question the certainty the three men show in carrying out their duty, then perhaps you might have a case. You can’t, and you don’t. In fact, everything we are told of these men, in this scene, and everywhere else in the books, would have us expect they would react just as they do in fighting to the death against Ned and his companions in order to fulfill their vows, especially if the Targaryen heir to the throne is being born in the Tower behind them.

[Mezeh]

SFDanny,

Great post and I agree with you on every point. I want only to add again that we besides Ned’s dreams we know from other sources at least about Hightower position and views. He indeed had black and white vision of his duties and his loyalty was absolute. We don’t know if the other two had the same vision but we have no reason to doubt it and besides Hightower were a commander and there was no ambiguity about following his orders.