The worst Kingsguard members

[Syl of Syl]

Osmund Kettleblack and Boros Blount and Meryn Trant are all pretty sorry excuses for Kingsguard. While overall the Kingsguard seems like a more respectable institution during the Targaryen reigns, there are a couple bad eggs in there. In particular, I am thinking of the Kingsguard during the regency of Aegon III. So who were the worst of the worst?

My nominations:

Lucamore the Lusty - He broke the vow against taking a wife. Not once, but three times. Not the worst way to break your vows, but still deserves mention.

Criston Cole - The Kingmaker played a major role in starting the Dance of the Dragons. 

Owen Bush and Maladon Moore - Maegor the Cruel's errand boys.

Amaury Peake and Mervyn Flowers - Unwin Peake's appointments.

 

I think Mervyn Flowers is the frontrunner here. He seemed to have zero respect for his vows and no loyalty to the king he was sworn to protect. Criston Cole is a pretty interesting case though, because you can argue that everything he did was above board or you could argue that he was one of the worst because his actions caused the most harm to the realm and specifically to the Targaryen royal house.

Anyway, who are other nominations and who wins the award for most rotten?

 

[cpg2016]

Any of Aerys II's Kingsguard.  Most of Robert's Kingsguard.

[Damsel in Distress]

The worst Kingsguard members?

Jaime Lannister and Criston Cole

[Lord Varys]

Osmund Kettleblack doesn't seem to be that bad considering that Littlefinger no longer trusts him completely after he had been named to the KG. We also don't know how good or bad he is as a warrior, so there is some room there.

Maegor's guys clearly rank among the worst. But Criston Cole and Arryk Cargyll are not far behind. Cole because of his meddling with the succession (which means he betrayed the king who gave him his white cloak in the first place and who made him Lord Commander) and because of his plots to murder Rhaenyra (or her children) not just once but twice. The first attempt was the Cargyll assassination attempt - which makes Ser Arryk a sorry ass for a Kingsguard considering that he was actually agreeing to murder his rightful queen and/or her daughters (all of which were children and grandchildren of the late King Viserys I) - the second one the dragon trap at Rook's Rest. They ended up killing Princess Rhaenys and her dragon, but the trap clearly was for Rhaenyra and/or those sons of hers who they hoped would show up.

If you judge a KG the criteria are really simple - did he stay true to his vows and protect the king and the royal family or did he not do that. And when the succession is challenged then the best way to deal with that would be to stay out of the mess as good as you can. Taking a front seat there means you suck.

The Peake-lings are scum, too, not just because some of them were clearly involved in treasonous and murderous behavior - attempted murder of the king and queen, and a successful murder of a queen - but also because they involved themselves in politics and plots. The KG should stay out of that stuff. The place of Aegon III's KG should have been at his side - defending him against the machinations of his regents and 'Hand', not in the midst of such machinations. How true KG should act is seen in Jaehaerys I's Seven when they obey their king rather than his regent and protect him and his new queen on Dragonstone.

Jaime certainly is the worst Kingsguard ever, considering that he murdered his king. There is no excuse for that, and never can be. But he is in good company considering that there seem to be quite a few kingslayers among the Kingsguard. Maegor may have been dispatched by some of his Seven, and Aegon II's Kingsguard (at least those in KL) were apparently also involved in his murder to a degree. Aegon III's KG also had similar scum in his KG, and I guess we can look forward to the sworn brothers of the Dragonknight. I doubt that any of the men named to the KG by Aegon the Unworthy are good men. Might even turn out that Aegon IV had KG assistance when he poisoned his father - assuming that's what happened.

Lucamore the Lusty broke crucial vows of the KG, but he clearly is not even remotely as worse as the KG who killed or plotted against the king/the royal family. He just had a bunch of wives and children, but he still did his duty and was apparently pretty popular until the truth came out. Not to mention a really great knight.

[Syl of Syl]

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 If you judge a KG the criteria are really simple - did he stay true to his vows and protect the king and the royal family or did he not do that. And when the succession is challenged then the best way to deal with that would be to stay out of the mess as good as you can. Taking a front seat there means you suck.

I think it gets tricky when a Kingsguard is passed from one king to the next. They should be released from their vows when a king dies. The next king can decide to re-swear them if that's what he wants. Otherwise, the vows get a little sticky. All four of the Kingsguard who stayed in Kings Landing you could make an argument betrayed their vows in one way or another, but when your Lord Commander is going one way, it's a hard thing to do like Steffon Darklyn. I've got a lot of respect for that one.

49 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I guess we can look forward to the sworn brothers of the Dragonknight. I doubt that any of the men named to the KG by Aegon the Unworthy are good men. Might even turn out that Aegon IV had KG assistance when he poisoned his father - assuming that's what happened.

Yeh, I am very much looking forward to Aegon the Unworthy's exploits. Daemon was a colorful character and I really enjoyed any of the action that involved him. Aegon seems like he'll have even more fun as a young prince.

As an aside, Aegon apparently spends ten years partying in Braavos, and then Baelor and Viserys promptly die within a couple years of his return to King's Landing. It's suspicious but I think it is likely to be some Braavosi entity that is involved in this succession of events. After all, Aegon was certainly too distracted by the opening of Baelor's maidenvault to engage Kingsguard members in a grand plot to poison his father.

[Syl of Syl]

And agreed on Lucamore Strong. I think his story says more about the utility of the vows against marriage than about Lucamore himself. I get that children could be a weakness for a Kingsguard member that could keep him from performing his duties, but on the other hand it makes the vows too burdensome for some.

 

[Arthur Peres]

Jaime Lannister.

[Jaak]

How about Orivel the Open-Handed?

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Syl of Syl said:

I think it gets tricky when a Kingsguard is passed from one king to the next. They should be released from their vows when a king dies. The next king can decide to re-swear them if that's what he wants. Otherwise, the vows get a little sticky.

That is certainly true, but effectively such a 're-swearing' actually takes place. For instance, King Aenys' Seven decided who the(ir) rightful king was by going to KL when Maegor summoned them rather than earlier accompanying Queen Alyssa to Driftmark - and making their way to Prince Aegon from there. None of them took the opportunity to abandon Maegor while the guy was in his month-long coma, either.

And Jaehaerys I shows how a king can and does choose his own KG. He kills/forces all the KG of his usurper predecessor to take the black. That's how you choose your own KG.

I'm pretty sure that's how Aegon III would freed himself of Fell and Waters, too, had any of them remained in his KG at the end of the Regency.

7 hours ago, Syl of Syl said:

All four of the Kingsguard who stayed in Kings Landing you could make an argument betrayed their vows in one way or another, but when your Lord Commander is going one way, it's a hard thing to do like Steffon Darklyn. I've got a lot of respect for that one.

That is true, but they still all made a choice there. Cole and his sworn brothers knew what King Viserys I had decreed, and at least the Cargylls had already been at court as KG in 105 AC. Aegon the Elder wasn't the new king until he was crowned, so these people were effectively obeying Alicent and Otto and Cole until then, which is not exactly what they duty was. There you see the difference between scum/problematic KG and great KG - like Jaehaerys I's Seven.

7 hours ago, Syl of Syl said:

As an aside, Aegon apparently spends ten years partying in Braavos, and then Baelor and Viserys promptly die within a couple years of his return to King's Landing. It's suspicious but I think it is likely to be some Braavosi entity that is involved in this succession of events. After all, Aegon was certainly too distracted by the opening of Baelor's maidenvault to engage Kingsguard members in a grand plot to poison his father.

I still assume that Viserys II was killed because Aegon found out that his father wanted to pass him over in the succession and name his son Daeron Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent. If Viserys II was this great and competent guy he must have known that his son could *never* be a good king. And if Aegon knew that, then this could also be the cause of the enmity between father and son.

[Jaak]

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And Jaehaerys I shows how a king can and does choose his own KG. He kills/forces all the KG of his usurper predecessor to take the black. That's how you choose your own KG.

I'm pretty sure that's how Aegon III would freed himself of Fell and Waters, too, had any of them remained in his KG at the end of the Regency.

Waters was a bastard who plotted to overthrow Rhaenyra and got white cloak for that. Fell just went along with four of his five brethren in not deserting the usurper, and was not particularly disgraced - he safely carried Jaehaera to Storm´ s End. It would have made sense to purge Waters and spare Fell.

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is true, but they still all made a choice there. Cole and his sworn brothers knew what King Viserys I had decreed, and at least the Cargylls had already been at court as KG in 105 AC. Aegon the Elder wasn't the new king until he was crowned, so these people were effectively obeying Alicent and Otto and Cole until then, which is not exactly what they duty was. There you see the difference between scum/problematic KG and great KG - like Jaehaerys I's Seven.

Were the Cargylls then not at Kingsguard in 103 - as part of Jaehaerys I-s Seven?

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Waters was a bastard who plotted to overthrow Rhaenyra and got white cloak for that. Fell just went along with four of his five brethren in not deserting the usurper, and was not particularly disgraced - he safely carried Jaehaera to Storm´ s End. It would have made sense to purge Waters and spare Fell.

If we assume that Jaehaera dies as she did then chances are not very likely that Aegon III would have seen any purpose for Fell. If she had lived he may have continued as her sworn shield - but not as Lord Commander.

As things turn out Aegon III doesn't really have to purge his court of Greens considering that the Winter Fever and the aftermath of the Peake stint did take care of that. I imagine Aegon III restored Robert Darklyn to his KG, by the way, considering he was the one who survived. 

4 hours ago, Jaak said:

Were the Cargylls then not at Kingsguard in 103 - as part of Jaehaerys I-s Seven?

They are mentioned as being of the Kingsguard in the early years of Viserys I's reign.

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

The Kingslayer.

[CAllDSmith]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jaime certainly is the worst Kingsguard ever, considering that he murdered his king. There is no excuse for that, and never can be. 

I have to disagree. Boros Blount surrendering Tommen over to forces unknown is actually just as bad, if not far worse, than Jaime killing Aerys. In Blount's case he did it because he was a coward and feared for his own life. He should have been sent to the wall or put on a block, but Tywin decided to continue enabling Cersei and Joffrey's fuck up of dismissing Barristan and appointing the Hound simply because doing otherwise would prove that Tyrion had a point and would require putting another good knight in the white; something Tywin can't afford to do because the knight would have to come from the Reach at that point in time. 

The reason why I think Jaime's situation does not make him the worst by default (even though I totally understand your reasoning.) is that there were two major extenuating circumstances. 1. Aerys had ordered Jaime to kill Tywin. No man is more accursed than a kinslayer, so from a legal, moral, and theological standpoint Jaime could not follow that order. Not even Maegor the Cruel or Aegon the Unworthy ordered their Kingsguard to do something that heinous. 2. Jaime has multiple oaths that conflict with allowing the wildfire plot to go through: 

A. He is sworn before the Mother to protect all the innocent people of KL 

B. He is sworn to the Father to be just. 

C. He is, as a member of the Faith of the Seven, presumably not supposed to allow the High Septon to be murdered. Especially since Aerys is supposed to be the guard of the High Septon. 

D.. He is sworn to protect the King. Aerys plan would have killed not just Aerys, but also Aegon. Aerys had essentially ordered Jaime to kill Aerys by allowing that plan to go through. So it could be argued that Jaime was protecting the next king, that he does not immediately proclaim Aegon or Viserys king leads to this point:

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you judge a KG the criteria are really simple - did he stay true to his vows and protect the king and the royal family or did he not do that. And when the succession is challenged then the best way to deal with that would be to stay out of the mess as good as you can. Taking a front seat there means you suck.

Technically Robert's Rebellion is simply a succession crisis. (depending on how late into the war the justification of Robert becoming king was introduced.) Robert's argument is that Aerys is disqualified from succession due to madness , making a mockery of a trial by combat, ordering arbitrary murder and ordering kinslaying. (Robert is his first cousin once removed.) Robert actually could have made a strong legal argument based on the Great Council of 233 when Vaella was skipped over for being mentally handicapped and Maegor was skipped over for being a baby, son of a whacko, and named Maegor. 

Rhaegar is then disqualified either through descent from Aerys or due to possibly kidnapping and raping Lyanna. Viserys gets disqualified for being eight and descended from Aerys, and Aegon gets disqualified for being a baby and descended from Aerys. 

So by your logic all seven of the KG should have just stood aside when Robert raised Rebellion or possibly sooner when Aerys tried to make a mockery of a trial by combat. All of this really shows how much Tywin's removal of Aegon's reforms actually hurt the realm, since increased upward mobility would have led to pressures to codify issues like this through a Great Council. Something Tywin should have called the moment Aerys showed the damage of Duskendale, but didn't because he thought he could control Aerys and get Cersei in Rhaegar's bed. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, CAllDSmith said:

I have to disagree. Boros Blount surrendering Tommen over to forces unknown is actually just as bad, if not far worse, than Jaime killing Aerys. In Blount's case he did it because he was a coward and feared for his own life. He should have been sent to the wall or put on a block, but Tywin decided to continue enabling Cersei and Joffrey's fuck up of dismissing Barristan and appointing the Hound simply because doing otherwise would prove that Tyrion had a point and would require putting another good knight in the white; something Tywin can't afford to do because the knight would have to come from the Reach at that point in time. 

Blount is scum, too, but he didn't hand over the king, he just handed over a prince. That's a difference. And he handed the prince over to men he assumed would not harm him. And he was right there. Still, I'd agree that he proved there that he was scum.

1 hour ago, CAllDSmith said:

The reason why I think Jaime's situation does not make him the worst by default (even though I totally understand your reasoning.) is that there were two major extenuating circumstances.

I don't think that any of those extenuating circumstances apply since I don't see a dichotomy or conundrum where Jaime had to choose between murdering his king and watching other (innocent) people being killed. I agree, though, that Jaime was not motivated so much by the wildfire plot but rather by Aerys II's command to kill his own father. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I also agree that it was cruel and uncalled for to command Jaime to kill his father. Although it was not wrong for Jaime to watch Aerys II's men butcher Tywin and his allies considering the man was a duplicitous traitor and rebel who most definitely deserved a traitor's death for what he pulled.

I certainly agree that Jaime was conflicted - anyone serving a madman like Aerys would be - but you don't judge a Kingsguard by a mere knight's or dutiful son's standard. You judge him by a Kingsguard's standards. That's also why Lucamore the Lusty isn't exactly a great KG despite the fact that he was, apparently, both loyal to his various wives and children and king and queen.

And as a Kingsguard Jaime Lannister failed spectacularly.

As for Aerys II's successor:

He had named Prince Viserys his heir and successor, and Viserys and Rhaella were on Dragonstone. Elia and her children were only hostages.

However, I agree that Jaime should have stopped the wildfire plot to ensure the safety of Elia and the children and other innocent people in KL. But I also maintain that it was not necessary to kill Aerys II to accomplish that. Killing Rossart was enough. He could have knocked out, arrested, or injured Aerys II. He could also have just distracted him until his father's men showed up. There was no inherent reason to murder the man.

The description of Jaime's actual memory of the event reveals the man wanted to do what he did, and that he enjoyed it. He didn't kill Aerys II to save anyone, he killed him because he wanted to punish him for his actions. It is understandable if you think of Jaime's youth and mindset, but it is also very wrong when you are a KG.

1 hour ago, CAllDSmith said:

Technically Robert's Rebellion is simply a succession crisis. (depending on how late into the war the justification of Robert becoming king was introduced.) Robert's argument is that Aerys is disqualified from succession due to madness , making a mockery of a trial by combat, ordering arbitrary murder and ordering kinslaying. (Robert is his first cousin once removed.) Robert actually could have made a strong legal argument based on the Great Council of 233 when Vaella was skipped over for being mentally handicapped and Maegor was skipped over for being a baby, son of a whacko, and named Maegor. 

I agree that the rebellion against Aerys II was justified from the point of view of Robert and Ned. But this doesn't make Robert king. Robert's sin/crime is that he does not stop at the removal of an unjust king/tyrant - he continues by condoning the murder of the innocent heirs and kin of the king, and there is simply no justification for that. As Robb points out - Joffrey is a bad king, one he opposes, but once Joffrey is overthrown his younger brother Tommen ascends to the throne as his heir, not Robb or some uncle.

And that's also the case in Aerys II's case - his heir was Rhaegar and since the rebels slew him, too, next in line would have been Viserys, Rhaegar's children, and then, presumably, Daenerys and Rhaella. Robert would only come after them.

The weakness of Robert's claim is made obvious to all by the necessity to murder the legitimate Targaryen heirs.

1 hour ago, CAllDSmith said:

Rhaegar is then disqualified either through descent from Aerys or due to possibly kidnapping and raping Lyanna. Viserys gets disqualified for being eight and descended from Aerys, and Aegon gets disqualified for being a baby and descended from Aerys.

Apparently nobody disqualified anyone since the rebels didn't really ask anyone's opinion on the matter of Robert's ascension. They just proclaimed him king and then had him crowned.

1 hour ago, CAllDSmith said:

So by your logic all seven of the KG should have just stood aside when Robert raised Rebellion or possibly sooner when Aerys tried to make a mockery of a trial by combat. All of this really shows how much Tywin's removal of Aegon's reforms actually hurt the realm, since increased upward mobility would have led to pressures to codify issues like this through a Great Council. Something Tywin should have called the moment Aerys showed the damage of Duskendale, but didn't because he thought he could control Aerys and get Cersei in Rhaegar's bed. 

We see half or more of Aerys II's KG side with Rhaegar, who also opposed his father and may have been suspected to have been an accomplice of the Starks in the beginning of the war. I think we can be reasonably certain that all of Aerys II's Seven were, in essence, Rhaegar's Seven at the time of the Trident. It was Rhaegar who caused those men to not abandon House Targaryen, not their loyalty to the king.

But, sure, the history implies that Aerys II's Seven should actually have followed Selmy's path and offered their blades to him, because that's what the (the majority of the) KG did after Maegor's usurpation, Jaehaerys I's rise (unsuccessfully) and even after the ascension of Aegon III.

As for the general topic:

I'd also number Ser Davos Darklyn - who may have been Maegor's Lord Commander of the Kingsguard in the early phase of his reign (based on the fact that he commanded the KL portion of Maegor's army) - among the worst KGs, considering he supported Maegor's campaign against Aegon the Uncrowned and is thus co-responsible for the death of his rightful king. And considering that he was likely not named to the KG by Maegor but instead by King Aenys or even King Aegon himself, he definitely betrayed his late king, and perhaps even the Conqueror himself.

You have to be a pretty nasty piece of work to assist Maegor in a campaign against the rightful Targaryen heir. Fighting against the Faith Militant or other rebels would be another thing.

[CAllDSmith]

57 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd also number Ser Davos Darklyn - who may have been Maegor's Lord Commander of the Kingsguard in the early phase of his reign (based on the fact that he commanded the KL portion of Maegor's army) - among the worst KGs, considering he supported Maegor's campaign against Aegon the Uncrowned and is thus co-responsible for the death of his rightful king. And considering that he was likely not named to the KG by Maegor but instead by King Aenys or even King Aegon himself, he definitely betrayed his late king, and perhaps even the Conqueror himself.

My personal headcanon is that the Bastard of Cornfield was one of the two mentioned to be killed in an earlier battle and that Davos was his replacement. I also think the history of the KG explains a lot of our problems with Maegor's early KG (which probably had some bleed over from Aegon/Aenys' KG) Visenya is the one who established the order and picked the first seven. I'm thinking her criteria of loyalty probably put them in a position where they would follow her decisions before other issues. 

One of the things I wish F&B had included (and why I want there to be a White Book) is Raymont Baratheon, since I haven't seen it said he actually died while saving the king. 

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

2 hours ago, CAllDSmith said:

I have to disagree. Boros Blount surrendering Tommen over to forces unknown is actually just as bad, if not far worse, than Jaime killing Aerys. In Blount's case he did it because he was a coward and feared for his own life. He should have been sent to the wall or put on a block, but Tywin decided to continue enabling Cersei and Joffrey's fuck up of dismissing Barristan and appointing the Hound simply because doing otherwise would prove that Tyrion had a point and would require putting another good knight in the white; something Tywin can't afford to do because the knight would have to come from the Reach at that point in time. 

The reason why I think Jaime's situation does not make him the worst by default (even though I totally understand your reasoning.) is that there were two major extenuating circumstances. 1. Aerys had ordered Jaime to kill Tywin. No man is more accursed than a kinslayer, so from a legal, moral, and theological standpoint Jaime could not follow that order. Not even Maegor the Cruel or Aegon the Unworthy ordered their Kingsguard to do something that heinous. 2. Jaime has multiple oaths that conflict with allowing the wildfire plot to go through: 

A. He is sworn before the Mother to protect all the innocent people of KL 

B. He is sworn to the Father to be just. 

C. He is, as a member of the Faith of the Seven, presumably not supposed to allow the High Septon to be murdered. Especially since Aerys is supposed to be the guard of the High Septon. 

D.. He is sworn to protect the King. Aerys plan would have killed not just Aerys, but also Aegon. Aerys had essentially ordered Jaime to kill Aerys by allowing that plan to go through. So it could be argued that Jaime was protecting the next king, that he does not immediately proclaim Aegon or Viserys king leads to this point:

 

Jaime thought about proclaiming Viserys or Aegon as the new king and his father as hand. We know from Jaimes own thoughts that protecting them wasn't why he didn't. Jaime didn't proclaim either king because they shared the same blood as Aerys more or less. Jaime not only killed his King , he also slept with his next kings wife and had 3 bastards with her.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

My personal headcanon is that the Bastard of Cornfield was one of the two mentioned to be killed in an earlier battle and that Davos was his replacement.

Would be surprised if that guy made it into the 40s. Some of Aegon's first Seven may have been only about twenty when they joined, but I'm inclined to believe that more were around thirty, meaning they wouldn't exactly be young men in the 40s. And being a Kingsguard is no easy thing.

But, sure, if Davos was the Lord Commander when he died, he may not have been the first KG during Maegor's reign to serve in that capacity. His predecessor could have died at the Great Fork, for instance. We do know that two KG died there.

19 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

I also think the history of the KG explains a lot of our problems with Maegor's early KG (which probably had some bleed over from Aegon/Aenys' KG) Visenya is the one who established the order and picked the first seven. I'm thinking her criteria of loyalty probably put them in a position where they would follow her decisions before other issues. 

Oh, that's certainly possible - but doesn't change that supporting Maegor and Visenya was a betrayal of both King Aenys' and King Aegon's wishes, and actively helping Maegor to kill a Aenys' eldest son and the Conqueror's grandson would be even a larger betrayal of the memory of both Aenys and Aegon. And that's a dire thing if Aenys or Aegon had chosen some (or all) of those Kingsguard.

I agree that Visenya must have been a revered figure for all KG during her lifetime since she was effectively the mother of the order, but I doubt the aging Conqueror - and especially not King Aenys - left the choosing of new KGs to Visenya.

How many bad apples Aegon and Aenys chose would depend on the number of KG they chose. Which is unfortunately completely unclear. Might be that Aenys only chose 1-2, but one assumes the Conqueror essentially replaced all of his first Seven - or at least most of them - during the last decade of his reign. And it is not unlikely that the last of Visenya's veterans died during the reign of Aenys.

19 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

One of the things I wish F&B had included (and why I want there to be a White Book) is Raymont Baratheon, since I haven't seen it said he actually died while saving the king. 

From what we know it seems that Ser Raymont Baratheon no longer exists. He was excised from FaB, and unless that changed in some new printing I'm not aware of we should consider him to be non-canonical until we get a clarification from George.

My take on the matter is that the story of Rogar Baratheon and his brothers - and especially the contempt Lord Rogar shows for King Aenys - caused George to decide that there should not be a Baratheon in Aegon/Aenys' Kingsguard. The fact that the Baratheons present themselves (or are seen) basically as a bastard male cadet branch of House Targaryen with their own claim to the Iron Throne (there is a reason why Gyldayn has Jaehaerys I's Small Council ask whether Lord Rogar wants to ascend the Iron Throne himself!) might also be connected to that.

George may have decided that a family who subconsciously or consciously thinks about claiming the Iron Throne themselves are not likely to bring forth selfless KG - and especially not the kind that protect weak kings.

[CAllDSmith]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

My take on the matter is that the story of Rogar Baratheon and his brothers - and especially the contempt Lord Rogar shows for King Aenys - caused George to decide that there should not be a Baratheon in Aegon/Aenys' Kingsguard. The fact that the Baratheons present themselves (or are seen) basically as a bastard male cadet branch of House Targaryen with their own claim to the Iron Throne (there is a reason why Gyldayn has Jaehaerys I's Small Council ask whether Lord Rogar wants to ascend the Iron Throne himself!) might also be connected to that.

See I interpreted it the opposite way. That one of the reasons Rogar hated Aenys is because his weakness led to his brother/uncle's death. 

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, CAllDSmith said:

See I interpreted it the opposite way. That one of the reasons Rogar hated Aenys is because his weakness led to his brother/uncle's death. 

Sure, but as I said, the passage is no longer in FaB. It is only the Kingsguard who saved King Aenys there, Ser Raymont is not mentioned. And he was in the original manuscript of TSotD (as published in the anthology). This was a deliberate change on George's part. And it certainly would have to have been Rogar's uncle or cousin. His brother seems to be impossible considering Rogar seems to have had only the four brothers we meet in FaB. But from what we know now it seems exceedingly unlikely that Orys Baratheon and Argella Durrandon had only one son, this Davos we meet in TSotD. There are no Baratheon cousins of Rogar's mentioned in FaB. Orys could have had daughters, I guess, but more than one son is not likely right now. Raymont could have fit in as a second son born some time after Davos.

The Baratheon tree demands now that Orys and Argella produce Rogar's father very quickly after the Conquest. Rogar is ten years younger than Alyssa, means he is born in 17 AC, demanding that Orys and Argella produce Rogar's father in the first years after the Conquest. The Baratheons certainly are lusty fellows, but since Rogar is not a bastard he was likely only fathered after his father's marriage - and this likely happened only when Orys' son was, say, 14-17.

I certainly agree that Raymont's death could have been presented in a manner that could have been interesting, as could have been more background on Orys, Rogar's likely father Davos, and Rogar's role during the reign of Aenys and Maegor, but we got nothing about him or his brothers in those years. For instance, were Rogar and his brothers with Grandpa Orys and their presumptive dad, Davos, when he rode against the Vulture King? What did Rogar and his huge axe do during the reign of Maegor?

All this is really vexing since it is quite obvious, for instance, that Rogar must have indeed been effectively Jaehaerys' stepfather if Alyssa and the children actually hid at Storm's End - or with the help of the Baratheons, at least - for four years. The boy was ten and Alysanne eight when they fled Dragonstone on dragonback (presumably). I can say them hiding the dragons down in the harbor beneath Storm's End if they flew in there in the middle of a storm at night, but there is no way that Alyssa and the children could hide anywhere outside Storm's End with two pretty large dragons.

And the fact that the likeliest/sanest scenario for them hiding has them at Storm's End, means that both the Rogar-Alyssa marriage came as late as it came as well as the fact that Jaehaerys and Alysanne were not married or betrothed to some Baratheons really odd. Granted, there doesn't seem to have been a Baratheon girl for Jaehaerys, but Orryn Baratheon was alive and there in 44-48 AC, too. He did not only pop into existence in 49 AC.

But I digress.

[Daemon of the Blacks]

Cole is a pretty serious contender. 

Part of the reason is sheer scale. Men like Meryn Trant or the Peake cronies are scumbags who might have caused dozens of death, and Lucamore had some kids but Cole's actions caused the deaths of thousands of people and crippled his dynasty. 

You could argue Cole took his duties the least seriously. 

Kingsguards aren't to marry but part of Cole's motivation might be spite about his queen not wanting to marry him.

Kingsguards must be loyal to their king but Cole saw fit to personally sabotage his kings inheritance after his death and tried to murder the daughter the king wanted to succeed him.

Kingsguard must be loyal to their king regardless of who it is. Kingsguards have served tyrants, madmen and dullards and accepted this as their duty but Cole found his future Queen merely being a bit slutty to be completely unacceptable and so took it upon himself to crown a better ruler. Jaime, the other Kingsguard of Aerys, the guards of Maegor or Aegon IV were stuck with their loony kings but Cole didn't even attempt to serve his queen, instead willing trading his loyalty to the incompetent Aegon II and the dullard Aemond. Cole made the decision no kingsguard should make, that the ruler was unworthy and needed to be replaced and did this by willingly swearing fealty to even less worthy figures.