Jump to content

Killing an old R+L=J/Kingsguard theory off for good: Fire & Blood


The Twinslayer

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure.  If you wanna speculate about her and/or Rhaegar and/or the KG running around beforehand I'm not gonna argue.  But again, I just don't care.

You seemed to care when you claimed it was ridiculous to assume that Lyanna may have just halted at the tower to give birth there because she couldn't go further or because she didn't want to give birth at a castle.

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, I'm not sure what "at this point" means.  But, all I'm saying is it's a big part of the case, and informs the reader more than most other hints.

Us having the information we got in all the material published since AGoT.

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, yeah.  It's obviously not the main mystery for me at this point either.  But we're not exactly a random sample, at all.  Point is RLJ is obviously the most prominent "mystery" in the story, and you don't even need to go outside this forum, or even subforum, for proof of that.

I'd agree that it is a rather interesting back story mystery. But I don't consider it particularly significant in relation to the plot we can expect in future books.

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

I guess, yeah.  So?  I don't get why this matters.

Oh, just to point out that these guys possibly knowing stuff doesn't mean they processed them properly in relation to make decisions as to who was the priority now. Because, you know, we can be pretty sure that Rhaegar's priority when he left was actually Lyanna and not a child which wasn't born yet. And while the child was still in her belly she was the whole package. 

I mean, think for a moment that you are one of those guys there. Do you think they would have made a king in the middle of nowhere with at best third or fourth hand rumors about what had transpired elsewhere. Even if they magically had correct and accurate information about what happened in KL and at the Trident, they could not really know that they had such information. Before they made any sort of move that would have political significance, they would actually gather more information.

Basically, the obvious comparisons to those guys at the tower are, in a sense, Osha and the Reeds, with *Jon Snow* being Bran and Rickon both. I didn't see any of them crowning or even addressing either Brandon or Rickon the new King in the North. They don't even look to them in that capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Varys said:

You seemed to care when you claimed it was ridiculous to assume that Lyanna may have just halted at the tower to give birth there because she couldn't go further or because she didn't want to give birth at a castle.

I do think it's pretty ridiculous.  I just don't care to argue about it, because there's no point.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd agree that it is a rather interesting back story mystery. But I don't consider it particularly significant in relation to the plot we can expect in future books.

It will definitely be significant.  The author explicitly set it up to be significant.  How significant?  Fuck if I know.

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Because, you know, we can be pretty sure that Rhaegar's priority when he left was actually Lyanna and not a child which wasn't born yet.

Uhh, why can we be pretty sure of that, exactly?  That Rhaegar - or Lyanna for that matter - wouldn't prioritize their gestating child?  That's the general priority of most people.  And definitely most nobles.  And definitely most crown princes.  Remember how you were complaining about how female characters disproportionately die from childbirth?  That would because in Martin's world babies are clearly and consistently valued more than the baby-makers.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Do you think they would have made a king in the middle of nowhere with at best third or fourth hand rumors about what had transpired elsewhere.

You're acting like "making a king" is this big distinction.  It's not.  Obviously you're right that there's no chance of baby Jon taking the throne and the KG in all likelihood thought the same.  That doesn't mean they weren't still protecting him because of his birth rights.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if they magically had correct and accurate information about what happened in KL and at the Trident

I don't see why them having updated information on both the Trident and KL had to be "magical."  Both happened a considerable time before the ToJ, definitely enough for the KG to be apprised of the situation.  Which is part of their job.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Basically, the obvious comparisons to those guys at the tower are, in a sense, Osha and the Reeds, with *Jon Snow* being Bran and Rickon both.

No.  Three KG are certainly more capable than a wilding and two kids, even if one has green dreams.

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I didn't see any of them crowning or even addressing either Brandon or Rickon the new King in the North.

They still called Bran prince.  On many occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

Lol, killing a theory for good... I think you may be a little full of yourself

Do you think anyone can argue with a straight face now that the Kingsguard oath requires that at least one member of the Kingsguard must be with the king at all times?  If that were true, virtually every Kingsguard member we see in Fire and Blood, plus Thorne and Fell and others we see in the main series, were in the habit of regularly breaking that vow.  And no one (in-story) has criticized them for it.  Or even noticed it, for that matter.

Yes, I think that theory has been killed off for good, and no, that does no mean I am full of myself.

But if you want to argue that that theory is still viable, I would love to hear your reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

Do you think anyone can argue with a straight face now that the Kingsguard oath requires that at least one member of the Kingsguard must be with the king at all times?  If that were true, virtually every Kingsguard member we see in Fire and Blood, plus Thorne and Fell and others we see in the main series, were in the habit of regularly breaking that vow.  And no one (in-story) has criticized them for it.  Or even noticed it, for that matter.

Lol, I have no interest in arguing that. And quite frankly, I would say a very negligible amount of people would argue that part of their vow is being with the king 100% of the time. Can you list five threads in which this is ops theory? You’re saying your killing a theory that almost no one holds true, that’s why I call you full of yourself. 

1 hour ago, The Twinslayer said:

Yes, I think that theory has been killed off for good, and no, that does no mean I am full of myself.

But if you want to argue that that theory is still viable, I would love to hear your reasoning.

Sure, no one argues that kingsguard must be with king 100% of time. (For a mind numbingly simple example, we know kg cant travel on dragons, which funny enough is the example you give from fire and blood).  The theory is that since the kingsguard guards the royal family, the fact that they were guarding Jon and lyanna supports Jon and lyanna being royalty. You’ve killed nothing, you just morphed a theory, that kg would be with lyanna and Jon because they were fulfilling their duty to protect the royal family, and you’ve changed it to kg MUST be with royal family at all times, no exceptions in order to be easy to disprove.

So the theory stands exactly as it did before your thread, I.e. the kg being at toj supports lyanna and Jon being royalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Aegon VII said:

Lol, I have no interest in arguing that. And quite frankly, I would say a very negligible amount of people would argue that part of their vow is being with the king 100% of the time. Can you list five threads in which this is ops theory? You’re saying your killing a theory that almost no one holds true, that’s why I call you full of yourself. 

Sure, no one argues that kingsguard must be with king 100% of time. (For a mind numbingly simple example, we know kg cant travel on dragons, which funny enough is the example you give from fire and blood).  The theory is that since the kingsguard guards the royal family, the fact that they were guarding Jon and lyanna supports Jon and lyanna being royalty. You’ve killed nothing, you just morphed a theory, that kg would be with lyanna and Jon because they were fulfilling their duty to protect the royal family, and you’ve changed it to kg MUST be with royal family at all times, no exceptions in order to be easy to disprove.

So the theory stands exactly as it did before your thread, I.e. the kg being at toj supports lyanna and Jon being royalty. 

The R+L=J threads versions approximately 18 through about 101 include an overwhelming number of posters espousing the theory that one KG must always be with the king, including when the king rides a dragon.  And those threads include those same posters ridiculing me and a few others for contesting that theory.  If you look at the last few pages of the current R+L=J thread you will see some posts from me quoting R+L=J regulars (including the OP on the current version) promoting that theory in earlier threads.  You will not see any of them admitting that they were wrong, however.

This was a real theory for many years on this board even though it was obviously wrong.  Anybody pointing that out, however, was insulted and mocked by a horde of posters.  That is why it is important to kill the theory off once and for all.

If after you look at the current R+L=J thread, you continue to think that no-one espoused this crazy theory, I will be happy (when I have time) to post examples of other prolific posters pushing this theory as though it were an incontrovertible fact—to the point of comparing people who doubted it to Holocaust deniers.  

Please do let me know if you would like for me to do that, but if so, please confirm that you have read the last 5 pages of the current R+L=J thread and then reconfirm your belief that no one has ever espoused this theory.

Alternatively, if you will just agree with me that the theory we are discussing never had any merit, there is no need for you and I to discuss it any more — we can just agree that the theory has been killed off for good and go on from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a general misconception, where people are reduced to one thing they are known for and then they have to do that. And the KG at the ToJ is one such example. E.g. 

-there is Kingsguard, so there must be a king
-there are Ironborn, so they must raid someone
-there is a Braavosi trader, so he must trade
-there is a faceless man, so he must kill someone

there are other examples like the idea that was going around for a long time, where Targaryens are immune to fire. Why ? Because Dany did this one time, she was the only known Targaryen and thus this one thing was attributed to all of them. And the list goes on:

- the North has not many knights, kights are good at horse combat, so the north can not be good at horse combat
- we mainly read about Wildlings climbing the Wall, so when someone passes the Wall without approval of the NW, he must have climed it

I am sure I can come up with more onedimensional ideas attributed to people. That is the main problem with the KG at the ToJ. They are only known for one thing, so "obviously" they do the one thing in the mind of some people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2019 at 1:53 PM, DMC said:

No it doesn't.  It just means they weren't dicks and weren't gonna abandon Rhaegar's wife and/or lover while she was dying.

There might actually even be a pragmatic reason - given what happened to Elia's children, Jon's safety was best ensured if no-one knew he existed in the first place. Which could best be achieved by not letting anyone near Lyanna, so that they didn't find that she had given birth.

 

3 hours ago, SirArthur said:

I am sure I can come up with more onedimensional ideas attributed to people. That is the main problem with the KG at the ToJ. They are only known for one thing, so "obviously" they do the one thing in the mind of some people. 

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but it may not be that simple. The three KG proclaim themselves Targ loyalists, we are told that their primary duty is to protect the King, yet they do not seem particularly concerned that their king's heir aka new king is left without any KG. It makes one wonder why they should prioritize the protection of Rhaegar's mistress and bastard over going to Viserys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth in the books version that Brandson Stark is the father of Jon Snow and Ashara Dayne is his mother.  Jon Snow was made in the Black Cells while Brandson Stark hold as a hostage.  Until his father Rickarn Stark come to get and we know how that turns out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but it may not be that simple. The three KG proclaim themselves Targ loyalists, we are told that their primary duty is to protect the King, yet they do not seem particularly concerned that their king's heir aka new king is left without any KG. It makes one wonder why they should prioritize the protection of Rhaegar's mistress and bastard over going to Viserys.

Yes, one wonders. You are exactly showing my point. Attributing the KG with one thing and then assuming they always do it. An Ironborn trader would prob. ruin the immersion of many people. Because he is Ironborn, so he always has to rape, pillage and plunder. Why ? Because Ironborn do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

Yes, one wonders. You are exactly showing my point. Attributing the KG with one thing and then assuming they always do it. An Ironborn trader would prob. ruin the immersion of many people. Because he is Ironborn, so he always has to rape, pillage and plunder. Why ? Because Ironborn do that. 

Ironborn do not swear to rape, pillage and plunder. If there were Ironborn sworn to such activity as their primary duty and considered an epitome of what it means to be Ironborn, proudly proclaiming to be Ironborn, then yes, I would indeed expect them to rape, pillage and plunder.

I would not consider the likes of Trant and Blount to always do what the KG are supposed to do. But the KG who are a shining example of knighthood, proudly proclaiming their KG status and loyalty? Ned Stark considers them true KG, and they themselves consider themselves true to their vows. Yet, they are not fulfilling their primary duty by staying at ToJ, there are no other KG left who would protect Viserys instead of them, and they know it. If Viserys is Aerys' only remaining heir, they are in dereliction of their primary duty, their purpose as Kingsguard. Any order by, or an additional oath to Rhaegar, creates a conflict which, if they want to consider themselves true Kingsguard, must yield to the primary duty. Even a higher call, such as considering Jon PTWP and saviour of mankind, still means a dereliction of KG duty and they shouldn't be emphasizing that they are KG.

Can you see where I am coming from? It's not just because they are Kingsguard but because in their own eyes they are true to what it means to be Kingsguard. Unless they are immense hypocrites or idiots or something of the kind (unsupported by the text), I see only one way this conflict can be solved, and that is if they are protecting someone with a better claim than Viserys. and that can only be Rhaegar's legitimate son.

- If you want a RL parallel: when students go on an excursion, they must always be chaperoned. The standard is to send two teachers, so that they could split should something happen to one of the students - one stays with the group, the other accompanies the student to hospital. Now, say they are two groups of students, each with two teachers. One group somehow loses its chaperons, the other group finds out and their chaperones are also the only two teachers within reach. You as a teacher have two options: bring your group and band with the other, or split and each stays with one group. If you do neither, you're going to have one hell of a trouble - you cannot argue that this was not your duty because you could, and should have, acted, and you cannot claim with a clear conscience that you acted as a teacher should.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sophia [email protected] said:

The truth in the books version that Brandson Stark is the father of Jon Snow and Ashara Dayne is his mother.  Jon Snow was made in the Black Cells while Brandson Stark hold as a hostage.  Until his father Rickarn Stark come to get and we know how that turns out.

That is not the truth, that is a theory. It is not outright impossible, it only lacks any textual support placing Ashara in KL at that time and has quite an issue explaining how Ashara got into the Black Cells and why she felt inclined to have sex at such an unsavory place. Moreover, it makes Jon older than he should be by at least three months - the Rebellion lasted for about a year, starting only after Jon Arryn defied Aerys, so there you have some gap between Brandon's death and that event already, and per GRRM, Jon was born 8-9 months before Dany who was born 9 months after the Sack, i.e. Jon was born within a month after the Sack and thus conceived about three months into the Rebellion. If this is the theory you prefer, fine, but it has too many holes for such words as "the truth".

ETA: Not to mention that this parentage makes Ned quite a dick, for letting both Cat and Jon torment themselves over not knowing, and especially for taking Jon away from Ashara in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Ironborn do not swear to rape, pillage and plunder. If there were Ironborn sworn to such activity as their primary duty and considered an epitome of what it means to be Ironborn, proudly proclaiming to be Ironborn, then yes, I would indeed expect them to rape, pillage and plunder.

I would not consider the likes of Trant and Blount to always do what the KG are supposed to do. But the KG who are a shining example of knighthood, proudly proclaiming their KG status and loyalty? Ned Stark considers them true KG, and they themselves consider themselves true to their vows. Yet, they are not fulfilling their primary duty by staying at ToJ, there are no other KG left who would protect Viserys instead of them, and they know it. If Viserys is Aerys' only remaining heir, they are in dereliction of their primary duty, their purpose as Kingsguard. Any order by, or an additional oath to Rhaegar, creates a conflict which, if they want to consider themselves true Kingsguard, must yield to the primary duty. Even a higher call, such as considering Jon PTWP and saviour of mankind, still means a dereliction of KG duty and they shouldn't be emphasizing that they are KG.

Can you see where I am coming from? It's not just because they are Kingsguard but because in their own eyes they are true to what it means to be Kingsguard. Unless they are immense hypocrites or idiots or something of the kind (unsupported by the text), I see only one way this conflict can be solved, and that is if they are protecting someone with a better claim than Viserys. and that can only be Rhaegar's legitimate son.

- If you want a RL parallel: when students go on an excursion, they must always be chaperoned. The standard is to send two teachers, so that they could split should something happen to one of the students - one stays with the group, the other accompanies the student to hospital. Now, say they are two groups of students, each with two teachers. One group somehow loses its chaperons, the other group finds out and their chaperones are also the only two teachers within reach. You as a teacher have two options: bring your group and band with the other, or split and each stays with one group. If you do neither, you're going to have one hell of a trouble - you cannot argue that this was not your duty because you could, and should have, acted, and you cannot claim with a clear conscience that you acted as a teacher should.

 

 

 

There is a discussion in the R+L=J thread about whether anyone -- you specifically included -- still adheres to the theory that the KG vow requires that at least one KG always be with the king, and that that means that Hightower, Dayne and Whent must all have believed that Viserys cannot have been the heir when Aerys died.  The question is (1) whether anyone still believes that theory, and (2) if so, how can that be reconciled with all of the examples we now have of times when Targaryen kings were away from their kingsguards and no-one seemed to care?  I want to be sure you are aware of that discussion and to give you a chance to weigh in, since it has been suggested that you still believe that theory but I think that can't possibly be the case.  

What are your thoughts on those questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here is another interesting example.  During Lord Rogar's War, Rogar Barratheon takes five hundred men into the Dornish mountains to root out his brother Borys and the Second Vulture King. King Jaehaerys not only gave his leave, he promised his sword as well.  So Rogar marched off into the mountains and Jaehaerys did reconnaissance overhead on his dragon. 

"In the end, they found their foes.  Borys Baratheon did not know the mountains hidden ways as the Dornish did, so he was the first to be cornered.  Lord Rogar's men made short work of his own, but as the brothers came face-to-face, King Jaehaerys descended from the sky.  'I would not have you named a kinslayer, my lord,'  His Grace told his former Hand.  'The traitor is mine.'

Ser Borys laughed to hear it.  'Rather name me a kingslayer than him a kinslayer!' he shouted as he rushed the king.  But Jaehaerys had Blackfyre in hand, and he had not forgotten the lessons he had learned in the yard on Dragonstone.  Borys Baratheon died at the king's feet, from a cut to his neck that near took his head off."

There is even a nice illustration showing Jaehaerys and Borys in single combat.  But of course we see no Kingsguard upholding the "first duty." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

There is even a nice illustration showing Jaehaerys and Borys in single combat.  But of course we see no Kingsguard upholding the "first duty." 

Jaehaerys I even enters into another single combat at a later age, without hiding behind the white cloaks of his bodyguards. He even wanted to fight in a trial-by-combat at the age of fourteen.

But Robert actually gave us already enough evidence that a king can endanger his own person if he wants to do it. He commanded his KG to stand aside when he took on the boar who killed him, he intended to fight in a melee, and he obviously fought personally in the Greyjoy Rebellion. One assumes that the Kingsguard was close to him in the latter case, but it is quite clear that there would be no point in the KG actually shielding him in a melee or doing the things he wants to do in a hunt. Then he could just as well stay at home.

This actually raises the rather interesting question why the hell Dunk ends up fighting Lyonel Baratheon in the trial-by-combat? Are Aegon V and Prince Duncan too craven to actually face the Laughing Storm themselves? Does Egg actually command Dunk to fight the man who helped to save his hand and foot back at Ashford? Or does Dunk volunteer to do that for some reason? 

With the greatest Targaryen king lowering himself to personally fighting a subject in a duel, it is really odd that Egg didn't do a similar thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2019 at 9:20 AM, SirArthur said:

I think there is a general misconception, where people are reduced to one thing they are known for and then they have to do that. And the KG at the ToJ is one such example. E.g. 

-there is Kingsguard, so there must be a king
-there are Ironborn, so they must raid someone
-there is a Braavosi trader, so he must trade
-there is a faceless man, so he must kill someone

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there "

 

So, indeed if there is a faceless man we should expect he's there to kill someone, if there is a merchant we should expect he's there to trade with someone and if there is a Kingsguard we should expect he's there to guard a king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lomiller said:

So, indeed if there is a faceless man we should expect he's there to kill someone, if there is a merchant we should expect he's there to trade with someone and if there is a Kingsguard we should expect he's there to guard a king.

Or he had better have a damn good reason to be doing something else, and that without chest-thumping about being a KG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, lomiller said:

So, indeed if there is a faceless man we should expect he's there to kill someone, if there is a merchant we should expect he's there to trade with someone and if there is a Kingsguard we should expect he's there to guard a king.

All three KG have names and are more than a random KG standing around. There is a Hightower, a Dayne and a Whent. All three houses are present in the story, two of the three houses have direct connections to Lord and Lady Stark at the beginning of the story. I guess Hightower is not that much loaded, but still connected with house Mormont and the north.

So which Chekhov gun will fire in your opinion ? The one with "a KG guards a king" or the one with "hey, we have a relationsship between the gun and early story protagonists" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lomiller said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there "

 

So, indeed if there is a faceless man we should expect he's there to kill someone, if there is a merchant we should expect he's there to trade with someone and if there is a Kingsguard we should expect he's there to guard a king.

Sorry, that's just nonsense. We do have ample evidence that the Kingsguard do not just guard kings. That is a very relevant plot point in this story. Reducing them to that duty and stupidly insisting that they cannot be proud of being Kingsguard if they don't follow their 'primary duty' you yourself have wrongly claimed must always take precedence (when in fact a proper reading of George's work reveals that this is simply not the case) is simply wrong. And it has been confirmed that this is wrong.

If you are still in the realm or reasoned discussion where rational arguments can reach you (and I'm not talking to you specifically there, but in a general sense) then you should allow yourself to be convinced by the facts. Especially if your case of 'the Kingsguard at the tower protecting the king' rests solely on the literal interpretation of the fever dream talk - which George himself has basically dismissed as good evidence.

But even if we were taking the fever dream talk at face value - the facts we know in addition to that simply prove you wrong.

Ser Rickard Thorne abandoned his king but died a true Kingsguard - the most heroic Kingsguard in FaB, in fact - to defend little Prince Maelor. He was killed, too, doing his duty. The idea that the three knights could not have died defending a princely wife/mistress and a little prince/bastard of a prince and still be proud of their status as Kingsguard simply makes no sense. And the king and prince they were loyal to were the late Aerys II and the late Prince Rhaegar who even as shades still commanded their actions - just as the Lads continued to fight for Rhaenyra after her death, or the Blackfish still had the Stark banner above Winterfell never mind that his king was dead and without heirs.

The idea that those guys had to espouse a new king at this point is just based on nothing. Just as the idea is based on nothing that anyone of their number would have felt the need to go to Viserys - who was safe among the garrison of Dragonstone, protected by the entire Targaryen fleet.

Oh, and by the way:

Do you guys actually realize that Ser Rolly Duckfield is a Kingsguard now? Oddly enough, he protects a mere prince, doesn't he? Prince Aegon, who gave him his white cloak. But surely George would have never written something like that if he believed that Kingsguard only protect kings, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...