The Kingsguard's oaths when the king dies

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

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.

He couldn't prevent the cruel murder of his king or the murders of the king's daughter-in-law and grandchildren (nor Rhaegar's, although he died in battle). Like Gyles Belgrave may not have done anything wrong but still may have felt better dying for his failure to save Aegon II than accepting a pardon or taking the black.

In fact, one make the case that Selmy dying would have helped to wash away the stain on the Kingsguard's honor Jaime's betrayal created - better dead than serving in a KG suffering the Kingslayer as a member.

And that Selmy sort of felt that way is rather evident by the fact he decided to join Viserys III and eventually Daenerys to correct his mistake and restore his honor and the honor of his institution

19 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

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

Not really. He joined the KG to be able to fuck his sister some more - meaning his KG vow was a sham from the start. He is worse than Lucamore Strong who likely did not join the KG to be able to fuck and marry a couple of women in secret. Jaime did.

[Frey family reunion]

So, @Ran  what would happen if the King gave the Kingsguard a task, but the King died before they were able to fulfill it?  Would their vow they made to the King continue after his death?

[Ran]

12 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So, @Ran  what would happen if the King gave the Kingsguard a task, but the King died before they were able to fulfill it?  Would their vow they made to the King continue after his death?

GRRM answered a similar question long ago:

Quote

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."
 

 

[frenin]

On 2/24/2020 at 8:41 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.

Hmmm crowning him?? Tywin was not Robert's ally and Barri B knew it.

Barri  B didn't have a really good reason to end his life, the Targs died out and were driven out so he sticked to the next best option.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

GRRM answered a similar question long ago:

This kind of thing is also why a Kingsguard is not automatically part of the KG of his successor - they do have to acknowledge the new king as their king and the king has to accept their service. If a king (let's say Aegon IV) sent a KG to a remote place or abroad to do a mission there and isn't around when the king dies and the new king takes over he isn't part of the Kingsguard of the new king in a meaningful manner - he might even be replaced with a new man if he is presumed dead. The point where a KG joins the service of new monarch is when they establish some sort of actual relationship.

1 minute ago, frenin said:

Hmmm crowning him?? Tywin was not Robert's ally and Barri B knew it.

Sure, he was. Robert even refers to Tywin and his armies as 'their men' when talking with Ned about the Sack. He made Tywin's and Jaime's actions his own by marrying Cersei, keeping Jaime in his KG, and not punishing Tywin and Jaime for their treason. He was fine with murdering women and children to take his throne.

[frenin]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, he was. Robert even refers to Tywin and his armies as 'their men' when talking with Ned about the Sack. He made Tywin's and Jaime's actions his own by marrying Cersei, keeping Jaime in his KG, and not punishing Tywin and Jaime for their treason. He was fine with murdering women and children to take his throne.

No, he wasn't. 

Robert referring to them as our men 15 years later and after being married to his daughter for 13 years is just him doing historic revesion  as Ned himself points out, not our men Tywin's men. He was fine with their deaths because he hated them, their deaths weren't necessary to take the Throne.

And no, he did not make Tywin's actions his by marrying Cersei or pardoning people. Nor do i see Barrí ever believed that. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Like Gyles Belgrave may not have done anything wrong but still may have felt better dying for his failure to save Aegon II than accepting a pardon or taking the black.

Belgrave is not the only King in the story, in fact, those KG who weren't with Aegon were declared  innocent, certainly Willis Fell didn't feel like dying when he was made LC of Aegon the young's KG.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And that Selmy sort of felt that way is rather evident by the fact he decided to join Viserys III and eventually Daenerys to correct his mistake and restore his honor and the honor of his institution

Doubtful, Selmy simply was a loyalist. 

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

No, he wasn't. 

Robert referring to them as our men 15 years later and after being married to his daughter for 13 years is just him doing historic revesion  as Ned himself points out, not our men Tywin's men. He was fine with their deaths because he hated them, their deaths weren't necessary to take the Throne.

LOL, did anybody here say King Robert said back in 283 AC that the Lannister men where his men? No. Robert was still of the opinion that they were doing his men and acting in his best interest. You could make a case when you had evidence that Robert thought in 283 AC that the Lannisters weren't his men. Can you point us to any such evidence?

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

And no, he did not make Tywin's actions his by marrying Cersei or pardoning people. Nor do i see Barrí ever believed that. 

Sure, Robert approved of the murder of the Targaryen children as 'dragon spawn'. He was glad the children were dead. If Ned hadn't made a fuzz he may have even personally rewarded Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch for their good work.

And of course Tywin's and Jaime's actions became Robert after he married Cersei and kept Jaime in his KG. Their houses are united afterwards, both by blood and by keeping a man in your most prestigious Kingsguard order. If you touch shit you start to stink, no?

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

Belgrave is not the only King in the story, in fact, those KG who weren't with Aegon were declared  innocent, certainly Willis Fell didn't feel like dying when he was made LC of Aegon the young's KG.

Belgrave is the one who has the grace to accept that he failed his king and should pay for that failure with his life - either because he could not prevent the murder or because he actually participated in the murder. Nobody ever said anything about Waters and Fell being as guilty as their brethren in KL - why do you bring this up? They were given specific tasks outside the city which did not involve protecting the king's person, meaning they would only be guilty of betrayal/failure if they had failed at their specific tasks.

4 minutes ago, frenin said:

Doubtful, Selmy simply was a loyalist. 

Reread the Selmy's own talk and thoughts about his motivations. He came to regret serving Robert and his thugs ... but unlike a man like Belgrave he didn't have the grace to understand that it was wrong to serve the new regime from the start.

Selmy just jumped ship because he was mistreated by the Baratheon regime and there were other alternatives he can treat as kings now to feel better with himself. He needs a monarch he can protect and he has to believe that being a Kingsguard is a positive, meaningful thing.

[frenin]

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, did anybody here say King Robert said back in 283 AC that the Lannister men where his men? No. Robert was still of the opinion that they were doing his men and acting in his best interest. You could make a case when you had evidence that Robert thought in 283 AC that the Lannisters weren't his men. Can you point us to any such evidence?

You said it, because otherwise the point of making Barri  B feel guilt about something not done by Robert or Robert's commands or even by Robert's men.

Using Ad ignorantiam is ludicrous, if you want to argue that Robert believe they were his men, use Robert's words at the time, using 15 years revisionist  words is simply absurd. Do you have any evidence of Robert seeing them as his men then?? Nope, you have evidence of him seeing them as his men 15 years later, so why should Barri B feel guilty about what Robert might believe 15 years from then??

 

 

31 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, Robert approved of the murder of the Targaryen children as 'dragon spawn'. He was glad the children were dead. If Ned hadn't made a fuzz he may have even personally rewarded Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch for their good work.

And of course Tywin's and Jaime's actions became Robert after he married Cersei and kept Jaime in his KG. Their houses are united afterwards, both by blood and by keeping a man in your most prestigious Kingsguard order. If you touch shit you start to stink, no?

Wow, something else?? Maybe even given  them a lordship?? Where is the evidence that he was glad?? He was indiferent  to it.

 

Hmm, they were still them, if Robert was stained for something was for condoning them. 

 

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Belgrave is the one who has the grace to accept that he failed his king and should pay for that failure with his life - either because he could not prevent the murder or because he actually participated in the murder. Nobody ever said anything about Waters and Fell being as guilty as their brethren in KL - why do you bring this up? They were given specific tasks outside the city which did not involve protecting the king's person, meaning they would only be guilty of betrayal/failure if they had failed at their specific tasks.

Don't know if you feel free  to pick a random  that may be similar to the topic at hand, it isn't, and you decide arbitrarily to use it as a well conduct  guide, why shouldn't i do the same??

Perhaps because Waters and Fell weren't in King's Landing just like Barristan.

Beside's being Belgrave's own opinions, those who weren't at KG and thus had absolutely nothing to do with the Kings dead were Declares innocent, Barristan was in the Trident when the Sack happened and near dead for that matter, how his and Belgrave' s case (beside's being again Belgrave's own weird choice ).

 

 

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Reread the Selmy's own talk and thoughts about his motivations. He came to regret serving Robert and his thugs ... but unlike a man like Belgrave he didn't have the grace to understand that it was wrong to serve the new regime from the start.

Selmy just jumped ship because he was mistreated by the Baratheon regime and there were other alternatives he can treat as kings now to feel better with himself. He needs a monarch he can protect and he has to believe that being a Kingsguard is a positive, meaningful thing.

I did.

Perhaps because the idea that there wasn't no grace, just your bias, nor It was wrong to serve Robert and his thugs, lmao, when he had already served  Aerys and his thugs, lmao again.  When he was kicked out by the Baratheons he regained his old loyalty.

 

 

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

GRRM answered a similar question long ago:

 

So, in that setting, the old orders would come before protecting the new King??

[Ran]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

So, in that setting, the old orders would come before protecting the new King??

That seems to be the intent of GRRM's answer. 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

That seems to be the intent of GRRM's answer. 

And we have that effectively confirmed in FaB with Ser Willis Fell not falling over himself in rejoining Aegon II on Dragonstone after he revealed himself or in KL after he was restored to the Red Keep, nor did he join the new monarch, Aegon III, after Aegon II's death. He continued to fulfill his mission as Princess Jaehaera's sworn shield ... despite the fact that Aegon II never gave him that mission in the first place.

A similar thing on a lesser scale takes place in the main series when Ser Arys Oakheart does not double-check with Tywin Lannister (the new Hand) or King Tommen after Joff's death to confirm that the mission the Acting Hand, Tyrion Lannister, gave Ser Arys in King Joffrey's name.

If the KG were supposed to abandon whatever their present mission is and present themselves/double-check with a new king when he takes the throne, then things would have gone very differently there.

Bottom-line is that the KG are just sworn swords - they do as they are told, period.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

You said it, because otherwise the point of making Barri  B feel guilt about something not done by Robert or Robert's commands or even by Robert's men.

Using Ad ignorantiam is ludicrous, if you want to argue that Robert believe they were his men, use Robert's words at the time, using 15 years revisionist  words is simply absurd. Do you have any evidence of Robert seeing them as his men then?? Nope, you have evidence of him seeing them as his men 15 years later, so why should Barri B feel guilty about what Robert might believe 15 years from then??

You have no evidence that Robert didn't also think Tywin and Jaime were his men back in 283 AC, do you?

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Wow, something else?? Maybe even given  them a lordship?? Where is the evidence that he was glad?? He was indiferent  to it.

He was angry that Eddard dared to say they were innocent children - they were dragon spawn (monsters, if you will). And this went so far that Robert and Ned's friendship ended. They did not leave on good terms - Robert had worked himself into an angry frenzy and Ned left KL with a cold rage. They only resumed their friendship when grieved for Lyanna together ... if that hadn't happened then chances are pretty good that the direwolf and the stag wouldn't have been friends or allies once Ned returned from the south.

Robert's actions make his preferences clear - he did not only not punish Tywin and Jaime, he rewarded them by keeping Jaime and marrying Cersei. If Robert had disapproved and had felt he should, for political reasons, not move directly against the Lannisters, he could have pulled something like Tyrion did in ACoK - punish the catspaw, spare the commander - when he punished Janos Slynt and Allar Deem for the murder of Barra and her mother. Tywin couldn't have protected Clegane and Lorch from that, nor would he have cared much what happened to them if he and Jaime got away with what they pulled. In fact, knowing his Westerosi history Tywin would have been very concerned how the new king would treat his dear son. He would have focused all his energy on ensuring that Robert Baratheon did not pull a Jaehaerys I on Jaime.

Instead, Robert spared them all and verbally attacked his best friend who had been wronged much more than he, Robert, had by the Targaryens yet was still demanding justice for them.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Don't know if you feel free  to pick a random  that may be similar to the topic at hand, it isn't, and you decide arbitrarily to use it as a well conduct  guide, why shouldn't i do the same??

Perhaps because Waters and Fell weren't in King's Landing just like Barristan.

Selmy still failed his king and prince. Sucking up to the people who killed and butchered the people had sworn to protect is a very dishonorable thing to do. And he understands that - which is why he doesn't join Stannis or Renly or Robb after Joffrey dismisses him.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

Beside's being Belgrave's own opinions, those who weren't at KG and thus had absolutely nothing to do with the Kings dead were Declares innocent, Barristan was in the Trident when the Sack happened and near dead for that matter, how his and Belgrave' s case (beside's being again Belgrave's own weird choice ).

While we don't have evidence that Belgrave or any of his brothers who were in KL were involved in the poisoning plot their arrest and condemnation is completely arbitrary and could thus also be used with Selmy, never mind that he was wounded in battle.

And if we assume for a moment that Belgrave was completely innocent (which is not that unlikely since one would not regularly include the Kingsguard in a conspiracy to murder the king) then he still ended up sharing Cregan Stark's view that a Kingsguard should not survive his king. He was not content going to the Wall, he wanted to be executed, possibly (if he was indeed not involved in Aegon II's murder) to sent the message that he wanted to be an exemplatory Kingsguard.

Kingsguard aren't bloodriders who routinely are expected to die after their khal - but I think we can say that the ideal is that they do not survive their king if the king is killed in battle or is murdered. Because they should be at his side and die with him if that happens.

In fact, we also see that view in Ned's fever dream at the tower - Dayne, Whent, and Hightower are there to fulfill their last duty for their late king, Aerys II, and his house. They fulfill their last mission and are quite happy to die in the process of it. One could even say they prefer to go out with a bang rather than to linger on now that Aerys II, Rhaegar, and all the Targaryens are dead, betrayed and murdered by one of their own sworn brothers.

5 hours ago, frenin said:

I did.

Perhaps because the idea that there wasn't no grace, just your bias, nor It was wrong to serve Robert and his thugs, lmao, when he had already served  Aerys and his thugs, lmao again.  When he was kicked out by the Baratheons he regained his old loyalty.

It took him some time to figure it out but he felt soiled by serving Robert and his family. If he had truly become a Baratheon man he would have joined Stannis or Renly. There was no need for him to search for the Beggar King.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You have no evidence that Robert didn't also think Tywin and Jaime were his men back in 283 AC, do you?

So your whole argument is just one giant ad ignorantiam huh. That's just bad faith, i'm not interested.

But regarding your argument, do you have any evidence that Barri B considered Tywin Robert's men?? You're making the claims, you should back them up.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He was angry that Eddard dared to say they were innocent children - they were dragon spawn (monsters, if you will). And this went so far that Robert and Ned's friendship ended. They did not leave on good terms - Robert had worked himself into an angry frenzy and Ned left KL with a cold rage. They only resumed their friendship when grieved for Lyanna together ... if that hadn't happened then chances are pretty good that the direwolf and the stag wouldn't have been friends or allies once Ned returned from the south.

More like Ned was angry because Robert dehumanized them. But i don't really see the point of this, 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 Robert's actions make his preferences clear - he did not only not punish Tywin and Jaime, he rewarded them by keeping Jaime and marrying Cersei. If Robert had disapproved and had felt he should, for political reasons, not move directly against the Lannisters, he could have pulled something like Tyrion did in ACoK - punish the catspaw, spare the commander - when he punished Janos Slynt and Allar Deem for the murder of Barra and her mother. Tywin couldn't have protected Clegane and Lorch from that, nor would he have cared much what happened to them if he and Jaime got away with what they pulled. In fact, knowing his Westerosi history Tywin would have been very concerned how the new king would treat his dear son. He would have focused all his energy on ensuring that Robert Baratheon did not pull a Jaehaerys I on Jaime.

Sure, it makes perfectly clear that he did not care about Targ's death in any meaningful or positive sense, it does not make clear that Robert was glad with their deaths.

And just another time, he did not reward Tywin for his deeds by marrying Cersei, that was a completely unrelated event, hell it wasn't even his idea.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Selmy still failed his king and prince. Sucking up to the people who killed and butchered the people had sworn to protect is a very dishonorable thing to do. And he understands that - which is why he doesn't join Stannis or Renly or Robb after Joffrey dismisses him.

Selmy did not fail his king and i fail to see how he could fail his Prince. He served to a new order because he believed in said new order, its not until Robert proves be a failure and he sees how fall his order has fallen he starts having second doubts, had Robert been Jaeharys 2.0, he would've been as much as a Baratheon man as Ned was.

Now, i fail to see the dishonor, i know that you want to believe it dishonorable, the KG had done so or tried to do so a couple of times it's up to the King,  Willis Fell had no trouble sucking up to Corlys even when he was a confess kingslayer.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

While we don't have evidence that Belgrave or any of his brothers who were in KL were involved in the poisoning plot their arrest and condemnation is completely arbitrary and could thus also be used with Selmy, never mind that he was wounded in battle.

 

Just as Willis Fell and the other two KG can be used with Selmy, Willis Fell and co were exonarated because they weren't at KL. Selmy was not at KL when that happened.  The Sack had already happened when a near dead Selmy was brought to the capital. 

Leaving aside the fact that condemnto death people just for the basis of "no KG should outlive his king with this die by violence" is just stupid.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Kingsguard aren't bloodriders who routinely are expected to die after their khal - but I think we can say that the ideal is that they do not survive their king if the king is killed in battle or is murdered. Because they should be at his side and die with him if that happens.

 

I don't think we can say that, like at all, KG are glorified bodyguards and as such the idea is that their Kings outlive them not th other way around, but the whole we have to join our Pharaoh in the afterlife is just nonsense.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 And if we assume for a moment that Belgrave was completely innocent (which is not that unlikely since one would not regularly include the Kingsguard in a conspiracy to murder the king) then he still ended up sharing Cregan Stark's view that a Kingsguard should not survive his king. He was not content going to the Wall, he wanted to be executed, possibly (if he was indeed not involved in Aegon II's murder) to sent the message that he wanted to be an exemplatory Kingsguard.

 

And his brothers did not share said that view, in fact until Cregan showed up and sentenced them to death, he was very happy with keeping that pretty cloak, ofc that when your choices are only penal colony in Siberia or death, you can be as exemplatory as you want.

Fact still is, Belgrave and  Selmy's cases are as similar as Jaime and Tyrion.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 In fact, we also see that view in Ned's fever dream at the tower - Dayne, Whent, and Hightower are there to fulfill their last duty for their late king, Aerys II, and his house. They fulfill their last mission and are quite happy to die in the process of it. One could even say they prefer to go out with a bang rather than to linger on now that Aerys II, Rhaegar, and all the Targaryens are dead, betrayed and murdered by one of their own sworn brothers.

Nope, they were given an order  by Rhaegar and they sticked to it, that's fine however, KG are still people, there is no creed to follow, if they wanted to go as stupidely as that and killing 5 good men in the process, well, who are we to say to argue.

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It took him some time to figure it out but he felt soiled by serving Robert and his family. If he had truly become a Baratheon man he would have joined Stannis or Renly. There was no need for him to search for the Beggar King.

He wouldn't have joined the beggar king one way or the other. He did not feel soiled by serving Robert and his family... he did his stupid duty and that's all.

And where did i say that he become a Baratheon man?? He was free to choose and so he did, not that make sense serving a Baratheon when he did not know that Joffrey was born of incest, so it would've been weird at the very best just join people who def were usurpers.

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

So your whole argument is just one giant ad ignorantiam huh. That's just bad faith, i'm not interested.

Nobody said you had to be.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

But regarding your argument, do you have any evidence that Barri B considered Tywin Robert's men?? You're making the claims, you should back them up.

You doubted my argument when you first entered this discussion stating that:

8 hours ago, frenin said:

Hmmm crowning him?? Tywin was not Robert's ally and Barri B knew it.

Barri  B didn't have a really good reason to end his life, the Targs died out and were driven out so he sticked to the next best option.

Care to point us to any nonexisting textual evidence that Barristan Selmy took King Robert's pardon and decided to join his Kingsguard before the Sack when Robert wasn't king yet and hadn't pardoned and rewarded the Lannisters for the leal service they did to the Baratheon cause?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

More like Ned was angry because Robert dehumanized them. But i don't really see the point of this, 

On what do you base your likelihood here? Not my problem that you don't see things here.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Sure, it makes perfectly clear that he did not care about Targ's death in any meaningful or positive sense, it does not make clear that Robert was glad with their deaths.

And just another time, he did not reward Tywin for his deeds by marrying Cersei, that was a completely unrelated event, hell it wasn't even his idea.

Sure he was glad, else he wouldn't have defended that they were dead. If I see dead children I'm abhorred, and if I can punish their murderers I do. Robert was and did neither.

LOL, announcing his marriage to Cersei Lannister was Robert Baratheon's first act as king (according to Yandel). We don't know when they married by I'm inclined to believe Robert's coronation and wedding were the same event - sort of like it was with Aegon III and Jaehaera. Robert doesn't have to say that marrying the daughter of scheming, evil Lannister lord is a reward - it is a reward by default because it isn't accompanied by a punishment.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Selmy did not fail his king and i fail to see how he could fail his Prince. He served to a new order because he believed in said new order, its not until Robert proves be a failure and he sees how fall his order has fallen he starts having second doubts, had Robert been Jaeharys 2.0, he would've been as much as a Baratheon man as Ned was.

He failed his prince because he didn't save him. Just as Connington failed his prince. He also failed his king because he could save him and because he didn't see Jaime for the traitor and turncloak that he was.

Robert was a failure from the start because he failed to avenge the murders of his Targaryen cousins - King Aerys II and his two grandchildren and daughter-in-law.

Robert didn't found a 'new order' - where are you getting things like that?

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Now, i fail to see the dishonor, i know that you want to believe it dishonorable, the KG had done so or tried to do so a couple of times it's up to the King,  Willis Fell had no trouble sucking up to Corlys even when he was a confess kingslayer.

Where did Willis Fell ever suck up to Corlys Velaryon? He was named Lord Commander of the Kingsguard but there is no indication that Corlys suggested him to the position. Fell only showed up at court with the Princess Jaehaera after Cregan Stark had given up his plans to continue the war and the Greens had accepted the peace terms offered in the name of the new king-to-be.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Just as Willis Fell and the other two KG can be used with Selmy, Willis Fell and co were exonarated because they weren't at KL. Selmy was not at KL when that happened.  The Sack had already happened when a near dead Selmy was brought to the capital. 

Leaving aside the fact that condemnto death people just for the basis of "no KG should outlive his king with this die by violence" is just stupid.

Yet it is still something Ser Gyles Belgrave seemed to believe in, no matter whether you like that or not.

That exoneration was an arbitary thing. They had no evidence that Belgrave or either of his brothers were involved, and no evidence that those not in KL were innocent. If those are the standards to judge people then there aren't any standards.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't think we can say that, like at all, KG are glorified bodyguards and as such the idea is that their Kings outlive them not th other way around, but the whole we have to join our Pharaoh in the afterlife is just nonsense.

They don't have to - but they can, as Belgrave shows. In a sense, the three knights at the tower did (it is ridiculous to assume that they wanted to win three of their seven opponents were a former squire who spent some time in captivity, mediocre swordsman Eddard Stark, and a crannogman). Three men against seven means two men and a third for each KG, they should have been able to deal with that. Yet they could only slay only five of those seven and got themselves killed in the process. That is a lousy score for three of the greatest knights alive.

It is the ultimate dishonor for a Kingsguard if you fail to save a king who was fighting beside you or who is murdered in your presence, just as it is the utmost dishonor to serve at the side of scum like Jaime Lannister who turns against your king when you look the other way. The idea that these people where happy with themselves and felt they did their duty is ... very far-fetched, to say the least.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

And his brothers did not share said that view, in fact until Cregan showed up and sentenced them to death, he was very happy with keeping that pretty cloak, ofc that when your choices are only penal colony in Siberia or death, you can be as exemplatory as you want.

Fact still is, Belgrave and  Selmy's cases are as similar as Jaime and Tyrion.

Nobody said Belgrave was an ideal guy. Perhaps he knew the wine was poisoned gladly listened how Aegon II breathed his last? We don't know. But the fact remains that he decided to prefer death to the black and took up Cregan's reasoning there. And that makes sense - KG should not outlive or survive their king if he is murdered or dies in battle.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Nope, they were given an order  by Rhaegar and they sticked to it, that's fine however, KG are still people, there is no creed to follow, if they wanted to go as stupidely as that and killing 5 good men in the process, well, who are we to say to argue.

We don't know that they were given a command by Rhaegar. George is using a hypothetical in his answer. He didn't give anything away.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

He wouldn't have joined the beggar king one way or the other. He did not feel soiled by serving Robert and his family... he did his stupid duty and that's all.

Reread your stuff. Selmy set out to join Viserys III. That's why he went to Illyrio. He didn't go there to join the girl. He didn't even know Viserys III was dead.

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

And where did i say that he become a Baratheon man?? He was free to choose and so he did, not that make sense serving a Baratheon when he did not know that Joffrey was born of incest, so it would've been weird at the very best just join people who def were usurpers.

You said 'when he was kicked out by the Baratheons he regained his old loyalty' - men in service to the Baratheons are Baratheon men by default. They do not have, say, Stark men in their immediate employ. As a Kingsguard Barristan Selmy was what one could call a core Baratheon man in two ways - first as Stormlander by birth, and second by means of serving King Robert Baratheon in his Kingsguard.

Selmy definitely knew that Joff wasn't Robert's son because Ned pretty much says just that in the throne room when he is arrested while Selmy is standing right there. And he later even makes it clear that he expects Stannis Baratheon to take the Iron Throne from Joffrey when he leaves Joff's service.

[frenin]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Care to point us to any nonexisting textual evidence that Barristan Selmy took King Robert's pardon and decided to join his Kingsguard before the Sack when Robert wasn't king yet and hadn't pardoned and rewarded the Lannisters for the leal service they did to the Baratheon cause?

You keep twisting my words. 

Barristan knew that when that happened they weren't allies. Barristan took Robert's pardon at his crowning your "reward", because it wasn't a reward, happened a year after Robert's crowning.

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

On what do you base your likelihood here? Not my problem that you don't see things here.

On the fact that the storm, as Ned defines it, only started when Robert said the kids were dragonspawn.

Now, i see perfectly what you want to say, i don't see the relevance of it, why Ned and Robert not being friends anymore after the Sack is any relevant to this?? If you bother to write all that, you should at least explain why you did it.

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure he was glad, else he wouldn't have defended that they were dead. If I see dead children I'm abhorred, and if I can punish their murderers I do. Robert was and did neither.

LOL, announcing his marriage to Cersei Lannister was Robert Baratheon's first act as king (according to Yandel). We don't know when they married by I'm inclined to believe Robert's coronation and wedding were the same event - sort of like it was with Aegon III and Jaehaera. Robert doesn't have to say that marrying the daughter of scheming, evil Lannister lord is a reward - it is a reward by default because it isn't accompanied by a punishment.

Well, if we were to judge human actions just by your own bar, i'd agree. Indifference is not the same as joice. Robert did not care one way or the other about their deaths, that's why he called it war, but gladness is a very specific emotion that we don't see. 

 

That may be so, but Robert and Cersei married in 284 AC, Robert took the throne a year before. Well, he has to say it, or if not is just a political move.

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He failed his prince because he didn't save him. Just as Connington failed his prince. He also failed his king because he could save him and because he didn't see Jaime for the traitor and turncloak that he was.

 

You're being ludicrous here.

One might argue that he "failed his king", i  don't believe that for a second but to each... But there rest is simply absurd, how was he going to save him if he was near dead and in the Trident, how can you even fault him with a straigh face "not having recognized Jaime for the traitor and turncloak that he was".  

Not that Connington faild his prince either, survivor's guilt isn't real guilt. Are you reallly being swayed by that??

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Robert was a failure from the start because he failed to avenge the murders of his Targaryen cousins - King Aerys II and his two grandchildren and daughter-in-law.

 

So... People he hated and it was known he hated??

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Robert didn't found a 'new order' - where are you getting things like that?

Nor did i say that. I was talking about Barri B.

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Where did Willis Fell ever suck up to Corlys Velaryon? He was named Lord Commander of the Kingsguard but there is no indication that Corlys suggested him to the position. Fell only showed up at court with the Princess Jaehaera after Cregan Stark had given up his plans to continue the war and the Greens had accepted the peace terms offered in the name of the new king-to-be.

Where Barri B ever did that to people that butchered and killed he had sworn to protect?? Where did Barri ever didthat to the Lannisters??

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yet it is still something Ser Gyles Belgrave seemed to believe in, no matter whether you like that or not.

That exoneration was an arbitary thing. They had no evidence that Belgrave or either of his brothers were involved, and no evidence that those not in KL were innocent. If those are the standards to judge people then there aren't any standards.

Ofc, after he was given the great choices of either being executed or being sent to Siberia for life, maybe if Barristan ever face such dilemma... But he never did. Belgrave had zero problems with being a KG under Aegon 3 until that door was closed forever.

Ofc that it was an arbitrarily thing, but since you're nitpicking randomly events to shit on Barristan for not joining the Targs in death or exile...

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They don't have to - but they can, as Belgrave shows. In a sense, the three knights at the tower did (it is ridiculous to assume that they wanted to win three of their seven opponents were a former squire who spent some time in captivity, mediocre swordsman Eddard Stark, and a crannogman). Three men against seven means two men and a third for each KG, they should have been able to deal with that. Yet they could only slay only five of those seven and got themselves killed in the process. That is a lousy score for three of the greatest knights alive.

It is the ultimate dishonor for a Kingsguard if you fail to save a king who was fighting beside you or who is murdered in your presence, just as it is the utmost dishonor to serve at the side of scum like Jaime Lannister who turns against your king when you look the other way. The idea that these people where happy with themselves and felt they did their duty is ... very far-fetched, to say the least.

Belgrave does not show much, he's only choosing between two deaths.

Where is said that Ned is mediocre swordsmen?? Without actually seeing the combat, i fail to see your point, 7 v 3 seems like a sure for anybody unless 2 of those 3 are The Mountain and his brother.

About the latter, i doubt that they were happy, the Targs and their cause were gone, their brothers were either dead or Jaime, there is a big distance between that and suicide.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody said Belgrave was an ideal guy. Perhaps he knew the wine was poisoned gladly listened how Aegon II breathed his last? We don't know. But the fact remains that he decided to prefer death to the black and took up Cregan's reasoning there. And that makes sense - KG should not outlive or survive their king if he is murdered or dies in battle.

When the only choices are two awful choices, picking one does not make you having a point, if Belgrave believe that, he would not have waited to be sentenced to death...  to choose death,

It does not make any sense whatsoever, it's a very ludicrous idea actually, but it's not like Westeros is very sound, the curious thing is that you agree with that.

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know that they were given a command by Rhaegar. George is using a hypothetical in his answer. He didn't give anything away.

Aerys worked just fine, he said Rhaegar.

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Reread your stuff. Selmy set out to join Viserys III. That's why he went to Illyrio. He didn't go there to join the girl. He didn't even know Viserys III was dead.

I know what i said, Barristan would not have joined Viserys even if that was his initial intention, no one would've. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You said 'when he was kicked out by the Baratheons he regained his old loyalty' - men in service to the Baratheons are Baratheon men by default. They do not have, say, Stark men in their immediate employ. As a Kingsguard Barristan Selmy was what one could call a core Baratheon man in two ways - first as Stormlander by birth, and second by means of serving King Robert Baratheon in his Kingsguard.

Selmy definitely knew that Joff wasn't Robert's son because Ned pretty much says just that in the throne room when he is arrested while Selmy is standing right there. And he later even makes it clear that he expects Stannis Baratheon to take the Iron Throne from Joffrey when he leaves Joff's service.

A faulty default. Barristan grew amongst Targs, was given his nickname by a Targ prince, was knighted by a Targ king and fought two wars, without counting every fire he would've had to put out for Egg, for two different Targ kings. It's pretty clear where his heart lies.

That Selmy hear it does not meam, at any rate that he believed it, he never refers to them as bastards, not even talking to Dany. 

[FictionIsntReal]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He couldn't prevent the cruel murder of his king or the murders of the king's daughter-in-law and grandchildren (nor Rhaegar's, although he died in battle). Like Gyles Belgrave may not have done anything wrong but still may have felt better dying for his failure to save Aegon II than accepting a pardon or taking the black.

Barristan wasn't in King's Landing at the time, unlike Belgrave. The KG away from the king were specifically exempted.

Quote

And that Selmy sort of felt that way is rather evident by the fact he decided to join Viserys III and eventually Daenerys to correct his mistake and restore his honor and the honor of his institution

He was kicked out after Joffrey replaced Robert on the throne, and fled the city as a wanted man. He was unsure at first whether to join Viserys and hoped to observe him incognito. When Robert was dying, Selmy lamented that he had failed to save him. Afterward, he's shocked when Cersei tears up Robert's order that Ned be made Lord Protector because those are "the king's words".

Quote

Not really. He joined the KG to be able to fuck his sister some more - meaning his KG vow was a sham from the start. He is worse than Lucamore Strong who likely did not join the KG to be able to fuck and marry a couple of women in secret. Jaime did.

That is a good point, as he was planning on breaking the oath of celibacy and the taboo against incest which applies beyond KG. But at the same time he still thought of himself as bound to be loyal to his king, and found himself torn between his antipathy for Aerys and his duty as a KG. He only decided to betray his king when Tywin was sacking the city and Aerys ordered Jaime to bring back his head.

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, did anybody here say King Robert said back in 283 AC that the Lannister men where his men? No. Robert was still of the opinion that they were doing his men and acting in his best interest. You could make a case when you had evidence that Robert thought in 283 AC that the Lannisters weren't his men. Can you point us to any such evidence?

Ned was racing to KL to try to get there ahead of Tywin precisely because Tywin wasn't known to be Robert's man.

Quote

Sure, Robert approved of the murder of the Targaryen children as 'dragon spawn'. He was glad the children were dead. If Ned hadn't made a fuzz he may have even personally rewarded Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch for their good work.

Clegane and Lorch's involvement was not public knowledge. TWOIAF ludicrously suggests that Elia might have killed her own children because the ruling regime would not want to take responsibility. Tywin says he ordered it precisely because he knew Robert would not want such responsibility, although Tywin wasn't officially going to take responsibility for it either. He only wanted to acknowledge Lorch's role when Oberyn was insisting and Lorch was already dead, but he wasn't going to acknowledge giving Lorch the order.

Quote

They were given specific tasks outside the city which did not involve protecting the king's person

 

As was Selmy.

Quote

Reread the Selmy's own talk and thoughts about his motivations. He came to regret serving Robert and his thugs ... but unlike a man like Belgrave he didn't have the grace to understand that it was wrong to serve the new regime from the start.

Did Robert ever order him to do anything dishonorable?

Quote

Selmy just jumped ship because he was mistreated by the Baratheon regime and there were other alternatives he can treat as kings now to feel better with himself. He needs a monarch he can protect and he has to believe that being a Kingsguard is a positive, meaningful thing.

He didn't "jump" the ship, he was kicked out.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert's actions make his preferences clear - he did not only not punish Tywin and Jaime, he rewarded them by keeping Jaime and marrying Cersei.

 

Keeping Jaime requires no action on Robert's part. Marrying Cersei does, but we also know Robert didn't want to do that, and it was not a reward for King's Landing. Jon Arryn insisted on it to stabilize the new regime, so Robert went along with his decision, just as Stannis had done as he was told with a political marriage.

Quote

If Robert had disapproved and had felt he should, for political reasons, not move directly against the Lannisters, he could have pulled something like Tyrion did in ACoK - punish the catspaw, spare the commander - when he punished Janos Slynt and Allar Deem for the murder of Barra and her mother. Tywin couldn't have protected Clegane and Lorch from that, nor would he have cared much what happened to them if he and Jaime got away with what they pulled. In fact, knowing his Westerosi history Tywin would have been very concerned how the new king would treat his dear son. He would have focused all his energy on ensuring that Robert Baratheon did not pull a Jaehaerys I on Jaime.

Clegane and Lorch's responsibility was not public knowledge, although it was rumored in Casterly Rock. Perhaps Robert could have demanded an investigation at most.

Quote

Selmy still failed his king and prince. Sucking up to the people who killed and butchered the people had sworn to protect is a very dishonorable thing to do. And he understands that - which is why he doesn't join Stannis or Renly or Robb after Joffrey dismisses him.

Quote

It took him some time to figure it out but he felt soiled by serving Robert and his family. If he had truly become a Baratheon man he would have joined Stannis or Renly. There was no need for him to search for the Beggar King.

Stannis hadn't declared himself king yet when Barristan was dismissed, Renly couldn't legitimately claim to be king given his position in the succession, and Robb was only claiming to be King in the North, and Barristan wasn't a northerner.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, announcing his marriage to Cersei Lannister was Robert Baratheon's first act as king (according to Yandel). We don't know when they married by I'm inclined to believe Robert's coronation and wedding were the same event - sort of like it was with Aegon III and Jaehaera.

 

No, it was in 284, the year after he took the throne in 283.

Quote

He failed his prince because he didn't save him. Just as Connington failed his prince. He also failed his king because he could save him and because he didn't see Jaime for the traitor and turncloak that he was.

Other KG are not considered failures for not predicting that a different KG, like Toyne or Cole from the Black POV, would be a traitor. Barristan could not have known ahead of time that Tywin was going to sack the city.

Quote

Robert was a failure from the start because he failed to avenge the murders of his Targaryen cousins - King Aerys II and his two grandchildren and daughter-in-law.

You don't "avenge the murder" of someone you're planning on executing anyway, at most you punish someone for intervening in the proper course of justice. Elia and her children is admittedly another case, but the identities of the perpetrators was not public knowledge.

Quote

We don't know that they were given a command by Rhaegar. George is using a hypothetical in his answer. He didn't give anything away.

Who else would have given them a command? Aerys merely demanded that Rhaegar be found, not that they stick around at a place Aerys didn't even know about.

Quote

Reread your stuff. Selmy set out to join Viserys III. That's why he went to Illyrio. He didn't go there to join the girl. He didn't even know Viserys III was dead.

You said 'when he was kicked out by the Baratheons he regained his old loyalty' - men in service to the Baratheons are Baratheon men by default. They do not have, say, Stark men in their immediate employ. As a Kingsguard Barristan Selmy was what one could call a core Baratheon man in two ways - first as Stormlander by birth, and second by means of serving King Robert Baratheon in his Kingsguard.

KG's owe loyalty to the crown, not the broader family which includes the king. And when he joined the KG, he was no longer to think of himself as a Stormlander or really as a Selmy.

 

10 hours ago, frenin said:

So... People he hated and it was known he hated??

True for Aerys, not for Elia and her children.

Quote

Where is said that Ned is mediocre swordsmen??

GRRM has said he was alright but nothing special.

[frenin]

23 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

True for Aerys, not for Elia and her children.

Don't really know what was the reason he did not bother with Elia but for some reason, someway  during the war he started to resent all the Targs.

 

 

24 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

GRRM has said he was alright but nothing special.

Has he?? The only quote  I've read is the one that says that Brandon was better than Ned while Ned was a better commander.

[Lord Varys]

55 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Barristan wasn't in King's Landing at the time, unlike Belgrave. The KG away from the king were specifically exempted.

Yeah, but that was a completely arbitary and whimsical thing to do. As I think I laid out if mere presence in the same vast building means you are part of a murder conspiracy then I see no reason why absent people could not also be part of that in another arbitary setting. Or feel guilty in a similar manner.

In fact, as I think I pointed out somewhere, too, this ridiculous take on the 'guilt' of Aegon II's Kingsguard could have more to do with Cregan's desire to cleanse the Kingsguard of Greens than to punish the alleged murderers of a king Cregan Stark had intended to slay himself.

But as I said - Belgrave made Cregan Stark's reasoning his own when he chose death. That is significant in my opinion. A symbolic comment on his view of Kingsguard honor and what he, as a Kingsguard, wanted to be. Either not survive the king he swore to die to protect or to be properly punished for the murder of the king he helped to/did murder.

Quote

He was kicked out after Joffrey replaced Robert on the throne, and fled the city as a wanted man. He was unsure at first whether to join Viserys and hoped to observe him incognito. When Robert was dying, Selmy lamented that he had failed to save him. Afterward, he's shocked when Cersei tears up Robert's order that Ned be made Lord Protector because those are "the king's words".

Yes, he needed encouragement - and yes, he wanted to find a worthy king to serve. However, he chose to go to Illyrio Mopatis and wanted to search out Viserys III. That shows a preference right there. It was not easy to get to him.

Quote

That is a good point, as he was planning on breaking the oath of celibacy and the taboo against incest which applies beyond KG. But at the same time he still thought of himself as bound to be loyal to his king, and found himself torn between his antipathy for Aerys and his duty as a KG. He only decided to betray his king when Tywin was sacking the city and Aerys ordered Jaime to bring back his head.

Do you know the 'Hannibal' movie? The one by Ridley Scott? Jaime during the Sack is a little bit like Cordell, that manservant of the horribly disfigured Mason Verger who wanted to feed Hannibal Lecter to the pigs. When his dad and his Westermen stormed the city Jaime realized he could murder the man he was bound to serve and get away with it without facing rather dire repercussions.

Fundamentally it is the act of coward emboldened by the circumstances. His decision to kill the king is completely different from his decision to prevent the wildfire plot.

Quote

Ned was racing to KL to try to get there ahead of Tywin precisely because Tywin wasn't known to be Robert's man.

Is there any indication the gang at the Trident had had word that the Westermen were on the move? I don't think so.

Quote

Clegane and Lorch's involvement was not public knowledge. TWOIAF ludicrously suggests that Elia might have killed her own children because the ruling regime would not want to take responsibility. Tywin says he ordered it precisely because he knew Robert would not want such responsibility, although Tywin wasn't officially going to take responsibility for it either. He only wanted to acknowledge Lorch's role when Oberyn was insisting and Lorch was already dead, but he wasn't going to acknowledge giving Lorch the order.

Oh, nobody talks about public knowledge. But Robert Baratheon may have known who actually killed the Targaryen woman and children. He could have asked Tywin. There would be no need of 'an investigation' - Robert could just demand that Tywin tell him what happened or see his son Jaime go to the Wall or lose his head as a kingslayer. Tywin was in no position to bury the truth if Robert had wanted to see it out in the open.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that there was no investigation because Robert knew Tywin himself had commanded this murder and was approved of it - which is also what Ned thought, causing his continuous loathing of the Lannisters.

Yandel never was in KL and doesn't seem to have close ties to court. He omits the Lannister rumor but this doesn't mean there weren't people tossing around the possibility that Elia or Aerys II were behind the atrocities.

Quote

As was Selmy.

Yes, and he failed at that. Which I think could be a reason why he may have felt guilty - or should have felt guilty. I mean, even Jaime felt guilt over Elia and the children.

Quote

Did Robert ever order him to do anything dishonorable?

I'd say continue to serve with and treat Jaime as a Kingsguard was dishonorable by default.

Quote

He didn't "jump" the ship, he was kicked out.

Out of Joff's court - not Renly's or Stannis'.

Quote

Keeping Jaime requires no action on Robert's part.

It does. It means that Robert does not punish Jaime for murdering his king. It also means that he pardons him for his past crimes in Aerys II's service - which he did.

Quote

Marrying Cersei does, but we also know Robert didn't want to do that, and it was not a reward for King's Landing. Jon Arryn insisted on it to stabilize the new regime, so Robert went along with his decision, just as Stannis had done as he was told with a political marriage.

Robert was the king, not Jon Arryn. It was Robert's call, and nobody else's. Arryn advised him to marry Cersei, but he did not decide it.

Quote

Clegane and Lorch's responsibility was not public knowledge, although it was rumored in Casterly Rock. Perhaps Robert could have demanded an investigation at most.

See above.

Quote

Stannis hadn't declared himself king yet when Barristan was dismissed, Renly couldn't legitimately claim to be king given his position in the succession, and Robb was only claiming to be King in the North, and Barristan wasn't a northerner.

Barristan seems to believe that Lord Stannis would try to take the Iron Throne and eventually depose Joff when he last spoke to him. This means he expected Stannis to declare himself king - most likely because Selmy had figured out by that point what Ned Stark believed about Cersei's children. He was there when Ned declared that Cersei's children were not Robert's children.

Quote

No, it was in 284, the year after he took the throne in 283.

We'll have to wait and see when exactly Robert was formally crowned king, but even if it were different events it seems as if Robert's first act after his coronation (whenever that was) was to declare he would marry Cersei Lannister. And that means that the way to interpret this is as a sign of favor, a reward, for House Lannister for their service during the Rebellion.

Quote

Other KG are not considered failures for not predicting that a different KG, like Toyne or Cole from the Black POV, would be a traitor. Barristan could not have known ahead of time that Tywin was going to sack the city.

I'd say that every KG not be able to prevent his king from finding a violent end would see himself as a failure to a point - more when he was present and could have intervened, less so when he was away on another mission. We also see this kind of thinking in the words of the knights at the tower - them talking about Jaime being dead and Aerys II still on the Iron Throne if they had been there.

Quote

You don't "avenge the murder" of someone you're planning on executing anyway, at most you punish someone for intervening in the proper course of justice. Elia and her children is admittedly another case, but the identities of the perpetrators was not public knowledge.

Why not? Cregan Stark did just that with Aegon II and Ned Stark wanted to do that with Aerys II, too. An execution isn't murder. But treason and murder are crimes.

As for the children: See above.

Quote

Who else would have given them a command? Aerys merely demanded that Rhaegar be found, not that they stick around at a place Aerys didn't even know about.

That is another rabbit hole. It is not unlikely that Rhaegar is behind that, but they could also have volunteered for this task, especially if they were not happy serving the Mad King at KL. Dayne and Whent would have done whatever Rhaegar asked of them, of course, but Ser Gerold supposed was the king's man and the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. If he had not wanted to obey a command given to him by Rhaegar the prince could have not prevented him from returning to court. And since the other KG were honor-bound to obey their Lord Commander he could also have taken Dayne and Whent back to court.

Thus I'd say Gerold Hightower is the crucial character in this entire mystery, and we likely should believe that he was willing to work with/do what Rhaegar asked of him for some reason.

Quote

KG's owe loyalty to the crown, not the broader family which includes the king. And when he joined the KG, he was no longer to think of himself as a Stormlander or really as a Selmy.

Not the Crown, only the king. The Kingsguard presume to obey/protect first and foremost the king's person - which is seen very prominently when the Kingsguard of minor Jaehaerys I side with their king rather than the Queen Regent and the Protector of the Realm. I don't doubt that one could also command them to guard/protect royal officials and court members, but after the king the king's family would be their next big priority. And that connects them very intimately with the king's house.

I'd be very surprised if Selmy being a born Stormlander didn't play a role when he decided to accept Robert's pardon and become his man. The Selmys were sworn to the Baratheons since the Conquest. If a Stark had replaced Aerys II on the Iron Throne and a Northman had played Selmy's role in this hypothetical scenario the hold the Starks have over (most of) their Northmen would also have played a role there, one assumes.

[FictionIsntReal]

7 hours ago, frenin said:

Don't really know what was the reason he did not bother with Elia but for some reason, someway  during the war he started to resent all the Targs.

Robert was not known to have any problem with children during the war, it was only after the bodies were presented to him and he dismissed them that Ned realized that about Robert.

Quote

Has he?? The only quote  I've read is the one that says that Brandon was better than Ned while Ned was a better commander.

GRRM has merely said Ned was competent as a swordsman. He has also said Ned would lose in a fight with Boromir.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, but that was a completely arbitary and whimsical thing to do. As I think I laid out if mere presence in the same vast building means you are part of a murder conspiracy then I see no reason why absent people could not also be part of that in another arbitary setting. Or feel guilty in a similar manner.

Selmy wasn't present in the same building, or even the same city, during the sack of King's Landing.

Quote

In fact, as I think I pointed out somewhere, too, this ridiculous take on the 'guilt' of Aegon II's Kingsguard could have more to do with Cregan's desire to cleanse the Kingsguard of Greens than to punish the alleged murderers of a king Cregan Stark had intended to slay himself.

You could be right, but that would do nothing to further your argument about Selmy.

Quote

But as I said - Belgrave made Cregan Stark's reasoning his own when he chose death. That is significant in my opinion. A symbolic comment on his view of Kingsguard honor and what he, as a Kingsguard, wanted to be. Either not survive the king he swore to die to protect or to be properly punished for the murder of the king he helped to/did murder.

Belgrave did, not anybody absent from KL.

Quote

Do you know the 'Hannibal' movie? The one by Ridley Scott?

Unfortunately, yes. Not as bad as something more loyal to the book would have been, but still not good.

Quote

Jaime during the Sack is a little bit like Cordell, that manservant of the horribly disfigured Mason Verger who wanted to feed Hannibal Lecter to the pigs. When his dad and his Westermen stormed the city Jaime realized he could murder the man he was bound to serve and get away with it without facing rather dire repercussions.

Once he was the only KG, he had the opportunity to kill Aerys. Getting away with it would have been more difficult, but I think doable for someone more sly than Jaime. The king literally sits on a throne made of swords that frequently cut him, a throne also blamed for killing Maegor during a civil war.

Quote

Fundamentally it is the act of coward emboldened by the circumstances. His decision to kill the king is completely different from his decision to prevent the wildfire plot.

I think fans underrate the extent to which his decision was motivated by Aerys' order to kill Tywin, but I don't view it as a purely opportunistic move he'd been waiting for. We get Jaime's memories, and they don't have him waiting to kill Aerys until then.

Quote

Oh, nobody talks about public knowledge. But Robert Baratheon may have known who actually killed the Targaryen woman and children.

Tywin Lannister sacked King's Landing, but he was never said to have taken part in the action at Maegor's holdfast. Nor were Amory Lorch and Gregor Clegane well known names at the time.

Quote

He could have asked Tywin.

He could have, and if Tywin thought his men were at risk of being punished he could have said that the sack was chaotic and he didn't know.

Quote

There would be no need of 'an investigation' - Robert could just demand that Tywin tell him what happened or see his son Jaime go to the Wall or lose his head as a kingslayer.

It's not public knowledge that he did know. At most Tywin could have chosen some hapless foot soldier to take the blame, promising to reward his family for taking the black.

Quote

Tywin was in no position to bury the truth if Robert had wanted to see it out in the open.

Robert doesn't know the truth, lying is an entirely viable option.

Quote

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that there was no investigation because Robert knew Tywin himself had commanded this murder and was approved of it - which is also what Ned thought, causing his continuous loathing of the Lannisters.

I would say "suspected".

Quote

Out of Joff's court - not Renly's or Stannis'.

He was never a member of their courts.

Quote

Robert was the king, not Jon Arryn. It was Robert's call, and nobody else's. Arryn advised him to marry Cersei, but he did not decide it.

Jon Arryn advised it because he thought the new regime would need the stability provided by Lannister support in order to ensure Viserys' supporters could not take back the throne. Not as a reward for the sack, just as Tywin didn't reward Balon for attacking the North without having previously agreed to anything in exchange. The sack is instead just a signal that Tywin was willing to support the Baratheon regime against the Targaryens.

Quote

We'll have to wait and see when exactly Robert was formally crowned king

Robert was acclaimed as king around the time of the Trident. He didn't have the Targaryen crown of course, which was in King's Landing. He reached KL after Ned but before Barristan had recovered, which was why Selmy was not there to see Robert's reaction to Elia's children. There don't seem to be details about his formal coronation, and I think him already being proclaimed as king is why that is treated as a mere formality not worth mentioning.

Quote

I'd say that every KG not be able to prevent his king from finding a violent end would see himself as a failure to a point - more when he was present and could have intervened, less so when he was away on another mission. We also see this kind of thinking in the words of the knights at the tower - them talking about Jaime being dead and Aerys II still on the Iron Throne if they had been there.

None of those three KG say anything about how they deserve execution for failing to save anyone.

Quote

Why not? Cregan Stark did just that with Aegon II and Ned Stark wanted to do that with Aerys II, too. An execution isn't murder. But treason and murder are crimes.

An execution is not "avenging a murder". Robb Stark executed Rickard Karstark for executing Lannister hostages, but it wasn't to "avenge" them. Indeed, Robb might have killed those hostages himself if the Lannisters had killed Stark hostages after he captured them. He executed Rickard because those hostages were Robb's responsibility and Rickard was his bannerman. Not punishing him would mean that his bannermen could disregard Robb's authority, including killing the guards he set for hostages.

Quote

Not the Crown, only the king. The Kingsguard presume to obey/protect first and foremost the king's person - which is seen very prominently when the Kingsguard of minor Jaehaerys I side with their king rather than the Queen Regent and the Protector of the Realm. I don't doubt that one could also command them to guard/protect royal officials and court members, but after the king the king's family would be their next big priority. And that connects them very intimately with the king's house.

It's worth noting that the earlier civil wars were closer to family disputes over succession. The KG were not thought to have conflicted loyalties, because they were bound to the King rather than his house.

Quote

I'd be very surprised if Selmy being a born Stormlander didn't play a role when he decided to accept Robert's pardon and become his man. The Selmys were sworn to the Baratheons since the Conquest. If a Stark had replaced Aerys II on the Iron Throne and a Northman had played Selmy's role in this hypothetical scenario the hold the Starks have over (most of) their Northmen would also have played a role there, one assumes.

Robert pardoned everyone who wasn't a Targaryen. Which kingdom you lived in didn't seem to matter. And I don't recall anyone refusing a pardon.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Selmy wasn't present in the same building, or even the same city, during the sack of King's Landing.

Sure, and it is not so much that I say Selmy should have been seen as Jaime's accomplice or anything - rather that he could feel guilty the same way Belgrave and Connington and even Jaime do. Him overcoming that guilt and joining Robert shows a deficit in KG character, if you will. He cared more about his career and his standing than about what it means to be a KG.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You could be right, but that would do nothing to further your argument about Selmy.

Sure, but that wasn't the point here. I really like this ambiguity of the Belgrave character and the trial against him and his fellow Kingsguard.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Belgrave did, not anybody absent from KL.

I'd say some other KG also show similar traits, among them the knights at the tower, the Dragonknight (dying for a brother/king he must have loathed), etc. But, sure, that kind of thing is more an ideal, and something that only comes forth if people are tested by extreme situations. Not every KG must save his king from an assassination or has the bad luck to serve in succession crisis or civil war.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Once he was the only KG, he had the opportunity to kill Aerys. Getting away with it would have been more difficult, but I think doable for someone more sly than Jaime. The king literally sits on a throne made of swords that frequently cut him, a throne also blamed for killing Maegor during a civil war.

The idea with that parallel is that Jaime needed both the opportunity and sort of the permission, the mental switch that convinced him that it was okay to murder the man. And that's something the Sack and Aerys II's final commands triggered in him.

Whether Jaime actually had the means and opportunity to murder Jaime in an obvious way (slay him with a sword, say) I'm not so sure about. He was the last Kingsguard, but that doesn't mean he could come get an audience and be with Aerys II when the king was alone. Jaime was as much hostage as he was KG. One assumes the king had other sworn swords around him by that point he trusted more than Jaime. And even if there weren't other men-at-arms at hand, chances are pretty good that the king never met with Jaime while there weren't many other people around.

That kind of thing would make an assassination of the king a suicide mission. And we can be very sure Jaime wanted to get away with it.

We also can guess at the depth of the hatred Jaime felt for his king by the simple fact that he chose to murder him the way he did and at the time he did - he is basically a guy races to the finishing line to get a shot at this task. His father and his men are right outside. If he doesn't get to the king in time they will put him down - and Tywin will likely enjoy taking apart Aerys II piece by piece. But Jaime cannot have that. He must be the one who finishes him.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I think fans underrate the extent to which his decision was motivated by Aerys' order to kill Tywin, but I don't view it as a purely opportunistic move he'd been waiting for. We get Jaime's memories, and they don't have him waiting to kill Aerys until then.

I agree there, I don't think he wanted to murder him the entire time. It is a spur of the moment idea - very much like it is with the Cordell character. He actually needs Lecter to point out that he could do that. It is clear this guy doesn't want to be part of the pig plan - just like Jaime doesn't want to be part of the wildfire plan or the 'let's cook us some lords' plan. But I'd say up to the Sack Jaime would have prefered it to get away/be not involved rather than doing something this drastic. But once realized he could do just that he was all in. It started with Rossart and then it continued with the king.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Tywin Lannister sacked King's Landing, but he was never said to have taken part in the action at Maegor's holdfast. Nor were Amory Lorch and Gregor Clegane well known names at the time.

It was known that Tywin's men took the castle and Maegor's Holdfast and that Tywin's men presented the bodies to Robert. Ned arrived in the castle while Jaime was still sitting on the throne - at a time when Maegor's was just falling, since we cannot really expect Jaime to have sat hours on the Iron Throne.

Ned would have informed Robert about everything he saw while in the castle. And other men, too, of course. There must have been servants and chamber maids and guardsmen in Maegor's who saw what transpired there (or at least enough to implicate the Lannister men). Nothing indicates the Lannisters did murder all the folk in Maegor's.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He could have, and if Tywin thought his men were at risk of being punished he could have said that the sack was chaotic and he didn't know.

It's not public knowledge that he did know. At most Tywin could have chosen some hapless foot soldier to take the blame, promising to reward his family for taking the black.

Robert doesn't know the truth, lying is an entirely viable option.

I would say "suspected".

The idea here is that the king decides what the charge and also what the truth is. If the king accuses you of having done a particular crime he can also condemn you and you can do nothing about that (e.g. the Stinger and Jaehaerys I). If Robert said he believed Tywin commanded the murders - or decided to condemn the general for the crime of his troops or the lord for the crime of his sworn men (which is what happens all the time in a feudal setting) then Tywin could do nothing about that. All he could do was to ask for mercy.

But this wouldn't have been necessary. Robert had Jaime. He was a KG who killed his king meaning he was a walking corpse. And Tywin would have done everything in his power short of killing himself to save Jaime's life.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He was never a member of their courts.

Sure, but he sat on the Small Council with them and was infinitely closer to Renly and Stannis than to the Beggar King and the girl he never even met. The fact that Selmy decides to rejoin the Targaryens is odd and significant. It is a sign that he regrets having served the Usurper and that he wants to make amends for that.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Jon Arryn advised it because he thought the new regime would need the stability provided by Lannister support in order to ensure Viserys' supporters could not take back the throne. Not as a reward for the sack, just as Tywin didn't reward Balon for attacking the North without having previously agreed to anything in exchange. The sack is instead just a signal that Tywin was willing to support the Baratheon regime against the Targaryens.

This was the argument Arryn used to convince Robert, not necessary the real reason why he wanted Robert to marry Cersei. I certainly think this was good reasoning.

But as for rewards: What would you say was Robert's decision to marry his son to Sansa Stark? Would you say this wasn't a reward for the service and friendship Ned had shown his childhood friend and later king?

When you are king and pick a bride from a family then this is always a sign of royal favor and is a reward in that sense. I never said Robert was rewarding Jaime and Tywin specifically for the murder of the Targaryens - but he did reward them for the Sack. Without the Sack Jaime would have likely been forced to go to the Wall as one of Aerys II's last loyal defenders and both Tywin's neutrality and long friendship with the king would have been viewed as a sign not to trust him because he could turn against Robert and his family if the Targaryens ever tried to win back the Iron Throne.

Instead Robert would have looked for a bride among another prominent house which had shown its loyalty to him during the Rebellion.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Robert was acclaimed as king around the time of the Trident. He didn't have the Targaryen crown of course, which was in King's Landing. He reached KL after Ned but before Barristan had recovered, which was why Selmy was not there to see Robert's reaction to Elia's children. There don't seem to be details about his formal coronation, and I think him already being proclaimed as king is why that is treated as a mere formality not worth mentioning.

That would be meaningless insofar as Robert's actual reign is concerned. A King on the Iron Throne counts his reign from the day of his coronation, not when some people declare him king in some camp.

Not to mention that it would make no sense to view Robert as King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men while there was another man on the Iron Throne and many lords still in the field against him (and many others hadn't yet done him homage).

Robert would have been king in the sense Aegon III was king between Aegon II's death and his own coronation, with the difference that Robert was an adult and a warrior very much in charge of things, unlike the boy king.

I cannot see there being some sort of proper coronation until after Ned returned from the south, Stannis and Renly joined their brother in KL, and the corpses the Westermen left in the streets of the capital were taken care of - meaning weeks, possibly months after the Sack.

It is a pity that we know next to nothing about events in that time.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

None of those three KG say anything about how they deserve execution for failing to save anyone.

I didn't say that they deserved execution, either - more that they didn't want to survive their king. The knights at the tower give me the strong vibe of a last desperate stand. A way to make up for absence while the king and his son and grandchildren and wife were butchered.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

An execution is not "avenging a murder". Robb Stark executed Rickard Karstark for executing Lannister hostages, but it wasn't to "avenge" them. Indeed, Robb might have killed those hostages himself if the Lannisters had killed Stark hostages after he captured them. He executed Rickard because those hostages were Robb's responsibility and Rickard was his bannerman. Not punishing him would mean that his bannermen could disregard Robb's authority, including killing the guards he set for hostages.

Well, I meant execution as proper punishment for murder. Jaime betrayed and murdered his king and should be executed for that. Just as Aegon II's murderers betrayed and murdered their king and should be executed for that. That is justice.

The Robb example illustrates this very much - not punishing Jaime, Tywin, and his thugs means you sent the message that it is okay to betray your liege and butcher him and his family when they are in trouble or facing a seemingly more powerful foe. This undermines the core principles of the feudal framework of the society because it lowers the standards of loyalty to opportunism.

Tywin and Jaime are basically just Walder Frey and Roose Bolton on a higher level.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

It's worth noting that the earlier civil wars were closer to family disputes over succession. The KG were not thought to have conflicted loyalties, because they were bound to the King rather than his house.

Well, even if we called them just 'king's men' that would still make them 'Targaryen men' or 'Baratheon men' because that's the name of the kings in question. Not KG serving a Targaryen or Baratheon king would object when he is called 'Targaryen man' or 'Baratheon man'.

1 hour ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Robert pardoned everyone who wasn't a Targaryen. Which kingdom you lived in didn't seem to matter. And I don't recall anyone refusing a pardon.

Not everybody was pardoned. Quite a few men were sent to the Wall. And one assumes that some men were also executed - Aerys II's torturerers, say.

Very few people would take the extreme Belgrave approach, but we do have Robin Ryger and Desmond Grell refusing Jaime's pardon and taking the black. Some men who feel a deep loyalty and take pride in the honor that comes with being sworn to a lord do refuse the pardons they are offered by their lord's victorious enemies - and that's not a bad thing.

And I'd say that this kind of behavior is what should be expected from a true Kingsguard if your king is either murdered, deposed, or killed in battle and replaced by the enemy he fought against. When you start treating the king as a person that can be randomly replaced you are essentially forget what your job is.

And to a lesser degree this also goes for a peaceful transition. Just because Aegon the Unworthy is the son of the great Viserys II doesn't mean you should feel the same kind of loyalty for the former than you do for the latter.

Any KG invested by Aegon I or King Aenys doing Maegor's dirty work after he usurped the throne effectively betrayed his vow and the loyalty he felt for Aegon and Aenys.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

On 2/28/2020 at 10:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

announcing his marriage to Cersei Lannister was Robert Baratheon's first act as king (according to Yandel). We don't know when they married by I'm inclined to believe Robert's coronation and wedding were the same event - sort of like it was with Aegon III and Jaehaera. Robert doesn't have to say that marrying the daughter of scheming, evil Lannister lord is a reward - it is a reward by default because it isn't accompanied by a punishment

Indeed & I think it has to be a reward for killing Elia & the children because, arriving late to the cause, the Lannisters did nothing else to be rewarded for.