The Kingsguard's oaths when the king dies

[Anthony Appleyard]

In Fire and Blood, when King Maegor died, his Kingsguard hoped to quietly transfer their sworn allegiance without difficulty to his heir Jaehaerys I, but difficulties arose. Under what circumstances would a Kingsguard be allowed to transfer their allegiance to the next king? What would have happened here if Jaehaerys's son Aemon had survived his battles and inherited?

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

Well under normal succession nothing changes. The thing with Jaehaerys and Maegor is that Jaehaerys had already proclaimed himself king and as such there were 2 different kings that tested the KG vows.

[Lord Varys]

It is up to the king whether he wants to take/keep the Kingsguard of his predecessor, just as the KG have to make up their mind whether they want to serve under the new king or break their vows and defect to another claimant.

Just like the lords and knights of the Realm have to renew their oaths of fealty to the new king when they do him homage at his coronation or whenever they first interact the KG have to be confirmed in their office, too. It is customary for the Kingsguard to serve for life, but as Cersei points out in AGoT it is unclear whether this refers to their life or the life of their king. Selmy is the first KG who is 'retired' but other kings before Joffrey found ways to rid themselves of KG they did not want. We know how Jaehaerys I did it, and Aegon III likely would have cleansed his KG of Marston Waters and other Green elements as well once he came of age ... but he didn't have to because they seemed to have died all during his minority.

The idea that a king is sort of forced to keep a Kingsguard he loathes, hates, or fears is not very convincing. It is his Kingsguard. The way to rid yourself of them prior to Selmy would have been the way of Jaehaerys I - execution or the Wall.

[Ran]

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Well under normal succession nothing changes. The thing with Jaehaerys and Maegor is that Jaehaerys had already proclaimed himself king and as such there were 2 different kings that tested the KG vows.

Exactly right. The Kingsguard serve for life. When a king dies, they serve his successor. When the succession is contested, that is the point where it gets tricky, but otherwise the vows are a straightforward service to the king on the Iron Throne, whoever they may be.

[Lord Varys]

30 minutes ago, Ran said:

Exactly right. The Kingsguard serve for life. When a king dies, they serve his successor. When the succession is contested, that is the point where it gets tricky, but otherwise the vows are a straightforward service to the king on the Iron Throne, whoever they may be.

That is how it should be. The fiction, if you will. The facts are more complex. Jaehaerys I was the obvious successor of Maegor the Cruel, yet he removed all the surviving men from his Kingsguard - even those who wanted to join them. And even those who did not join did not really ever actively fight against Jaehaerys himself. A similar thing happened with Aerys II's Kingsguard - it wasn't a given that Jaime and Barristan would be taken over by Robert Baratheon.

Sure, those are more extreme cases, but I'd not be surprised if other kings also refused to take on the thugs their predecessors left them - I certainly could see Daeron II 'persuading' some of the corrupt men that must have been in his father's KG (unless the Dragonknight made sure only good men got white cloaks) to take the black. The KG are sworn to obey, after all.

Thankfully George didn't go with the idea that the sanctity of the KG vows supersede the wishes and will of the king.

[Anthony Appleyard]

And, even the greatest loyalty in a Kingsguard member would not stop him from being made unfit for the job by age or illness or injury.

 

[Ran]

7 hours ago, Anthony Appleyard said:

And, even the greatest loyalty in a Kingsguard member would not stop him from being made unfit for the job by age or illness or injury.

 

See here:

Quote

2) What would happen if a Kingsguard is seriously crippled, thus that he is unable to protect the king anymore?

With seven Kingsguard, there are usually enough who are young and strong to allow older members to serve our their lives with honor.

Hence Ser Harlan Grandison, the old Kingsguard knight who died in his sleep.

Barristan Selmy's vision of things is the intention of things. Maegor's Kingsguard were treated by Jaehaerys as, essentially, false Kingsguard -- oathbreakers and murderers, to boot -- and so were no hindrance to his naming successors following their taking the black.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Hence Ser Harlan Grandison, the old Kingsguard knight who died in his sleep.

One should also keep in mind that the KG were never the only bodyguards and sworn swords the kings had to protect them. If there was a case where half the KG were toothless dotards (which certainly could have been the case late in the reign of Jaehaerys I or early on during the reign of Viserys I) most of their duties would be taken by other men.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Barristan Selmy's vision of things is the intention of things. Maegor's Kingsguard were treated by Jaehaerys as, essentially, false Kingsguard -- oathbreakers and murderers, to boot -- and so were no hindrance to his naming successors following their taking the black.

That doesn't seem to be the case since we have essentially no clue whether Maegor's KG did not also still include men who had been given their white close by Aegon the Conqueror or King Aenys. Nothing indicates that a Kingsguard resisted Maegor's usurpation or stood with Aegon the Uncrowned. One could make a case that the KG chosen by Maegor were seen as false KG, but certainly not the men chosen by Jaehaerys' father or grandfather.

Also, this view is not supported by the arguments/pretexts chosen to condemn the KG who abandoned Maegor to join Jaehaerys. They were condemned as turncloaks who betrayed their king, meaning Jaehaerys I and his court definitely did see those men as proper Kingsguard - their problem was that they served the wrong king and thus had no way to ever be taken in by the new king.

We see a similar thing happening when Aegon II's KG are see as complicit in the murder of their king.

[Anthony Appleyard]

There is the situation of a King's Guard member who is loyal and of good intentions, but the passage of years has slowed his reactions and stiffened his joints, and perhaps also impaired his vision, to the point where he would be not much use against an attacker:

(1) The case of such a man who realizes that he is no longer physically fit for his job and wants to retire and be replaced.

(2) The case of such a man who does not realize that he is no longer physically fit for his job.

 

[Ran]

11 hours ago, Anthony Appleyard said:

There is the situation of a King's Guard member who is loyal and of good intentions, but the passage of years has slowed his reactions and stiffened his joints, and perhaps also impaired his vision, to the point where he would be not much use against an attacker:

(1) The case of such a man who realizes that he is no longer physically fit for his job and wants to retire and be replaced.

They serve for life. They retire when they are dead. George's answer is clear about this, and there are no examples of such a thing for a reason.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

On 2/22/2020 at 12:38 AM, Lord Varys said:

Jaehaerys I was the obvious successor of Maegor the Cruel

Yes but that's not he put it. He presented himself as the heir to Aeny's line, and probably as Aegon the uncrowned's heir. As all the KG swore allegiance to Maegor and not to Aegon, they all willingly supported an usurper, which was true, kinda.

[Lord Varys]

24 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Yes but that's not he put it. He presented himself as the heir to Aeny's line, and probably as Aegon the uncrowned's heir. As all the KG swore allegiance to Maegor and not to Aegon, they all willingly supported an usurper, which was true, kinda.

Again, if there were still men from the Conqueror's or Aenys' Kingsguard among Maegor's - which seems to be the case since we hear only about three KG dying during Maegor's reign (two at the Great Fork of the Blackwater and Ser Owen Bush at the very end of Maegor's reign). I could easily imagine that the two turncloaks who were forced to take the black got their cloaks either from Aegon I or King Aenys.

There is also the fact to consider that Jaehaerys I never actually fought a war or won a battle against his uncle. They were about to get into an open conflict ... and then Maegor just died.

Maegor certainly was a usurper ... but a usurper whose legitimacy was acknowledged by the dowager queen Alyssa, Prince Viserys, Prince Jaehaerys, and Princess Alysanne, at least for a time. This is not a scenario where I'd say that you can say the Kingsguard as an institution was 'of Maegor's'. At least not completely and not while it is not confirmed that Maegor's Seven were all given their cloaks by Maegor (if that were the case things would be different).

But in general one can take the Jaehaerys I example and take that as a guideline how, say, a King Aerion would have dealt with a Ser Duncan the Tall in his Kingsguard (assuming Dunk joined the KG during the reign of Aerys I or Maekar and not only after the Great Council). I think we can agree that King Aerion would not have suffered Dunk in his KG. And we can assume that chances are not that bad that other kings may have similar issues with some of the men their predecessors allowed into the KG.

A king has to be able to trust his bodyguards and feel safe around them, be they Kingsguard or simply hired sworn shields. And if he doesn't trust them with his own person or his family he will find a way to rid himself of them, no matter what their vows say.

This is the real issue - not so much what happens with them when they grow old and useless. Then you just use other non-KG as replacement sworn shields (who may even be treated as KG-in-waiting, sort of like Pylos was the maester-in-waiting at Dragonstone). But if you have men in your KG you do not trust or loath or fear you get rid of them. And chances are that the Wall or execution would be the way to get rid of such men. Milder monarchs may have effectively dismissed them by charging them to permanently protect some royal fief in the middle of nowhere, but I'd not be surprised one bit if other kings had taken a page out of the book of Jaehaerys I to cleanse their Kingsguard once they ascended the throne (and the best candidate for something like that would actually be Daeron II).

It also seems that Aegon III may have set similar precedents not necessarily with the Kingsguard but the Grand Maester. Rhaenyra was the first monarch to name her own Grand Maester and it seems that Aegon III dismissed Munkun as well, either choosing a new Grand Maester himself or forcing the Citadel to send him a replacement. Which would be caused, I assume, by the fact that Munkun sucked as one of the regents and advisers of the king and court during the Regency era - not to mention that Aegon III wouldn't have trusted this man on a personal level considering how Munkun was both one of Peake's lickspittles for a time and had played a crucial role in the whole Secret Siege business.

We know Munkun wasn't Grand Maester in 153 AC at Daeron II's birth but had regained that position by the time of Baelor the Blessed's death years later (presumably because the other Grand Maester had died or had also been dismissed, and one of Aegon III's successors restored Munkun to the office).

[The Grey Wolf]

@Lord Varys

You forgot Ser Davos Darklyn, who was cut down by Lord Corbray at the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye.

Speaking of Maegor's Kingsguard, I find Jaehaerys I's position more than a bit hypocritical. He condemns Ser Jon Tollett, Ser Symond Crayne, and the elderly Ser Harold Langward for serving Maegor (who by this logic did not deserve their fealty because he was a usurper) but on the other hand also condemns Ser Olyver Bracken and Ser Raymund Mallery for abandoning Maegor (who by this logic did deserve their fealty as a crowned and anointed king to whom their oaths were binding).

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Lord Varys

You forgot Ser Davos Darklyn, who was cut down by Lord Corbray at the Battle Beneath the Gods Eye.

Right. I thought there were another. He might have been one of Maegor's choices, now that I think of it. One can expect that Maegor had already replaced the two who were cut down in 42 AC. Darklyn definitely seems to have been a guy firmly in team Maegor - which could also mean he was one of the Conqueror's White Sword - chosen by Visenya.

20 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Speaking of Maegor's Kingsguard, I find Jaehaerys I's position more than a bit hypocritical. He condemns Ser Jon Tollett, Ser Symond Crayne, and the elderly Ser Harold Langward for serving Maegor (who by this logic did not deserve their fealty because he was a usurper) but on the other hand also condemns Ser Olyver Bracken and Ser Raymund Mallery for abandoning Maegor (who by this logic did deserve their fealty as a crowned and anointed king to whom their oaths were binding).

Oh, I'm fine with that. As I try to show, the Kingsguard as such is a somewhat ridiculous institution. It makes no sense that a king would suffer bodyguards in his presence he doesn't like or want there. They are just bodyguards, not powerful people in their own right. But with those rather strict rules in place one needs to create/exploit loopholes if one wants to rid oneself of them. That's what Jaehaerys I did. And as I say - I expect that to have happened more than once.

And both points are valid in their own right - you don't want a KG who supports a usurper (or decides to swear himself to a usurper) and you don't want a KG who tries to leave a sinking ship - because that means you cannot trust that guy to die for you or your family.

I mean, it is a recurring theme that traitors and turncloaks are condemned as such because of their deed because it shows their treacherous and untrustworthy character/nature. The idea in a knight - especially a Kingsguard - and a loyal lord is that they do fulfill whatever vows (of fealty) they swear. If they do not then they should be punished for their betrayal, ideally even by you if you profited from their treason. This is at the core of Ned's loathing of the Lannisters. And it is the core sin/flaw of Robert's reign.

And one can also wonder whether Belgrave and the other members of Aegon II's KG present in KL were truly all condemned because they did not prevent the murder of the king, or whether Cregan and the other Blacks at court didn't just use that as a pretext to rid the court of men they would not want to protect Aegon III (Fell, Waters, and possibly that Wormwood fellow weren't there and couldn't thus be removed from the KG by such a ploy).

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

The Kingsguard serves until death .but they also serves at the discretion of the king ,

After the death of King Robert , Barrie was made to retire .

[Ran]

14 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

The Kingsguard serves until death .but they also serves at the discretion of the king ,

After the death of King Robert , Barrie was made to retire .

That was clearly abnormal abuse of the process by Cersei and Joffrey, without precedent because it’s not how it was intended to work. Every king in the normal succession had his predecessor’s Kingsguard serve them until death, prior to that point.

[alienarea]

30 minutes ago, Ran said:

That was clearly abnormal abuse of the process by Cersei and Joffrey, without precedent because it’s not how it was intended to work. Every king in the normal succession had his predecessor’s Kingsguard serve them until death, prior to that point.

Do we know whether Robert was formally king when the Tower of Joy situation took place? If he hadn't been officially proclaimed king, they may have had a loophole to fight against Ned. In case Robert had officially been proclaimed by then, they were traitors.

[FictionIsntReal]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And both points are valid in their own right - you don't want a KG who supports a usurper (or decides to swear himself to a usurper) and you don't want a KG who tries to leave a sinking ship - because that means you cannot trust that guy to die for you or your family.

They can't both be valid at the same time. If there's no decision a KG could make that Jaehaerys would trust, then he gains no information about any KG's loyalty by the mere fact that they were KG before he became king.

Quote

This is at the core of Ned's loathing of the Lannisters. And it is the core sin/flaw of Robert's reign.

Robert is an interesting contrast since he saved the life of the very loyal Barristan, while also doing nothing about the oathbreaking Jaime.

47 minutes ago, alienarea said:

Do we know whether Robert was formally king when the Tower of Joy situation took place? If he hadn't been officially proclaimed king, they may have had a loophole to fight against Ned. In case Robert had officially been proclaimed by then, they were traitors.

He had been acclaimed as king by his supporters at some time around the battle of the Trident.

[Lord Varys]

25 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

They can't both be valid at the same time. If there's no decision a KG could make that Jaehaerys would trust, then he gains no information about any KG's loyalty by the mere fact that they were KG before he became king.

Nobody said politics have to be internally consistent or fair. As a king you don't really judge people fairly or by the standards you would judge yourself or your own. You don't want people serving your enemies to work for you (much less protect you and your family!) and you don't want bodyguards who show are tendency to betray their employers, either.

A lord switching from Maegor to Jaehaerys is fine ... a Kingsguard (or a man pretending to be a Kingsguard) not so much.

The guys would have been treated better if the Kingsguard wasn't that rigid an order. Jaehaerys I could only execute them or sent them to the Wall. He could not thank them and dismiss them from his service.

25 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Robert is an interesting contrast since he saved the life of the very loyal Barristan, while also doing nothing about the oathbreaking Jaime.

Selmy should have had the grace to ask for his execution or at least to be allowed to take the black. Accepting Robert's pardon and continue to serve him was the wrong thing to do ... even more so because of what Robert's allies did to make him king.

Jaime being kept in the KG soiled both the institution as Ned correctly points out but also Robert's own reign and kingship.

 

[FictionIsntReal]

On 2/24/2020 at 1:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

Selmy should have had the grace to ask for his execution or at least to be allowed to take the black. Accepting Robert's pardon and continue to serve him was the wrong thing to do ... even more so because of what Robert's allies did to make him king.

What did Selmy do to deserve execution? He fought to the best of his abilities, even receiving severe wounds, so an Aerys loyalist wouldn't fault him. And Robert himself didn't fault him for doing that. Nobody wanted him executed.

Quote

Jaime being kept in the KG soiled both the institution as Ned correctly points out but also Robert's own reign and kingship.

This is true, although the great irony there is that Jaime really only embraced an amoral dismissal of oaths and duties afterward.