The three Kingsguard were loyal to Rhaegar, not Aerys.

[Aetta]

On 1/13/2019 at 7:23 AM, Ygrain said:

If it was only Dayne and Whent, it would be clear as day that they had made their choice and considered Aerys unworthy of their vows. However, Hightower, as you yourself say, is a different matter, and the reason why Hightower originally stayed behind at ToJ may not be the one as the one why they fought Ned.

The main reason why I remain unconvinced that Hightower switched sides is his proclamation that had they been with KL, Aerys would still sit the throne. Even with Rhaegar dead, Aerys absolutely couldn't be allowed to continue his mad acts, a regent, or some kind of ruling body, would have been needed to take care of the realm until Rhaegar's heir came of age. Yet, Hightower doesn't say that they would simply prevent Jaime from killing Aerys, but that they would keep him on the throne, and that, IMHO, is inconsistent with swearing vows to Rhaegar.

ETA: Forgot to mention Ned's deep respect for the original Kingsguard. Whatever they did, must have been in accord with their KG role, or else he, so concerned with honour, wouldn't have respected them.

 

 

This is intriguing, with myriad implications.  We could chalk it up to our author not really going that deeply into it, especially in his first work (AGoT). Besides, what the KG planned to do in terms of their allegiance and succession was really none of Ned's concern, and maybe Hightower was just being brassy and sassy. But....

How many, many conspiracies against the crown have we in this story? I agree that Hightower is the stand out here, the character just feels different.  I can't help but think about the events of Maegor's political marriage to Ceryse, the sway the Starry Sept holds, or the many suggestions here that the Citadel is consistently conspiring against the dragon.  Is it no coincidence that our author chose a Hightower to be in the KG and to be in Ned's dream?  But how does it benefit House Hightower to keep Aerys on the throne? Maybe we need look no further than Varys & Illyrio.  Not to say that House Hightower are stashing an Aegon,  I just mean that it is plausible that there is some reason to prolong shitty conditions for political benefit.   Would be interesting to know more about how House Hightower plays into the whole thing, as they have been known to be shady players.

As for Ned, not our most politically savvy character.  He doesn't even seem to know what his father was up to (whatever Barbrey Dustin was referring to), let alone what the White Bull was up to.  He could still have found him honorable, I think.

[Aetta]

On 1/13/2019 at 2:11 PM, Annalee said:

The Kingsguard were loyal to King Aerys.  They were not loyal to Rhaegar.   Rhaegar was just a prince.  He was not even the heir anymore.  Aerys chose Viserys to succeed him.  The Kingsguard were loyal to Aerys all the way to their bitter end.  Their deaths, not his.  They stayed loyal even after Aerys died.  The White Bull made this clear.  He would have done anything in his power to keep Aerys on the throne.  

Gawd Aerys was the King of Shade.  

 

[Aegon VII]

On 1/12/2019 at 9:05 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

Snip.

 

Good analysis. I agree with the notion that the kings guard did serve rhaegar in the end. Dayne since he was closest to rhaegar, and whent because he organized tourney. Hightower remains less clear. I also find it interesting there’s evidence supporting qhorin as Dayne, and kettleblack as whent, whereas I haven’t found a text supported secret identity for Hightower. 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, corbon said:

The way you state this seems to be saying that they are Rhaegar's men  over being Aerys' men. And so does the rest of the post. But thats both a functionally irrational statement (taking orders from a Lt does not mean you would obey the Lt over a Cpt) and contrary to the text (they claim Aerys would still sit the Iron throne if they had been present), so I don't understand what you are saying here.

There is nothing functionally irrational about that. Loyalty is personal in this world, which makes the comparison to a modern hierarchical military with a proper chain of command where loyalty is supposed to be to 'the state' regardless who leads it, etc. to be pretty off. Even if we were imagining that there was a proper chain of command there - Rhaegar is not part of the hierarchical government structure. He isn't the king, he isn't the Hand, he does not sit on the Small Council. He is just the heir to the throne. He would not be an mid-level officer in the chain of the command of the KG as your comparison implies.

Instead, it seems those folks just chose to prefer to obey commands given to them by the Prince of Dragonstone for some reason. Because they liked them more, because they thought he wasn't a lunatic, because the king wasn't there and they felt the Prince of Dragonstone had a point, because they had good reason to believe that the commands given to them by Rhaegar were not at odds with any commands Aerys II had given them/would have given them if he had been there, etc.

They actually do not say that Aerys II would still sit the Iron Throne if they had been back in KL at the time of the Sack. A single dream image of one of those three KG in Eddard Stark's fever dream does say that. That doesn't mean the real man ever said that. But even if he did say that - this does not give us context about Aerys II still sitting the Iron Throne. If Rhaegar had seized power in the capital, running the kingdom as Prince Regent while never presuming to sit the Iron Throne while his royal father was still alive - and dragging the mad wreck out of his apartments during special court events to have the old man play at 'being king' a couple of time each year - like Unwin Peake had the broken boy he controlled play at being king in FaB - then Aerys II would have still sat the Iron Throne.

There is not necessarily a dichotomy here. We don't have to follow you just because you think this must be a dichotomy.

And the context is also funny. Dream image Gerold Hightower's certainty that he could have prevented Jaime's Kingsguard isn't exactly based on empirical data - more like the wishful thinking of that dream image. Perhaps Jaime would have killed them all if they had been there, or he would have done so with the help of Tywin's men. In addition, the context is also about Jaime's kingslaying not Aerys II's future reign, etc. Dream Gerold claims he and his buddies would have prevented their false brother from murdering the king, he does not say that he would have prevented the Prince of Dragonstone from confining the Mad King to his apartments. And we cannot pretend it says that. That's projecting far too much into a single sentence.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also, @Lord Varys, I have seen you argue differently before regarding the KG duty to follow orders from anyone but the king.

They certainly are supposed to follow the orders of the king. But we have now more than ample evidence that they do not exactly always do that. There are KG who side with the Hand and their Lord Commander against their late king and rightful queen (the Green KG following Criston Cole and Otto Hightower, there are KG who think they can besiege the king and queen intending to torture the king's sister-in-law, there are KG complicit in the murder of a queen, etc.).

And I'd certainly say that my standard for a great/dutiful KG is to obey the king - and only the king - in all things, and to always act in the way you think the king you are serving would want you to act in a given situation, even if he is far away and cannot offer any input/commands on the matter at hand. And I'm pretty sure this is also the 'KG ideal' in the books.

But it is not exactly an ideal (ma)any KG actually fulfill or a standard they live up to.

Instead, reality says the KG are all mortal and flawed men who pretty much do whatever the hell they want when things are not exactly all that clear.

And I've been arguing along those lines since TPatQ came out - if Larys Strong can arbitrarily reassign KG then pretty much anyone can do that. There is no indication that those men have 'a sacred duty' to search for 'the rightful king' or that their behavior/allegiance can somehow be seen as an indicator who is 'the rightful king' - and those are usually the silly heights the fever dream talk is drawn up - that the knights at the tower somehow *prove* that Lyanna's son is 'the rightful king'.

The fact that neither Jaehaerys I nor Aegon III are truly kings until they are crowned - as well as that Prince Aegon right now does not style himself King Aegon VI - pretty much kills any such indication. As does the fact that nobody ever asked the KG for their opinion as to who should be king when the succession was unclear.

2 hours ago, Jô Maltese said:

  fully with you M'Lord (it's not that often !). These are the ideas I was trying to explicit a few posts above.

Good arguments do not care who made them!

1 hour ago, corbon said:

I just can't square breaking their KG vows with 'we swore a vow' combined with declaring Aerys would still sit the  throne if they'd been around.
If they (he) just broke their vows to Aerys to swear another to Rhaegar, then they are oathbreakers, and too honest to not admit it to themselves. There is no way they could so proudly and defiantly state swearing a vow as a reason to defy Ned even after the war is clearly lost if they know themselves in their hearts to be oathbreakers, even if the oathbreaking was moral and necessary.

There is no reason for us to assume that the vow they swore was the set of Kingsguard vows. It could have been a very specific vow they swore to Rhaegar when they parted, revolving around Lyanna and having nothing to do nor being at odds with the Kingsguard vows. It could also be that the reference refers to a different vow entirely - their knightly vows, for instance.

It could also be that they are of the opinion that dying at the tower for Lyanna/her child was completely in line with the KG vows and actually a testament to the strength of their beliefs. There is no reason to believe that dying to protect/guard the prisoner/mistress/wife of a royal prince (and her born/unborn child) is not exactly what can be expected of a loyal Kingsguard.

It is a narrow and flawed idea that this kind of conviction can only be expected of them when a king or queen or an immediate heir of the throne is the person they protect.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

If the honorable old Ser Barristan felt that keeping his vows was hard in Aerys' later years then how should we think the honorable old Ser Gerold would feel about it? If Barristan thinks Rhaegar would have been a better king, then why not Ser Gerold? It's interesting that Barristan connects these points in his reflections, because the obvious conclusion here is that keeping your knightly vows would be a lot easier under Rhaegar.

I pretty much agree with that. I think I laid out once or twice in those Jon threads that Gerold Hightower must have been an utter moron with a very narrow mind if he had died believing that Aerys II was a great king deserving of his loyalty.

And the idea that the man was somehow expressing this alleged loyalty by hanging out with Lyanna allowing his king and Rhaegar to die doesn't make much sense. If Hightower had cared to return to KL he could have just faked obedience to Rhaegar and then left for the capital a couple of days after Rhaegar - either taking Whent and Dayne and Lyanna with them invoking his own authority as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard or by simply sneaking away at night.

All that implies that he did not care to do that - and regardless what happened, whether Rhaegar asked, begged, commanded, implored Ser Gerold to stay with Lyanna, in the end it would have been Ser Gerold's decision to stay. And that means he chose the prince over the king, at least on that particular issue.

At least if Aerys II and Rhaegar were at odds over this issue. But at this point we have no evidence that Aerys II wanted Ser Gerold to return, that he had issues with the three knights protecting Lyanna in the middle of nowhere, etc. Perhaps they were all on the same page on this issue for some reason? We don't know.

The assumption many people make that Aerys II would have/must have wanted Lyanna as a hostage in KL, etc. is, at this point, without basis.

3 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

For me at least, that's enough to suggest Hightower did favor Rhaegar, and the bonus is it makes sense of why Hightower stayed at the tower without any need for the assumption of orders or persuasion.

There could have been orders or persuasion, etc. - but it doesn't really matter because it the end it would have been Ser Gerold who allowed himself to be persuaded/decided to follow the given orders.

[corbon]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is nothing functionally irrational about that. Loyalty is personal in this world, which makes the comparison to a modern hierarchical military with a proper chain of command where loyalty is supposed to be to 'the state' regardless who leads it, etc. to be pretty off. Even if we were imagining that there was a proper chain of command there - Rhaegar is not part of the hierarchical government structure. He isn't the king, he isn't the Hand, he does not sit on the Small Council. He is just the heir to the throne. He would not be an mid-level officer in the chain of the command of the KG as your comparison implies.

Yes, its functionally irrational to suggest that following orders from A excludes them from being under B's command. It doesn't matter that you object to the real world example. Just because Lannister men follow Tyrion's orders does not mean they wouldn't follow Tywin's, Jaime's or Cersei's orders. Just because Ned put men under the command of Beric Dondarrion doesn't make them Beric's men to the exclusion of Ned (a number of them were Winterfell men, remember) or Robert. 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They actually do not say that Aerys II would still sit the Iron Throne if they had been back in KL at the time of the Sack. A single dream image of one of those three KG in Eddard Stark's fever dream does say that. ...

And the context is also funny. Dream image Gerold Hightower's certainty that he could have prevented Jaime's Kingsguard isn't exactly based on empirical data - more like the wishful thinking of that dream image.

"In the dream as it was in life". As he had dreamed many times before.
I believe the 'dream' is largely Ned's actual memory of the event, though it rambles off into dream weirdness towards the end in at least one case and does a kind of dream 'fade in' at the beginning, where the characters appear as shadowy wraiths without faces.

Quote

He dreamt an old dream, of three knights in white cloaks, and a tower long fallen, and Lyanna in her bed of blood.

In the dream his friends rode with him, as they had in life. Proud Martyn Cassel, Jory's father; faithful Theo Wull; Ethan Glover, who had been Brandon's squire; Ser Mark Ryswell, soft of speech and gentle of heart; the crannogman, Howland Reed; Lord Dustin on his great red stallion. Ned had known their faces as well as he knew his own once, but the years leech at a man's memories, even those he has vowed never to forget. In the dream they were only shadows, grey wraiths on horses made of mist.

They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life.

 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason for us to assume that the vow they swore was the set of Kingsguard vows. It could have been a very specific vow they swore to Rhaegar when they parted, revolving around Lyanna and having nothing to do nor being at odds with the Kingsguard vows. It could also be that the reference refers to a different vow entirely - their knightly vows, for instance.

I think there is reason to assume that. Or at least, reason to assume they haven't broken their KG vows.

For me at least, its a fundamental dissonance to claim 'swore a vow' as something significant, for someone who is knows they are forsworn on such hugely important vows. If they were forsworn they would have said it differently somehow. The emphasis could not be on the vow itself, and therefore its sanctity, because vows themselves no longer can be sanctified for such men. Instead they would have given reasons relating to the sanctity of their purpose.

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It could also be that they are of the opinion that dying at the tower for Lyanna/her child was completely in line with the KG vows and actually a testament to the strength of their beliefs. There is no reason to believe that dying to protect/guard the prisoner/mistress/wife of a royal prince (and her born/unborn child) is not exactly what can be expected of a loyal Kingsguard.

It is a narrow and flawed idea that this kind of conviction can only be expected of them when a king or queen or an immediate heir of the throne is the person they protect.

Agreed.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, corbon said:

Yes, its functionally irrational to suggest that following orders from A excludes them from being under B's command. It doesn't matter that you object to the real world example. Just because Lannister men follow Tyrion's orders does not mean they wouldn't follow Tywin's, Jaime's or Cersei's orders. Just because Ned put men under the command of Beric Dondarrion doesn't make them Beric's men to the exclusion of Ned (a number of them were Winterfell men, remember) or Robert. 

Oh, but if we are talking about parties at court this is a major difference. In the end, everybody is a 'king's man', considering this is a monarchy, but Tessario the Tiger, Mervyn Flowers, and Marston Waters were never 'Aegon III's men' in any meaningful sense of the word. There is a reason why most of the men Stannis has left are called 'the queen's men', very much implying their ultimate allegiance does not lie with 'King Stannis' but rather Melisandre of Asshai, the true queen at Stannis' side.

Technically, both the Aerys faction and the Rhaegar faction at court were all beholden to King Aerys II - just as the Blacks and the Greens were technically all beholden to King Viserys I and thus should have all supported the succession of Princess Rhaenyra - but this is not really the case.

In that environment and in that sense siding with a particular faction leader very well can mean you are no longer doing what your vows and oaths and the other technicalities of your feudal allegiance, etc. are actually demanding of you.

It can really be seen as you switching sides, committing treason, betraying the king, etc. Just take Barristan Selmy as an example. Do you think Daenerys Targaryen cannot take his head for treason without creating any kind of scandal if it were to turn out that his actions led to her people losing control over Meereen and/or caused the death of her consort who turned out to be completely innocent of the charges laid at his feet? Selmy think he acted in the best interest of his queen, but she might not share his view, just as the three knights at the tower may think they were serving Aerys best by serving/following Rhaegar, even if they king would never share that view. Just as Marston Waters apparently thought it was in the king's best interest to besiege the king and queen in their own castle, etc.

7 hours ago, corbon said:

"In the dream as it was in life". As he had dreamed many times before.
I believe the 'dream' is largely Ned's actual memory of the event, though it rambles off into dream weirdness towards the end in at least one case and does a kind of dream 'fade in' at the beginning, where the characters appear as shadowy wraiths without faces.

George himself has commented on the fact that this is 'a fever dream' and as such not an accurate depiction of what transpired. That goes for all dream memories as well as the tale of the mystery knight at Harrenhal we recently discussed in the other thread. Those are very important scenes in the books as hint to certain key plot elements, but they should not be seen as accurate descriptions of events we can use to draw many an important (world-building) detail for the overall setting.

Meaning any details drawn about the inner workings of the Kingsguard and their loyalties from a dream of Eddard Stark's is quite obviously a dead end.

7 hours ago, corbon said:

I think there is reason to assume that. Or at least, reason to assume they haven't broken their KG vows.

Oh, I did not say they must have broken their Kingsguard vows. And it is difficult to actually figure this out if they did break such vows unless they actually attacked/tried to kill/abandoned the king they served. I mean, did Marston Waters break his KG vows when he besieged the king and queen in their own castle? Did Criston Cole betray his KG vows when he crowned King Aegon II? Did Barristan Selmy break his KG vows when he accepted Robert's pardon? One can make a case for that - but then: if we were to ask the men involved they would likely all find justifications and rationalizations (and some of them very convincing) that they did not only not break their vows but actually fulfilled them and lived up to the high standards of the Kingsguard.

7 hours ago, corbon said:

For me at least, its a fundamental dissonance to claim 'swore a vow' as something significant, for someone who is knows they are forsworn on such hugely important vows. If they were forsworn they would have said it differently somehow. The emphasis could not be on the vow itself, and therefore its sanctity, because vows themselves no longer can be sanctified for such men. Instead they would have given reasons relating to the sanctity of their purpose.

The issue in the dream is just that the vow they swore is never specified. Perhaps it was the KG vow that kept them with Lyanna? If so it hardly was only that, though, since the KG vows do not exactly come with a manual how to properly act during Robert's Rebellion... It could be it was their knightly vows - defending the innocent - that caused them challenge Ned and his companions. It also could be a very specific vow they swore to Rhaegar and/or Lyanna.

All we can really claim to know the motivations of the dream knights is that one of them claims that the reason why they are doing what they are about to do - and why they were during the war where they were - is that they swore a vow.

The idea that this/those vow(s) must be the KG vow(s) is neither specified by the text that the vow(s) referenced are the KG vow(s) nor do we have a good reason to infer or insist that only this/those vow(s) could have been the one(s) referenced.

If we do that we no longer try to interpret the text, we basically say the text what it is supposed to mean. And that way one ends up at very strange places.

At times it is really scary how enshrined certain views/interpretations/scenarios within the fandom can become...

 

[Bullrout]

The KG were sent by King Aerys to seek out and find Lyanna.  I suppose to return her to the rebels in the hopes of stopping the war.  They (Hightower, Whent, Dayne) found her, but it was too late.  The royalists lost at the trident and Aerys was murdered.  They were not there to protect anybody.  Given a choice of obeying Aerys or Rhaegar and the choice is easy.  The KG would obey Aerys.  

[dialt]

On 1/15/2019 at 12:59 AM, Lord Varys said:

Instead, it seems those folks just chose to prefer to obey commands given to them by the Prince of Dragonstone for some reason. Because they liked them more, because they thought he wasn't a lunatic, because the king wasn't there and they felt the Prince of Dragonstone had a point, because they had good reason to believe that the commands given to them by Rhaegar were not at odds with any commands Aerys II had given them/would have given them if he had been there, etc.

They actually do not say that Aerys II would still sit the Iron Throne if they had been back in KL at the time of the Sack. A single dream image of one of those three KG in Eddard Stark's fever dream does say that. That doesn't mean the real man ever said that. 

 

On 1/15/2019 at 1:20 AM, Lord Varys said:

And the idea that the man was somehow expressing this alleged loyalty by hanging out with Lyanna allowing his king and Rhaegar to die doesn't make much sense. If Hightower had cared to return to KL he could have just faked obedience to Rhaegar and then left for the capital a couple of days after Rhaegar - either taking Whent and Dayne and Lyanna with them invoking his own authority as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard or by simply sneaking away at night.

All that implies that he did not care to do that - and regardless what happened, whether Rhaegar asked, begged, commanded, implored Ser Gerold to stay with Lyanna, in the end it would have been Ser Gerold's decision to stay. And that means he chose the prince over the king, at least on that particular issue.

At least if Aerys II and Rhaegar were at odds over this issue. But at this point we have no evidence that Aerys II wanted Ser Gerold to return, that he had issues with the three knights protecting Lyanna in the middle of nowhere, etc. Perhaps they were all on the same page on this issue for some reason? We don't know.

The assumption many people make that Aerys II would have/must have wanted Lyanna as a hostage in KL, etc. is, at this point, without basis.

First: sure we have to take with a grain of salt Ned's memories/fever dream and those words. However, there must be a reason if that is the kind of conversation he remembers, more or less verbatim, I guess.

And I cannot help but notice that Ned's questions are not... random. There's a logic. And that logic doesn't serve the purpose of showing - imo - those KG men inner conflict between duty or loyalty towards Aerys or Rhaegar. That is done elsewhere in the serie. My guess is that logic, serves the purpose of showing Ned's pov, his own reasoning. And it's based on the chain of events plus that line of succession the KG is supposed to protect.
That is the point, I guess.

As you said, the KG has to protect the King. But: "the King is dead, long live the King".
An institution like that is supposed to take care of that, too.

These men, they have to protect not only a king, but a kingship, a line of succession. The idea/institution itself.
Even more so during a rebellion not just vs the actual king but vs a whole dynasty.
And the Targaryens too - in a context like that - they cannot ignore the danger for all their lineage/kingship. They can't not to take appropriate measures. No matter how much they hate, distrusted, dislike (or not) one another.

The context once Robert's rebellion begins, is not longer that of Duskendale or that behind the scene of the Harrenal tourney.

It's far worst. Because like said, once Robert's rebellion begins, it's not only Aerys's rein that is in jeopardy, but an entire dinasty. The priority - for the actual King as well as the KG - is not just or cannot be only to save/protect the phisical person of the actual king, but the Targaryen's kingship. The all line of succession, or as much of that line as they can. 

And if we look at the questions Ned asks, I think that is or may be the point.

Ned first asks where they were when Rhaegar, the heir, died.
Then when Aerys II, the King - and Aegon the new heir - died.
Then, why they were not with Viserys: at that point as long as everybody in the same position of Ned should have guessed, the newest heir/king.

The sequence of questions, follows not perfecty but quite perfectly the "supposed" line of succession.

So to me, it may even implies that that conversation didn't take place at all. That those words were never spoken.
I bet they were (more or less) but the reason as to why Ned remebers/dreams that kind of conversations, those kind of questions, in sequence, makes me think that that those were the questions he asked himself prior to that meeting and regardless that meeting.
Questions that made him (Ned) gradually understanding what was really going on there.

Pretty much as we do.

The question in short is why the lord commander of the KG and sir Arthur Dayne, the sword of the morning, the best knight of the realm, when the war was basically over, after the death of the King and of his heirs, were not with prince Viserys... (as they weren't with Aerys, Aegon and Rhaegar) but at ToJ.

Ned's questions are the same as ours.

And logic points I guess, to an easy solution: the best knights were protecting the weakest ring of that chain of succession in the weakest position to hold.

And - at that point in history - to try to put that newborn Targaryen - and Rhaegar's last son - on the iron throne. As agreed. As they were asked to do, if the worst scenario  had occurred (as it did)

[Leo of House Cartel]

14 hours ago, Aetta said:

 

How many, many conspiracies against the crown have we in this story? I agree that Hightower is the stand out here, the character just feels different.  I can't help but think about the events of Maegor's political marriage to Ceryse, the sway the Starry Sept holds, or the many suggestions here that the Citadel is consistently conspiring against the dragon.  Is it no coincidence that our author chose a Hightower to be in the KG and to be in Ned's dream?  But how does it benefit House Hightower to keep Aerys on the throne? Maybe we need look no further than Varys & Illyrio.  Not to say that House Hightower are stashing an Aegon,  I just mean that it is plausible that there is some reason to prolong shitty conditions for political benefit.   Would be interesting to know more about how House Hightower plays into the whole thing, as they have been known to be shady players.

I certainly agree that Gerold's Hightower lineage shouldn't be discounted when trying to establish the man's motives.

Yeah, KG serve for life/hold their vows above all else and all that jazz, however; Fire and Blood has given us so many examples of not only Kingsguard members behaving oddly, but also Hightower/Oldtown-connected agendas against the IT, that the idea of White Bull's loyalty lying more with Oldtown than the IT sounds highly plausible.

Perhaps the White Bull spent the majority of his KG service as a man of unwavering loyalty to his post, holding his station of guarding the royal presence above all else - that said, what the Mad King had turned into might be enough to make Gerold eventually begin to question his King's position. This idea might even apply more so to a Lord Commander of Hightower origin, considering how important the governing of the realm must be to the Citadel, Starry Sept and the general trade of Oldtown.

Also, considering that roughly three years later, Lord Leyton Hightower would imprison himself in the Hightower for a decade, with many a sorcery based rumour surrounding him, there's always the possibility that an Oldtown based conspiracy against the IT during the time of Robert's Rebellion had some form of magical/prophetic connotations, but I might be getting ahead of myself.

[John Suburbs]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 11:05 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

Maester Aemon once told Jon: "A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

 

Jaime understood this perfectly. "So many vows . . . they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other." The day Aemon spoke of came sooner rather than later in Jaime’s life, and when it did he made his choice.

It was not the first time Jamie had faced the problem of contradicting vows. The day he burned his mace-and-dagger Hand, Jaime and Jon Darry had stood at guard outside her bedchamber whilst the king took his pleasure. "You're hurting me," they had heard Rhaella cry through the oaken door. "You're hurting me." In some queer way, that had been worse than Lord Chelsted's screaming. "We are sworn to protect her as well," Jaime had finally been driven to say. "We are," Darry allowed, "but not from him." In this instance Ser Jon set aside his vows to protect the innocent and defend the weak, and advised Jaime to do the same.

But as Ser Barristan Selmy told his own squires, "It is chivalry that makes a true knight, not a sword," he said. "Without honor, a knight is no more than a common killer."

 

Of course, the Kingslayer is hardly a shining example of chivalry, right? In Westeros, Kingslayer is a by-word for dishonor. Except the people of Westeros don’t know what Brienne does, and if they are not in possession of all the facts, then it is understandable that their view of Jaime is skewed, as Brienne’s was before she knew.

Jaime might think honor is a horse but to the good folk of Westeros and many readers alike, honor is better represented by a bull. However, Ser Gerold Hightower’s bull was not as white as people claim. "As for Lord Rickard, the steel of his breastplate turned cherry-red before the end, and his gold melted off his spurs and dripped down into the fire. I stood at the foot of the Iron Throne in my white armor and white cloak, filling my head with thoughts of Cersei. After, Gerold Hightower himself took me aside and said to me, 'You swore a vow to guard the king, not to judge him.' That was the White Bull, loyal to the end and a better man than me, all agree."

The White Bull may well have been loyal, but loyalty should not be confused with honor or chivalry. Was Ser Gerold really a better man than Jaime, who sacrificed his own honor and reputation when he killed the king he was sworn to protect in order to defend the innocent inhabitants of King’s Landing? As Qhorin Halfhand once told Jon, "Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe.”

So I’m sorry, Jaime, but all do not agree. There is a famous saying, evil men need nothing more to compass their ends, than good men to look on and do nothing. Ned demonstrated this same principle when he stood up to his king against the murder of Dany, and the link between both scenes is made directly in the text.

"Nonetheless," Ned said, "the murder of children … it would be vile … unspeakable …"

 

"Unspeakable?" the king roared. "What Aerys did to your brother Brandon was unspeakable. The way your lord father died, that was unspeakable.

 

Unlike Ned, old Ser Gerold looked on and did nothing when his king did unspeakable things, and by all the laws of chivalry that was dishonorable.

Ser Barristan expands on the point. In that same cloak he had stood beside the Iron Throne as madness consumed Jaehaerys's son Aerys. Stood, and saw, and heard, and yet did nothing.

But no. That was not fair. He did his duty. Some nights, Ser Barristan wondered if he had not done that duty too well. He had sworn his vows before the eyes of gods and men, he could not in honor go against them … but the keeping of those vows had grown hard in the last years of King Aerys's reign. He had seen things that it pained him to recall, and more than once he wondered how much of the blood was on his own hands. If he had not gone into Duskendale to rescue Aerys from Lord Darklyn's dungeons, the king might well have died there as Tywin Lannister sacked the town. Then Prince Rhaegar would have ascended the Iron Throne, mayhaps to heal the realm. Duskendale had been his finest hour, yet the memory tasted bitter on his tongue.

 

It’s worth noting that Barristan’s finest hour is written in direct opposition to Jaime’s most notorious hour. Barristan is celebrated as a hero for upholding his vow and risking his life to save Aerys, while Jaime is despised as a villan for breaking his vows and killing the king. Yet it’s a bitter memory for Baristan, while Jaime says, “I promise you, I never grieve for Aerys.” Unlike Selmy, Jaime is satisfied he did the right thing, despite his vows, and his conscience is clean as a result, with regard to Aerys at least.

Areo Hotah says, Serve. Obey. Protect. Simple vows for simple men. While these simple vows are not beyond contradicting themselves, (as anyone familiar with Isaac Asminov’s three laws knows), they are certainly not as complex as the vows sworn by the knights of the Seven Kingdoms, nor the men who swear them.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

 

Ned's wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

 

This is often cited in support of Jon being the true heir to the Iron Throne, and by implication legitimate by way of polygamous marriage. I think that is a well-made and perfectly valid argument, (feel free to visit the latest RLJ thread if you disagree), but I don’t think it is the only argument, given the overall theme surrounding vows.

As Maester Aemon said, “soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose." Are we to believe that day never came for the three knights at the Tower of Joy? No, I think it must have, especially in a political climate where some people believed Rhaegar would make a better king.

Most of the small council were with the Hand outside Duskendale at this juncture, and several of them argued against Lord Tywin's plan on the grounds that such an attack would almost certainly goad Lord Darklyn into putting King Aerys to death. "He may or he may not," Tywin Lannister reportedly replied, "but if he does, we have a better king right here." Whereupon he raised a hand to indicate Prince Rhaegar.

 

Barristan reflected on the event along similar lines. If he had not gone into Duskendale to rescue Aerys from Lord Darklyn's dungeons, the king might well have died there as Tywin Lannister sacked the town. Then Prince Rhaegar would have ascended the Iron Throne, mayhaps to heal the realm.

The three kingsguard are noted as honourable men, proud members of the kingsguard, but as we have seen with the murder of the Starks and rape of Rhaella, and as their sworn brother Ser Barristan attests, the keeping of those vows had grown hard in the last years of King Aerys's reign. Like it or not, all three men were faced with a choice, for the sake of the realm and their own vows; Aerys under whom their vows had grown hard to keep, or Rhaegar?

 

The three knights did not support the rebellion, or the murder of Aerys, the king they were all sworn to protect, nor did they approve of Jaime’s action and how it tarnished the sworn brotherhood of the Kingsguard, they make that very clear to Ned, but that does not mean their loyalty did not lie with Rhaegar.

 

"Our knees do not bend easily," said Ser Arthur Dayne.

 

Their knees do bend, clearly, but not easily, which suggests to me that a certain level of worthiness is required. Robert did not measure up, nor did Aerys anymore, but surely Rhaegar did.

 

Ser Arthur Dayne was Rhaegar’s closest companion by all accounts. Ser Oswell Whent helped organize the tourney at Harrenhal. Both had remained in Rhaegar’s company for the duration of the episode with Lyanna, all of which strongly suggests they had Rhaegar’s trust.

 

The case for Ser Gerold Hightower is not so clear. The Lord Commander was in King’s Landing after Rhaegar disappeared with Lyanna. At first the prince was not to be found but later Rhaegar returned to King’s Landing from the south, while Ser Gerold ended up at the Tower of Joy. The obvious implication is that Lord Commander traveled to the tower and then Rhaegar returned without him, but we are left with so many unanswered questions regarding this. How did Ser Gerold know where to find Rhaegar when it seems no one else did? Why did the White Bull stay at the tower if he was so loyal to Aerys, considering Lyanna would have been an invaluable hostage for the king to hold against the rebels? Was he ordered to stay by Rhaegar? Persuaded by Rhaegar? Or had the day come for old Ser Gerold when he must choose?

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

 

Indeed, but to Aerys or Rhaegar? For me, the answer that makes most sense is Rhaegar.

 

Let's try this on for size:

The three KG are loyal to Rhaegar at this point because Aerys has already been deposed.

When Rhaegar returned to the capital, HT, Dayne and Whent were with him and together that carried out a palace coup. They pretty much lay it out to the king: transfer power to Rhaegar here and now or else we will publicly dethrone you. The 3 KG swear new vows to Rhaegar, who also takes command of the royal army. Rhaegar then dispatches the 3KG to the ToJ with Lyanna (more on this in a minute), leaving Aerys with only Jaime Lannister to protect him. The idea being that once the rebels are defeated on the Trident, Rhaegar would return to the capital as the hero who saved the realm and then publicly take the reins of power. In the meantime, Aerys could still act as king: appointing Hands, seeing to the defense of the city and otherwise running things.

Aerys would agree to this because, one, if he doesn't he will be publicly forced out then and there, and two, he is planning to light the whole place up and fly off as a dragon anyway, so all he needs is to buy himself a little time. Once Rhaegar and the 3KG have left town, of course, he is free to carry out his plan.

One of the things that has always puzzled me is why either Rhaegar or Aerys would send three such formidable knights to protect Lyanna. She is in the safest place she could possibly be: an undisclosed location nestled between the two friendly realms and miles away from the coast so that even a quick amphibious rescue is out of the question, even Ned & Co. knew where she was. But we have to remember that they are not there just to protect Lyanna and baby at the ToJ but to take them both into exile should Rhaegar fall at the Trident.

Now we can put some of the quotes by the key players in some context:

Rhaegar to Jaime:

Quote

"My royal sire fears your father more than he does our cousin Robert. He wants you close, so Lord Tywin cannot harm him. I dare not take that crutch away from him at such an hour."

and

"When this battle's done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but . . . well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken."

"I dare not take that crutch away from him" -- It is now within my power to remove Aerys' guards.

"Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago" -- not, changes will be proposed, debated and acted upon at the will of the council. Changes will be made. I should have done it long ago, so I am doing it now.

 

Gerold in Ned's dream:

Quote

"We swore a vow."

Not his original vow to Aerys, which he has already broken, but a new vow, to Rhaegar, to obey his commands to protect his new, now legitimized, son with their lives.

[A Ghost of Someone]

With Rheagar Dead, Aerys Dead, Rheagar's kids with Elia displayed Dead. Jon boy baby in the Tower of Joy being the real King, ok so far, His mother the Regent? Who was Regent? Lyanna Stark etc? They tried to kill the King's uncle, The Regent Apparent's brother without explaination? I still think what we have been told and or lead to believe happened at the Tower of Joy is not exactly accurate. There is more to the story I think. 

There is at least, at minimal, a larger cover up story than the one that Ned has been feeding all these years and it is In deed a cover story. Jon is not his Bastard. It is a cover up but I think it is further reaching.  

 

[Lord Varys]

@lalt

You raise an important point above. On a metal-level it is far more interesting why Ned has this (recurrent) fever dream than what its actual contents are. Dreams are always more about the dreamer and the dreamer's hopes, fears, demons, guilt, expectations, etc. than they are about facts - George uses a dream masterfully to give us insight into Dunk's psyche in TSS, for instance, in a dream which also combines real and imagined elements.

In that sense the ritualistic/ceremonial exchange of questions and answers in Ned's dream dances around the Jon Snow issue without ever getting to the bottom of it - that would/may have come in later elements of the dream that were cut because Ned is woken too early and the dream is thus interrupted. It is about how Ned perceives and deals with the entire situation around his sister and Rhaegar and their child and what he did to save/conceal the boy's identity.

It is not really about the motivations and goals and designs of the other dream images. They are just elements which are 'inspired by reality' to various degrees - and we don't know to what degree exactly at this point. Just as the same guys also do show up as elements later in Jaime's weirwood dream.

The dream is a very important piece to the Jon Snow insofar as he has Ned introduce us to the fact that those three Kingsguard were with Lyanna when she died - and the questions Ned asks in the dream may in fact be little or nothing more than an echo of Ned's own thought process helping him to figure out what was going on. It may have been bugging him that Dayne, Whent, and Hightower were not at the Trident, at KL, at Storm's End, or on Dragonstone.

But it is not necessarily something that is important in relation to legal issues. Far to the contrary, actually.

And we don't really have to invoke a line of succession there. The three Kingsguard stayed with a pregnant Lyanna because either Rhaegar or Aerys II or both asked/commanded them to do so. That's pretty much all there is to this. Kingsguard are assigned to (extended) members of the royal families all the time, and have even been assigned to royal mistresses or bastards, so their presence at the tower tells us literally nothing about the status of Lyanna - whether she was married to Rhaegar or whether she was a mere mistress - nor the status of the child - whether it was a trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen or a mere bastard.

There is a reason why George had Barristan Selmy mention the fact that Kingsguard can be assigned to protect pretty much anyone.

And it is a fantasy scenario of certain readers that Kingsguard arbitrarily change their assignments after the (alleged) death of the king or prince or whoever gave them an assignment. It was King Joffrey through his Acting Hand, Tyrion Lannister, who assigned Arys Oakheart to Princess Myrcella. Yet Ser Arys did not ask Lord Tywin or later King Tommen to confirm that assignment after Tyrion's dismissal/Joffrey's death.

The men at the tower continued to fulfill whatever assignment Rhaegar or Aerys II or even Lyanna (who, if she was indeed Rhaegar's wife, could also have had the authority to command them, depending on the kind of relationship she and Rhaegar had) had given them.

[Lord Varys]

18 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

I certainly agree that Gerold's Hightower lineage shouldn't be discounted when trying to establish the man's motives.

That is far too much conspiracy theory for my taste. There were certainly ambitious Hightowers, but since people are not all alike there should also be loyal Hightowers, especially amongst those who joined the KG. Not all Hightowers are Otto or Alicent or even Donnel the Delayer, just as not all Selmys are Barristan the Bold.

And the only agenda the ambitious Hightower in the first two centuries of the Targaryen reign had was to become Targaryens themselves and to share in their power and glory. And Otto and Alicent pretty much did that. Their (grand-)children were Targaryens, and they would have continued the dynasty if emerged victorious from the Dance.

And even if there is an anti-dragon conspiracy in the Citadel - said conspiracy was likely actually an unintended result of Hightower ambition. Otto and Alicent are responsible for the Dance of the Dragons, and it was the Dance that made it crystal clear to the smarter people in Westeros that dragonriders fighting a civil war had the potential to become a much greater catastrophe than the Dance actually was.

Tumbleton could have been KL, Oldtown, Lannisport, etc.

[three-eyed monkey]

10 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

The three KG are loyal to Rhaegar at this point because Aerys has already been deposed.

Personally, I think it works better if Rhaegar left the tower with the intention to depose his father, and the 3 KG were behind the plan, but of course the plan never came to fruition. If Aerys had already been deposed then I don't see why Ser Gerold would say that Aerys would still sit the throne. But if Rhaegar planned to depose his father but never did, then I makes sense Ser Gerold would say that.

10 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

"I dare not take that crutch away from him" -- It is now within my power to remove Aerys' guards.

"Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago" -- not, changes will be proposed, debated and acted upon at the will of the council. Changes will be made. I should have done it long ago, so I am doing it now. 

I agree with this, Rhaegar starts taking charge as soon as he returns to King's Landing, but I still think Aerys is the king at this stage because there would have to be some form of legal proceedings (for want of a better term) such as a  grand council to seal the deal. I feel the same about any proposed marriage to Lyanna or legitimization of Jon, while Rhaegar may have planned to make all that official, I don't think he ever got around to it. While "the road not taken" may specifically refer to plans that go back to Harrenhal or beyond, I feel there is an echo of that sentiment as Rhaegar rode to his doom.

10 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Gerold in Ned's dream:

Quote

"We swore a vow."

Not his original vow to Aerys, which he has already broken, but a new vow, to Rhaegar, to obey his commands to protect his new, now legitimized, son with their lives. 

That's what I'm suggesting, the vow was to Rhaegar. But I don't think it necessarily follows than Jon must be legit. As I said, it may have been Rhaegar's plan to have a polygamous marriage recognized or Jon legitimized, as soon as he was king, but again it does no good to speak of the road not taken. Unless Aerys approved of the marriage and/or bastard, then I just can't see those things being recognized with any degree of certainty, despite precedence which would support (though not copper-fasten) the case, until such time as Rhaegar was king.

...

Looking forward, the Tower of Joy obviously has implications in the game of thrones, but it has wider implications in the song of ice and fire. So, in keeping with the themes of the series, do I believe the ToJ is all about Jon being the "legitimate" king, by way of the laws of men, or being the "true" king, by way of merit? I would have to say the latter.

I could see both being true, and people have made a very good case for the former, but in my opinion that scenario jars with the themes of the series to such a degree that if it is true then the message of the story would end up quite mixed, as the point GRRM has been making elsewhere would be watered down considerably.

 

[Leo of House Cartel]

@Lord Varys

I certainly agree with your points, m'lord, and while I can't claim to be 100% sold on the idea of Gerold being involved in some Hightower conspiracy, I do think we should at least consider such possibilities, as well as give thought to the idea that he was in communication with his family during the later stages of Robert's Rebellion.

Of course, there's no way of knowing if the Hightowers themselves are connected to the alleged anti dragon machinations of the Citadel, nor can we be sure if Gerold would even know of said conspiracy - however, due to the power that the White Bull's family holds over Oldtown, as well as his own closeness to the Royal presence during the war that brought down House Targaryen, one can be forgiven for pondering such potential connections between the LC and his family at the time of the Rebellion.

That the family who "Lights The Way" have remained somewhat shadowy over the course of the main series - as well as the rumours of sorcery, Leyton's self imposed imprisonment in the Hightower, the family's potential access to the Citadel's vast archives, and the historical tales of dragon slayers and black stone - also makes many of us play with the idea that there is some forthcoming, big reveal involving the family. 

I always enjoy our discussions, so it would be cool to know your own opinions regarding the Hightowers and their overall place in the series, LV. Do you buy into the idea that their history and connections to the Citadel could allow them some knowledge of the more mystical elements of the series, such as the Long Night, COTF and Doom of Valyria, for example? How about the idea that most Lords having a Maester and Septon could allow the Hightowers to keep tabs on most of the important events in Westeros, if indeed their influence over both Citadel and Sept is as strong as many believe?

Conspiracies and gossip about geology & wizards aside, Ser Gerold's Hightower heritage is one of the only things we really know about him, other than the fact he was Lord Commander of the Kingsguard - many of us in this thread have made speculations pertaining to his knightly status and connections at court, so it might be useful to consider how the White Bull's own familial/home town relations could potentially have influenced his movements at the time.

As Aerys made an all too public display of his madness at Harrenhal - unkempt hair, claw like fingernails, and random bouts of laughing and crying - IMO, spectacles such as this, as well as many other examples, could raise issue with trade heavy families like the Hightowers. Might such an unhinged monarch be troublesome enough that certain parties in Oldtown could have tried to contact the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard? Perhaps with the idea of keeping extra tabs on the King? It's wild speculation, but Gerold is so unknowable at this point that a little tinfoil might be useful.

[SirArthur]

16 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

The three KG are loyal to Rhaegar at this point because Aerys has already been deposed.

You think Aerys keeps Elia hostage on Rhaegar's command, so that Dorne is sending reinforcements for Rhaegar ? 

[SirArthur]

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

That's what I'm suggesting, the vow was to Rhaegar. But I don't think it necessarily follows than Jon must be legit. As I said, it may have been Rhaegar's plan to have a polygamous marriage recognized or Jon legitimized, as soon as he was king, but again it does no good to speak of the road not taken. Unless Aerys approved of the marriage and/or bastard, then I just can't see those things being recognized with any degree of certainty, despite precedence which would support (though not copper-fasten) the case, until such time as Rhaegar was king.

Even if Rhaegar dies and baby king is legit, the rule for the king as king regent defaults either to Aerys or Elia. Someone has to accept their vows. And soon after that Aerys and Elia die, defaulting the queen regency to Rhaella. There is no way around Queen (regent) Rhaella in the popular ToJ scenario. 

In the best case scenario they are under no command, because going to Dragonstone counts as fleeing for some reason. To act on Jon's behalf, they need a legit child guardian.

[John Suburbs]

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Personally, I think it works better if Rhaegar left the tower with the intention to depose his father, and the 3 KG were behind the plan, but of course the plan never came to fruition. If Aerys had already been deposed then I don't see why Ser Gerold would say that Aerys would still sit the throne. But if Rhaegar planned to depose his father but never did, then I makes sense Ser Gerold would say that.

I don't see how Rhaegar can depose Aerys on his own. He needs muscle to do that. And since it doesn't seem likely that Selmy was involved in any of this, the coup would had to have happened after Rhaegar left for the Trident (unless Selmy had left earlier to link his Reach forces to Lewyn's?) So that would pretty much require the 3KG.

I thought about Ser Gerold's comment about Aerys sitting the IT after I posted. The only way I can square that circle is that if they had still been at Aerys' side, there would have been no coup. So it's a comment out of context: not "we would have loyally protected the king if we were there", but "if we were there, we would still have been loyally protecting the king."

Quote

I agree with this, Rhaegar starts taking charge as soon as he returns to King's Landing, but I still think Aerys is the king at this stage because there would have to be some form of legal proceedings (for want of a better term) such as a  grand council to seal the deal. I feel the same about any proposed marriage to Lyanna or legitimization of Jon, while Rhaegar may have planned to make all that official, I don't think he ever got around to it. While "the road not taken" may specifically refer to plans that go back to Harrenhal or beyond, I feel there is an echo of that sentiment as Rhaegar rode to his doom.

That's what I'm suggesting, the vow was to Rhaegar. But I don't think it necessarily follows than Jon must be legit. As I said, it may have been Rhaegar's plan to have a polygamous marriage recognized or Jon legitimized, as soon as he was king, but again it does no good to speak of the road not taken. Unless Aerys approved of the marriage and/or bastard, then I just can't see those things being recognized with any degree of certainty, despite precedence which would support (though not copper-fasten) the case, until such time as Rhaegar was king.

Yes, I suppose "coup" is the wrong word, because in the eyes of the world Aerys is still king. It's more like a quiet arrangement, with Aerys agreeing to keep quiet about it because he's planning to outlive all of them anyway. Rhaegar, of course, does not want to take his army to war with a succession crisis on his hands.

It would be much easier for Rhaegar to legitimize Jon than to have his marriage to Elia annulled. It would be kind of problematic for him to then make Jon his heir, unless he's OK with Dorne leaving the kingdom once again. But I don't think that's his goal. Jon is the PwtP that he's been striving for, so legitimate or not, he will be the hero who saves all mankind. Being king is small potatoes compared to that.

Yeah, it should be interesting to see how GR works all of this out. From this vantage point, the Meereenese Knot seems like child's play. 

 

[John Suburbs]

4 hours ago, SirArthur said:

You think Aerys keeps Elia hostage on Rhaegar's command, so that Dorne is sending reinforcements for Rhaegar ? 

Good point. But once Rhaegar asserts his authority, then Aerys no longer has control over Elia and the children, so Rhaegar would have to have seen to their security in some way. The other aspect is that Aerys can't very well harm them at this point because that would just bring Lewyn and his army down on the Red Keep. And since Aerys is planning to light the whole lot of them up with wildfire anyway, why bother?