R+L=J v.165

[Wolfkin]

A thought that just popped in my head, as I reread, and try to come up with the most far fetched idea. What if Lyanna actually gave birth to King Aery's child, not Rhaegar's? The king was already distrustful of Rhaegar, so maybe because Rhaegar showed an interest in Lyanna at the Harrenhall tourney, the king takes interest as well, and to thwart Rhaegar, he takes Lyanna himself.  And there were 3 Kingsguards there to protect the king's child, not the Prince's child as many of us have concluded. 

I know it's crazy, but hey, so are many other ideas as well. 

OOPS! I guess that has already been questioned by another. Sorry for repeating. Didn't realize another had already suggested the same. Very large forum!! (But awesome!!)

 

[Frey family reunion]

On 1/12/2019 at 11:32 AM, JNR said:

what do you do?  Do you ask this eighth-grade person, who has zero training or experience, to risk getting mauled in jousts by riding against trained knights while wearing bits and pieces of armor, by persuading her of your magic powers?  All so you can achieve your personal vengeance?

 I'm not sure.  And if you do, I doubt you brag about it.  Howland obviously doesn't appear in canon, but this doesn't really seem like something I'd repeatedly brag about to my kids, in his shoes.

I do think you give GRRM a bit too much credit for being realistic about the limitations of his characters.  We have to look no ruther than Tyrion to see an example of that.  He goes from a “waddling” dwarf to backflipping off the top of a gargoyle or becoming a killing machine on the shores of the Blackwater even though he’s really had no training in arms that we know about.  George later explains away his gymnastic prowess by saying he would flip around as a kid to amuse his uncles.

So my problem with Lyanna acting alone isn’t entirely due to the unrealistic aspect of a girl without any formal jousting experience being able to defeat three obviously seasoned jousters.  My problem is that it diminishes Howland in the story to a passive participant in his revenge scheme.

 I also think that there are too many clues that Howland is magical, in the same manner as Brynden Rivers and Melisandre, and probably sneaky like all crannogs.  With these two skills, my guess is that Howland would further his revenge by playing to his strengths as opposed to his weakness (which the story specifically highlights his lack of comparable experience on horseback as opposed to the average Westerosi).  So if Howland needed someone for their riding experience than it makes sense based on the structure of the story that he would turn to his new friend and ally Lyanna.

Finally, Howland isn’t really bragging about Lyanna riding as the knight is he?  After all that’s why he never officially reveals the identifty of the Knight of the Laughing tree to his children.  As you stated above, it’s obvious that they have debated that very fact coming at conclusions based on their own personality traits and natures.  

I think the main point of the story for Howland’s perspective is that he’s teaching his children about how he met and became friends/allies with the Starks.  And when someone wrongs you, pray to the Old Gods for “guidance”.

ETA: and of course let us not forget that the story is told for the benefit of Bran, the cripple.  Perhaps, in a way the point of the story will be that Bran can indeed become a knight, just not in a conventional way.  Just like Howland may have contributed to the Knight of the Laughing Tree, even though he never actually got on the horse.

[Julia H.]

I'm late to the party, but anyway...

Re: the KoTLT challenging three champions:

While I'm not an expert on tourneys, it would work for me if the relevant rule or custom (yeah, I'm just making it up, I haven't read it anywhere, but as I said, it would work for me) allowed a knight to initially challenge more than one of the champions (tapping two or three shields) on the condition that the challenger would become a champion only if he defeated all of the champions challenged. (Possibly, if the challenger is defeated by any of the challenged champions, all the challenged champions win and remain champions, even the one(s) already defeated by the challenger.) I know this possibility has the potential to reduce the number of champions (if the challenger wins); however, it would be very rarely used, as basically the challenger would make it more difficult for himself to become a champion. Only real show-offs (and perhaps knights who have a beef with several champions) would do that. (Most challengers would just pick the single champion they think they have the best chance against.) Basically, challenging several champions at one's own risk might be an option neither prohibited by the rules (and as such, possible), nor practised very often. When it does happen, however, it probably makes for extra excitement and entertainment, something for the singers to sing about.   

This could be one way for the KoTLT to challenge all three knights at the same time, before becoming a champion (who would need to accept challenges rather than issue them), based on a risky and therefore very rarely used but nevertheless available option. 

[Geddus]

On 1/19/2019 at 2:25 AM, Wolfkin said:

A thought that just popped in my head, as I reread, and try to come up with the most far fetched idea. What if Lyanna actually gave birth to King Aery's child, not Rhaegar's?

I always thought Aerys is the only acceptable alternative to Rhaegar as Jon's father: every other theory doesn't explain Ned's actions.

[Maia]

On 1/19/2019 at 2:25 AM, Wolfkin said:

A thought that just popped in my head, as I reread, and try to come up with the most far fetched idea. What if Lyanna actually gave birth to King Aery's child, not Rhaegar's?

 

Then this child couldn't be the Promised Prince, as the prophecy of Jenny's witch, who is the Ghost of High Heart was that "from the line of Aerys _and Rhaella_" would PP be born. That's why the 2 were married in the first place, though neither of them wanted the match.

 

On 1/22/2019 at 1:53 PM, Frey family reunion said:

  He goes from a “waddling” dwarf to backflipping off the top of a gargoyle or becoming a killing machine on the shores of the Blackwater even though he’s really had no training in arms that we know about.  George later explains away his gymnastic prowess by saying he would flip around as a kid to amuse his uncles.

On the contrary, Tyrion thought in AGoT that he had received the weapons training that his limitations allowed and even posessed an expertly crafted suit of plate armor, which, to his great regret, remained at CR. He had just never trained with an axe prior to Bronn giving him one. Tyrion is also a bit of a "fantasy" dwarf, in that he has relatively long, strong arms, which, when raised, extend beyond his head  (unlike Peter Dinklage) and short, twisted legs. Now, both are possible separately iRL, as there are rare dwarfs with proportionate limbs as well as the more common ones with foreshortened ones, but he seems to be a combination of the 2 for upper and lower extremities respectively, which is not believable by iRL standards. It is also not plausible for him to be able to wear a child's clothes, BTW, because his girth shouldn't allow it.

[JNR]

On 1/22/2019 at 6:53 AM, Frey family reunion said:

So my problem with Lyanna acting alone isn’t entirely due to the unrealistic aspect of a girl without any formal jousting experience being able to defeat three obviously seasoned jousters.  My problem is that it diminishes Howland in the story to a passive participant in his revenge scheme.

We actually agree about that.  That's exactly why I can't really picture him telling such a story repeatedly to his kids; it doesn't make him look good at all. 

On 1/22/2019 at 6:53 AM, Frey family reunion said:

 I also think that there are too many clues that Howland is magical

There are some.  In addition to the various remarks in the KotLT story itself, such as the one about Howland going to the God's Eye to learn more magic, there's the obvious and irrefutable fact that one of his two children has magic (greendreams).

But I don't think he needs to be a greenseer to have given himself a substantial hidden advantage in a joust.

On 1/22/2019 at 6:53 AM, Frey family reunion said:

So if Howland needed someone for their riding experience than it makes sense based on the structure of the story that he would turn to his new friend and ally Lyanna.

Well, try to write that dialogue.  It has to involve him explaining that magic is real, and that he can use it to improve her odds, so persuasively as to overcome whatever doubts she has -- not just about his magic, but about her complete lack of experience jousting against anyone else, or wearing armor (which in this case wouldn't even be tailored for her).

It was a far less risky thing for her to drive off three squires using the power of her family (by roaring "That's my father's man you're kicking" about a crannogman), while looking exactly like a Stark. 

No squire with a brain is seriously going to attack the daughter of Lord Stark. Cersei could have driven them off too, using a spoon.

On 1/22/2019 at 6:53 AM, Frey family reunion said:

Perhaps, in a way the point of the story will be that Bran can indeed become a knight, just not in a conventional way.

I think that might be part of GRRM's hints to us, yes... but not Meera's to Bran.  

You can see GRRM dropping similar hints in AGOT:

Quote

 

"Hodor could be my legs. We could be a knight together."

"I think that … unlikely," Maester Luwin said. "Bran, when a man fights, his arms and legs and thoughts must be as one."

 

Uh huh.  But that was before we knew Bran could literally take control of Hodor's body, using his thoughts to control all of it simultaneously, eh? 

[SFDanny]

On 1/18/2019 at 5:25 PM, Wolfkin said:

A thought that just popped in my head, as I reread, and try to come up with the most far fetched idea. What if Lyanna actually gave birth to King Aery's child, not Rhaegar's? The king was already distrustful of Rhaegar, so maybe because Rhaegar showed an interest in Lyanna at the Harrenhall tourney, the king takes interest as well, and to thwart Rhaegar, he takes Lyanna himself.  And there were 3 Kingsguards there to protect the king's child, not the Prince's child as many of us have concluded. 

I know it's crazy, but hey, so are many other ideas as well.

I think you are right in that it is at least one of the most far fetched ideas to come along in a while. A child born from some sort of sexual contact with Lyanna at Harrenhal (rape or Aerys's "svengali ways" with young women) would have been born about mid year or a little later of 282 AC. Which would make Jon over a year older than he is supposed to be in the story. An age difference that would be hard/impossible to hide.

But perhaps Aerys has Rhaegar kidnap Lyanna for his own purposes and he has her hidden away in King's Landing for his "manly" needs? That would satisfy the timeline problem, but it runs counter to everything we know about this period. We are told from both Jaime and Ser Barristan as an eye witnesses that it is Rhaegar who runs off with Lyanna and then they cannot be found by Aerys. When two of the king's personal bodyguards know nothing about any contact between Lyanna and Aerys during this time, it's pretty good evidence there wasn't any. Jaime is especially important as he was kept close to the king as a de facto hostage himself. He wasn't sent on missions as Selmy was.

No, you are right. Far fetched is a generous way of putting it.

[the Other Wolf]

On 1/18/2019 at 8:25 PM, Wolfkin said:

A thought that just popped in my head, as I reread, and try to come up with the most far fetched idea. What if Lyanna actually gave birth to King Aery's child, not Rhaegar's? The king was already distrustful of Rhaegar, so maybe because Rhaegar showed an interest in Lyanna at the Harrenhall tourney, the king takes interest as well, and to thwart Rhaegar, he takes Lyanna himself.  And there were 3 Kingsguards there to protect the king's child, not the Prince's child as many of us have concluded. 

I know it's crazy, but hey, so are many other ideas as well. 

Interesting, but...

 

On 1/24/2019 at 6:04 PM, SFDanny said:

We are told from both Jaime and Ser Barristan as an eye witnesses that it is Rhaegar who runs off with Lyanna and then they cannot be found by Aerys.

 

[SFDanny]

In reading the quote above, let me say I should have made myself more clear. Ser Barristan and Jaime are eyewitnesses to Aerys's conduct and view, not to the abduction itself. Neither of them believe Aerys had any such contact with Lyanna, and believe it was Rhaegar to took her.

[Alexis-something-Rose]

I had never noticed the possible parallel and honestly, it's too long going through the 20,000 RLJ threads to see if this was ever brought up.

This is Dany coming upon Eroeh after her village has been sacked by the Dothraki and commanding her bloodriders to put an end to her rape. 

"I will not have her harmed," Dany said. "I claim her. Do as I command you, or Khal Drogo will know the reason why."
"Ai, Khaleesi," Jhogo replied, kicking his horse. Quaro and the others followed his lead, the bells in their hair chiming.
"Go with them," she commanded Ser Jorah.
"As you command." The knight gave her a curious look. "You are your brother's sister, in truth."
"Viserys?" She did not understand.
"No," he answered. "Rhaegar." He galloped off. (Dany VII, AGOT 61)

I think there's an interesting parallel being drawn here between Dany and Rhaegar, especially coming from Jorah who fought on the other side during the Battle of the Trident. Also, such a statement from him seems to point to him maybe having more knowledge of the situation.

I think in on its own, this could be a tiny piece of the puzzle for anyone who believes that Lyanna being carried off at sword point had to do with protecting her rather than kidnapping her.

[IceFire125]

GRRM spilling Rhaegar clues in Jon...

“Do you mislike the girl?” Tormund asked him as they passed another twenty mammoths, these bearing wildlings in tall wooden towers instead of giants.
“No, but I …” What can I say that he will believe? “I am still too young to wed.”
“Wed?” Tormund laughed. “Who spoke of wedding? In the south, must a man wed every girl he beds?”
Jon could feel himself turning red again. “She spoke for me when Rattleshirt would have killed me. I would not dishonor her.”
“You are a free man now, and Ygritte is a free woman. What dishonor if you lay together?”
“I might get her with child.”
“Aye, I’d hope so. A strong son or a lively laughing girl kissed by fire, and where’s the harm in that?”
Words failed him for a moment. “The boy … the child would be a bastard.”
“Are bastards weaker than other children? More sickly, more like to fail?”
“No, but—”
“You’re bastard-born yourself. And if Ygritte does not want a child, she will go to some woods witch and drink a cup o’ moon tea. You do not come into it, once the seed is planted.”
“I will not father a bastard.”
Tormund shook his shaggy head. “What fools you kneelers be. Why did you steal the girl if you don’t want her?”
“Steal? I never …”
“You did,” said Tormund. “You slew the two she was with and carried her off, what do you call it?”
“I took her prisoner.”
“You made her yield to you.”

---

...Ygritte insisted. “Like the night you stole me. The Thief was bright that night.”
“I never meant to steal you,” he said. “I never knew you were a girl until my knife was at your throat.”

Rhaegar didn't realize that Lyanna was a girl at sword point (maybe while she was taking off her mismatched armor?)

Then did Rhaegar or the two KG ( Whent/Dayne) had to fight off/killed men (sent by King Aerys) that were chasing the KOTLT shortly after?

 

 

[SFDanny]

25 minutes ago, IceFire125 said:

GRRM spilling Rhaegar clues in Jon... <snip>

Rhaegar didn't realize that Lyanna was a girl at sword point (maybe while she was taking off her mismatched armor?)

Then did Rhaegar or the two KG ( Whent/Dayne) had to fight off/killed men (sent by King Aerys) that were chasing the KOTLT shortly after?

Lyanna's abduction is likely months after the end of the tourney at Harrenhal. We know from TWoI&F that Rhaegar and Elia have returned to Dragonstone and Aegon is born and then Rhaegar goes on his journey to the Riverlands as winter settles in over King's Landing. Some time later, into the New Year of 282 AC, he runs into Lyanna near Harrenhal and the "kidnapping" occurs. While we have little in the way of evidence what happens when they do meet, other than the important clue that swords are drawn, we certainly don't have reason to believe Aerys has his men still searching for the Knight of the Laughing Tree, or that he has a clue it was Lyanna he was looking for when he sends Rhaegar to find the knight so many moons earlier. I know this speculation has some supporters here, but there is little to support it, and serious reasons to doubt it.

None of which means that it is impossible for the meeting to take place when Lyanna is traveling incognito and Rhaegar doesn't know who he runs into. I find it unlikely, if only because Rhaegar seems so struck by Lyanna at Harrenhal that any disguise would hardly fool the prince for long.

[Ygrain]

On 2/11/2019 at 4:55 PM, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I had never noticed the possible parallel and honestly, it's too long going through the 20,000 RLJ threads to see if this was ever brought up.

This is Dany coming upon Eroeh after her village has been sacked by the Dothraki and commanding her bloodriders to put an end to her rape. 

"I will not have her harmed," Dany said. "I claim her. Do as I command you, or Khal Drogo will know the reason why."
"Ai, Khaleesi," Jhogo replied, kicking his horse. Quaro and the others followed his lead, the bells in their hair chiming.
"Go with them," she commanded Ser Jorah.
"As you command." The knight gave her a curious look. "You are your brother's sister, in truth."
"Viserys?" She did not understand.
"No," he answered. "Rhaegar." He galloped off. (Dany VII, AGOT 61)

I think there's an interesting parallel being drawn here between Dany and Rhaegar, especially coming from Jorah who fought on the other side during the Battle of the Trident. Also, such a statement from him seems to point to him maybe having more knowledge of the situation.

I think in on its own, this could be a tiny piece of the puzzle for anyone who believes that Lyanna being carried off at sword point had to do with protecting her rather than kidnapping her.

Oh yes, this has been duly noted :-) It has led to all kinds of speculation as to what Jorah might have seen or known, along with his claim that Rhaegar fought honorably and nobly, and he died.

[Alexis-something-Rose]

20 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Oh yes, this has been duly noted :-) It has led to all kinds of speculation as to what Jorah might have seen or known, along with his claim that Rhaegar fought honorably and nobly, and he died.

I've always wondered what Jorah knows and I think he knows or suspects things, but I had never looked at that quote in terms of Lyanna's so-called kidnapping. In any case, he seems to fall in that category along with Wyman Manderly who don't seem to buy into the popular narrative.

[The Twinslayer]

Has anyone yet made note of how many times in Fire & Blood the king is outside the presence of any of the kingsguard?  If not, I can make a list (some time).

But anyway, can we finally all agree that there is no rule saying that there must always be at least one kingsguard physically present with the king?  And can we then amend the “reference guide” in the OP to this thread accordingly?

ETA:  Hearing no response, I'll start a new thread on this topic. 

[SFDanny]

On 2/21/2019 at 9:10 PM, The Twinslayer said:

Has anyone yet made note of how many times in Fire & Blood the king is outside the presence of any of the kingsguard?  If not, I can make a list (some time).

But anyway, can we finally all agree that there is no rule saying that there must always be at least one kingsguard physically present with the king?  And can we then amend the “reference guide” in the OP to this thread accordingly?

ETA:  Hearing no response, I'll start a new thread on this topic. 

No one I've known over the past eleven years has put forward such an absurd theory. The argument has always been that the Kingsguard Oath mandates that a member of the Kingsguard must guard the King's safety. Each and every sworn brother has this as their first duty. It is the purpose of their existence. Ser Barristan Selmy spells this all out for the reader.

Quote

The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king's commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him the counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not, serve his pleasure and defend his name and honor. Strictly speaking, it was purely the king's choice whether or not to extend Kingsguard protection to others, even those of royal blood. (ADwD 737)

Please notice the first duty, and also notice there is no reference here or any place else that that means a Kingsguard brother must be in the king's presence at all times. What it does mean is that these seven men are the last line of defense for their king and that includes giving up their lives in the performance of their duty to "defend the king from harm or threat." Or so they are sworn to do, but not all sworn brothers are equal in the performance of their first duty. Or in the other duties Selmy outlines.

What this first duty undoubtedly means is the Kingsguard cannot knowingly decide to ignore the safety of their king, or at least not and be true to their oath. Sometimes that may mean trusting others to guard the king, but it never means the Kingsguard can be faithful if they ignore their first duty. So when Jaime calls his meeting of the White Swords, the first thing they do is to speak of who is guarding Tommen. 

The debate that raged here for many years centered on not this mischaracterization of the First Duty, but what would it mean for all three seemingly faithful brothers at the Tower of Joy to ignore their oaths in relation to their new king, Viserys? It is still a good question. At least one of their number should, according to their oaths be headed to Viserys to take charge of his safety. Not, as your distortion of that oath claims, to be with Viserys every moment of every day.

With the publication of The World of Ice & Fire we know that Aerys named Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death at the Trident. It is very clear then that the first duty, upon Aerys own death, means that faithful members of the Kingsguard should be concerned about the safety of their new king. The reader should weigh the actions of Hightower, Whent, and Dayne in that regard. Perhaps they were more concerned about the other parts of the oath and thought Viserys safety well taken care of at the time. Perhaps different loyalties pulled them away from fulfilling their oaths. But what I know is it is ridiculous to reduced this question to meaning a member of the Kingsguard must be in the presence of the king at all times.

[The Twinslayer]

2 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No one I've known over the past eleven years has put forward such an absurd theory. The argument has always been that the Kingsguard Oath mandates that a member of the Kingsguard must guard the King's safety. Each and every sworn brother has this as their first duty. It is the purpose of their existence. Ser Barristan Selmy spells this all out for the reader.

 

Then you have missed a lot of the discussion over the years.  A quick Google search will give you a lot of examples of people putting forward the theory you are calling absurd.  For example, this is from Ygrain in R+L=J v. 20, page 7:

"However, the rules of the Kingsguard say that at least one of them MUST be with the king."

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

No one I've known over the past eleven years has put forward such an absurd theory. The argument has always been that the Kingsguard Oath mandates that a member of the Kingsguard must guard the King's safety. Each and every sworn brother has this as their first duty. It is the purpose of their existence. Ser Barristan Selmy spells this all out for the reader.

It is the purpose of the order, but the king decides whether they actually do that or not. The Kingsguard does what the king wants, not what the purpose of the order is. If the king wants to be protected by the KG, they protect him. If the king wants them to protect his wife, children, siblings, cousins, horses, mistresses, bastards, etc. they do that. Just as they also lead the king's armies, fight the kings wars, etc.

Pointing out what the purpose of the order is has no bearing on what individual KG do in various situations.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The debate that raged here for many years centered on not this mischaracterization of the First Duty, but what would it mean for all three seemingly faithful brothers at the Tower of Joy to ignore their oaths in relation to their new king, Viserys? It is still a good question. At least one of their number should, according to their oaths be headed to Viserys to take charge of his safety. Not, as your distortion of that oath claims, to be with Viserys every moment of every day.

Their new king would actually be Robert Baratheon, not Viserys III, since Robert is the one on the Iron Throne, not Viserys III.

But even if we assume that they saw Viserys III as their rightful king - which they should have - there is still no reason to believe they must have felt the need to send one of their number to him.

Willis Fell remained with Jaehaera at Storm's End even after Aegon II's restoration because that was his job. And the job of those three guys at the tower apparently was to stay with Lyanna and/or the (unborn) child until such a time they received other orders by a king/member of the royal family/royal official they trusted.

If they had felt an inclination to decide three KG with Lyanna were not necessary then one of their number could have left a long time ago for some reason. There is no reason to believe that Viserys III - safe with the garrison of Dragonstone and capable of making new KG to protect him (like Aegon II did when he took Dragonstone) - would need to be defended by any of the surviving KG of his father.

4 hours ago, SFDanny said:

With the publication of The World of Ice & Fire we know that Aerys named Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death at the Trident. It is very clear then that the first duty, upon Aerys own death, means that faithful members of the Kingsguard should be concerned about the safety of their new king. The reader should weigh the actions of Hightower, Whent, and Dayne in that regard. Perhaps they were more concerned about the other parts of the oath and thought Viserys safety well taken care of at the time. Perhaps different loyalties pulled them away from fulfilling their oaths. But what I know is it is ridiculous to reduced this question to meaning a member of the Kingsguard must be in the presence of the king at all times.

There is actually no road or duty roster what a KG should do when there is a troubled succession. The rightful heir of Viserys I was Princess Rhaenyra, yet only one of the traitors with Aegon II defected to the rightful queen. When King Aenys died all his Seven stood with the traitor and usurper Maegor instead of searching out his true heir and the rightful king, Aegon the Uncrowned. When Maegor was about to die two KG defected to Jaehaerys and were sent to the Wall for that, whereas those KG who had stayed with the usurper were sent there for that (and for participating in Maegor's crimes).

The idea that the three guys at the tower knew what they should do now, what the right cause of action was is pretty unlikely. All we can say is that they were loyal to whatever Rhaegar commanded or asked them to do because that's why they were with Lyanna in the first place. That in and of itself implies that they didn't care much about politics - if they cared about that at all.

What is even more crystal clear since FaB, however, then it was after ADwD is that kings are not born. They are made. There were two kings in Westeros after Aerys II's death - Robert Baratheon and Viserys III. Lyanna's child was not a king. He may have been a prince, but he was not a king.

Kings are crowned and anointed, they are not just born. And the new Targaryen king as per King Aerys II's decision and Queen Rhaella's act of crowning him was Viserys III Targaryen, not the boy born in the middle of nowhere.

Aegon, who may be Rhaegar's son, is just a prince despite the fact that his followers think he is the rightful king with the best legal claim. But he was neither crowned nor anointed nor proclaimed king. Just as Aegon the Uncrowned was never a king, either, despite the fact that he was both the chosen heir of his father, King Aenys, and also anointed as second in line to the Iron Throne by his grandfather, Aegon the Conqueror.

Even Jaehaerys I and Aegon III were only king after they were crowned and anointed. Prior to that they were just princes. Cregan Stark isn't even a proper Hand, being styled 'Hand of the Uncrowned King' rather than Hand of the King'.

The idea that three KG in the middle of nowhere stayed with a dying Lyanna and her child because they thought this child was a king is not exactly convincing. It never was, but now you really have to actually go against the very concept of kingship in this series - which is that kings are made by formal rituals and acts. If those rituals and acts don't take place you simply are not a king, never mind whose son you are and where exactly in the line of succession you might be.

[SFDanny]

8 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

Then you have missed a lot of the discussion over the years.  A quick Google search will give you a lot of examples of people putting forward the theory you are calling absurd.  For example, this is from Ygrain in R+L=J v. 20, page 7:

"However, the rules of the Kingsguard say that at least one of them MUST be with the king."

It's always possible I missed some discussion over the years. I will let @Ygrain explain her post of just over seven years ago. She is more than capable of doing so if she wants. I will say that it is not my memory that anyone held on to such a position, and if they did so the didn't do so for long, because it is very clear, and has been for a very long time that there is no such rule. Besides Jaime's calling of his meeting, we also have the common sense conclusion that when Jaime was the only Kingsguard in King's Landing after Darry left for the Trident that he did not spend every hour of the day, every minute of the hour, in Aerys presence. Sleeping, eating, and taking care of other bodily functions doesn't cease being necessary because one dons the white cloak. Delegating responsibilities to others outside the Kingsguard is certainly possible and we know it takes place. Of course, in both these circumstances, these others do so under the guidance of the Kingsguard.

I will say that if you want to spend some time debunking old out of date theories based on the publication of Fire & Blood, I have one you will certainly remember. If I recall correctly you spent quite a bit of time arguing with me and others about Jaehaerys reign - based almost solely on his sobriquet, "the Conciliator"- and how it must mean Jaehaerys surrendered the right to polygamous marriage in settling the Targaryen wars with the Faith. I'd be very interested if you've given that old theory a rest now we have an expanded history of the time in question, and there is no indication Jaehaerys did anything like what you suggested. 

[SFDanny]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is the purpose of the order, but the king decides whether they actually do that or not. The Kingsguard does what the king wants, not what the purpose of the order is. If the king wants to be protected by the KG, they protect him. If the king wants them to protect his wife, children, siblings, cousins, horses, mistresses, bastards, etc. they do that. Just as they also lead the king's armies, fight the kings wars, etc.

Pointing out what the purpose of the order is has no bearing on what individual KG do in various situations.

Oh please. This has been hashed over forever. Of course the oath the Kingsguard takes has a bearing on what they do in various situations when they don't have access to an order from their king. When Viserys becomes their new king, upon Aerys's death, the remaining loyal Kingsguard have a responsibility to safeguard his person, and follow what orders he has for them.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Their new king would actually be Robert Baratheon, not Viserys III, since Robert is the one on the Iron Throne, not Viserys III.

But even if we assume that they saw Viserys III as their rightful king - which they should have - there is still no reason to believe they must have felt the need to send one of their number to him.

Ser Barristan makes it clear that he deserved a traitor's death for not going to Viserys.

One can argue that Viserys was adequately guarded at the time of the Tower of Joy encounter because the rebels had no fleet to assault Dragonstone, but the Kingsguard there had to know the situation would change. One would expect Hightower, at least, would have been on his way to Viserys to carry out the duties enumerated in his oath. As to Ser Barristan, he is likely still recovering from his wounds and unable to get to Dragonstone. And Jaime ... well, after killing Aerys, he can hardly be expected to be guided by his oath.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is actually no road or duty roster what a KG should do when there is a troubled succession.

There is an oath, however, which all Kingsguard take and to which the faithful use to guide their actions. It is because Ser Barristan comes to believe he did not do as he knew his oath told him to do that he confesses to Daenerys that he deserves a traitor's death. When he was able to do so, he should have gone to Viserys. The same is true for Hightower, Dayne, and Whent. One, at least, should have gone to their new king. Why they did not is a subject long debated here, and evidently still in need of more debate. If you  really want to go over this ground again, we can.