Jump to content

The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread Part VII


Werthead

Recommended Posts

I can tell you what it wasn't: Lyanna "hello, I have no political importance whatsoever" Stark.
Oh, why not, exactly? I seem to remember he started a whole bloody civil war over this Lyanna "hello, I have no political importance whatsoever" Stark girl.

That smacks of circular logic, imo, and is one of the reasons the "R+L=J is not canon!" people get pissed off.
Yes, indeed.

Another is the will to utterly ignore whatever doesn't fit the theory, like thus:

They would not protect her over the life of their king and prince though regardless of the order.
Even though Martin said clearly, unambiguously that they would if ordered?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM's answer is interesting for another reason, who did the Kingsguard take their paramount orders from: Rhaegar or Aerys?

I cannot see a scenario w/Joffrey ordering the Kingsguard around while Robert was still alive. Especially in the middle of a war.

Unless the Kingsguard were ordered to protect the Tower of Joy w/Aerys' consent and authority. Which would indicate that even the crazed Aerys knew how important whatever it was in the tower that needed protection.

As I remember in the "Hedge knight" the Kingsguard followed Baelor's orders without King's any consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. Well, I think I am looking at the bare bones of the quote and seeing it straightforwardly. I don't think I am making any but the simplest of "inferences", like looking at something blue and saying, "that is blue."

"The KG don't get to make up their own orders." Ergo, they would follow ones that no longer make sense. Namely, of course, the one the question asks about, staying to fight off Ned at the toj, rather than guarding the new King.

It's pretty clear to me the main thrust of the answer is that the KG obey orders almost rigidly. To draw the idea of no "conflicting oaths" into his answer is taking it a bit far. He's not talking about Jaime here. Of course, Martin can't reveal that there is "no conflict" between staying at the toj and guarding the king. I don't think we should assume R+L=J when we look at Martin's answer and then find that it supports R+L=J. That smacks of circular logic, imo, and is one of the reasons the "R+L=J is not canon!" people get pissed off.

The bare bones of the quote doesn't deal with the problem of why the Kingsguard trio is at the Tower of Joy and not at Dragonstone. It tells us the Kingsguard would follow Rhaegar's orders. No problem with that. Almost everyone understands the Kingsguard follows the orders of members of the royal family. So what Martin tells us in the quote only enlightens us to something that almost everyone already assumes - that it was most likely Rhaegar who ordered the trio to the tower. What he doesn't deal with is whether or not their oath to safeguard their king takes precedence over Rhaegar's order, and if it does not then why is this instance different concerning what we have come to know as the primary duty of the Kingsguard. That is the core of the problem with which the trio's actions presents us.

Your assertion about "robotic morons" only makes sense as an interpretation if we look at these men as incapable of making decisions about their duties. That is very different from making up their own orders. Given conflicting oaths - following Rhaegar's orders to be at the Tower vs. having at least one of their members to guard the king - the trio must make a decision if we assume these two different facts. They must choose which way their duty lies. So, "robotic morons" only makes sense if we accept these two conflicting duties and assume they don't make a choice, but rather follow the last thing they were told to do. That would turn them into idiots, but it also makes no sense - even given Martin's quote telling us they follow orders. Both choices are part of their oaths, and both would mean they choose to not fulfill another part of their oaths.

But what is interesting to me is not the far-fetched idea that the trio follow the last thing a royal tells them to do no matter the circumstance, but rather what Martin's remarks leaves out. He leaves out the idea of conflicting oaths altogether. It's as if this is not a problem at all. We see him deal with this theme in almost every member of the Kingsguard he introduces us to - from Ser Duncan through Jaime - yet we are to assume conflicting oaths don't enter into the story when it comes to the Tower of Joy trio's actions. I can only assume that is because either Martin purposely doesn't want to talk about that obvious conflict for story reasons or because Martin is letting slip something in not even considering that there is a conflict in his answer. The only way there is no conflict in these two parts of the Kingsguard oath is if the heir to the throne (most likely either Aegon or Lyanna's trueborn son - it doesn't have to be Jon) is at the Tower with them as they follow through on Rhaegar's orders. Can you tell me another way to see no conflict? I cannot see another way. That is not circular reasoning, by the way, but an observation on what looks to be an obvious conflict. Either Martin is avoiding the conflict of oaths or he is saying one doesn't exist in this instance. Pointing out the latter possibility as a straightforward interpretation of his remarks isn't working from L+R=J backwards.

Now, we can assume there is a conflict and just assume that in this instance, unlike all other instances we know of, the orders of the crown prince (a dead one at that) takes precedence over guarding the new king. If that is true then there is a lot more story to the choice the Trio makes to abandon Viserys than we are lead to believe at this point. Perhaps Ser Arthur, Ser Oswell, and the White Bull all make the same choice Selmy makes based on Viserys's hints of madness. It certainly doesn't fit with the words in Ned's dream concerning Ser Willem Darry ("a good man and true,") especially their admiration for him staying loyal to Viserys. It would also be contrary to everything we have been told to believe about the men in question, and it would be at odds with Martin's own quote. Why? Because if the trio make a decision knowingly to abandon Viserys and follow Rhaegar's orders, then they are truly "making up their own orders." Or in this case it might be better to say "making up their own vows." As far as we know, there is nothing that takes precedence over protecting the king - certainly not protecting a mistress or her bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bare bones of the quote doesn't deal with the problem of why the Kingsguard trio is at the Tower of Joy and not at Dragonstone. It tells us the Kingsguard would follow Rhaegar's orders. No problem with that. Almost everyone understands the Kingsguard follows the orders of members of the royal family. So what Martin tells us in the quote only enlightens us to something that almost everyone already assumes - that it was most likely Rhaegar who ordered the trio to the tower. What he doesn't deal with is whether or not their oath to safeguard their king takes precedence over Rhaegar's order, and if it does not then why is this instance different concerning what we have come to know as the primary duty of the Kingsguard. That is the core of the problem with which the trio's actions presents us.

I guess by "quote" you mean Martin's response. Because the question specifically deals with why the Kingsguard were at the tower of joy instead of with Viserys and Rhaella. And Martin's answer is in response to that question. Therefore, if I was forced to make a judgment either way, I would say Martin is explaining that following Rhaegar's orders takes precedence. Of course, if I had my druthers, I would say Martin is evading. But that would also be evading on my part. Evading the contra evidence to R+L=legitimate J, a type of evasion that EB went into upthread.

Your assertion about "robotic morons" only makes sense as an interpretation if we look at these men as incapable of making decisions about their duties. That is very different from making up their own orders. Given conflicting oaths - following Rhaegar's orders to be at the Tower vs. having at least one of their members to guard the king - the trio must make a decision if we assume these two different facts. They must choose which way their duty lies. So, "robotic morons" only makes sense if we accept these two conflicting duties and assume they don't make a choice, but rather follow the last thing they were told to do. That would turn them into idiots, but it also makes no sense - even given Martin's quote telling us they follow orders. Both choices are part of their oaths, and both would mean they choose to not fulfill another part of their oaths.

Why? (to the bolded part) And they could "choose" to follow Rhaegar's order. That's not impossible.

But what is interesting to me is not the far-fetched idea that the trio follow the last thing a royal tells them to do no matter the circumstance, but rather what Martin's remarks leaves out. He leaves out the idea of conflicting oaths altogether. It's as if this is not a problem at all. We see him deal with this theme in almost every member of the Kingsguard he introduces us to - from Ser Duncan through Jaime - yet we are to assume conflicting oaths don't enter into the story when it comes to the Tower of Joy trio's actions. I can only assume that is because either Martin purposely doesn't want to talk about that obvious conflict for story reasons or because Martin is letting slip something in not even considering that there is a conflict in his answer. The only way there is no conflict in these two parts of the Kingsguard oath is if the heir to the throne (most likely either Aegon or Lyanna's trueborn son - it doesn't have to be Jon) is at the Tower with them as they follow through on Rhaegar's orders. Can you tell me another way to see no conflict? I cannot see another way. That is not circular reasoning, by the way, but an observation on what looks to be an obvious conflict. Either Martin is avoiding the conflict of oaths or he is saying one doesn't exist in this instance. Pointing out the latter possibility as a straightforward interpretation of his remarks isn't working from L+R=J backwards.

Okay, I see there is conflict between a) the order and b) the oath. What the SSM tells me is that apparently the orders take precedence. The typical argument for "King Jon Targaryen" is in its simplest form: The KG are guarding the tower --> the King is in the tower. This SSM provides an alternate explanation. There is still the nagging problem of order v. oath but apparently it's order ftw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess by "quote" you mean Martin's response. Because the question specifically deals with why the Kingsguard were at the tower of joy instead of with Viserys and Rhaella. And Martin's answer is in response to that question. Therefore, if I was forced to make a judgment either way, I would say Martin is explaining that following Rhaegar's orders takes precedence. Of course, if I had my druthers, I would say Martin is evading. But that would also be evading on my part. Evading the contra evidence to R+L=legitimate J, a type of evasion that EB went into upthread.
Yes, I mean Martin's response. The questioner tries to pin Martin down on a much debated point and Martin doesn't answer the thrust of the question. He answers by saying the Kingsguard can't make up their own orders (no one said they could, certainly not the questioner) and that they would follow Rhaegar's orders (something assumed by everyone.) What it doesn't answer is what the three men, as presumably loyal members of the kingsguard would do if faced with a contradiction between their oath to protect their king and an order given to them by Rhaegar. The only way to read Martin's response as dealing with this contradiction is to assume two things: (1) that Martin is saying Viserys is their king, and (2) that the trio chooses to ignore their oaths to protect Viserys in preference to an order from the now dead Rhaegar.

I tried to deal with this slim possibility in the last paragraph of my last post, but let me try again. Not only do we have lots of examples of the kingsguard placing the safety and the authority of the king as paramount - something this scenario specifically rejects - but we are also forced to conclude that the trio make a choice to abandon their oaths concerning Viserys in preference to Rhaegar's orders. As I said, this is in direct contradiction to the idea that Martin is talking about in his response. He says the kingsguard don't make up their own orders. If true, which I don't dispute, how do they make up their own oaths? Not only are the trio transformed from loyal members of the kingsguard, who are supposedly the epitome of what the kingsguard should be, into the same type of betrayers of House Targaryen as Ser Barristan becomes. They must have, under this scenario, chosen to abandon Viserys.

Why? (to the bolded part) And they could "choose" to follow Rhaegar's order. That's not impossible.
I've tried to explain above why I think it makes no sense, but let me try it this way. If we accept the scenario that the trio has chosen to abandon Viserys in preference to carrying out Rhaegar's order to guard Lyanna and maybe her bastard child, then we have transformed the "loyal and true" men of the Targaryen kingsguard who would never shirk their duty by making up their own orders into men who do just that. They have betrayed their oaths. They have chosen to abandon Viserys. They are neither "loyal" or "true" to their oaths. Instead they are rebels who carry out orders in contradiction to duty, even if those orders were given by Rhaegar. Is this possible? Of course, but there had better be a hell of a backstory as to how these men are transformed into traitors because there is nothing in the story that even remotely suggests this.

Okay, I see there is conflict between a) the order and b) the oath. What the SSM tells me is that apparently the orders take precedence. The typical argument for "King Jon Targaryen" is in its simplest form: The KG are guarding the tower --> the King is in the tower. This SSM provides an alternate explanation. There is still the nagging problem of order v. oath but apparently it's order ftw.

First, the typical argument, I would argue, goes a long way after the "king is in the tower" step to provide evidence that Jon is likely that king. The mere presence of the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy does suggest the presence of the heir, but that's not the same thing. Second, Martin's response only suggests, over all other evidence in the books, that it's order over oath if one makes the assumptions I outline above. Note that no where in his response does Martin say Viserys is the rightful king. Note also that while Martin goes to great pains to talk about how the Kingsguard follows orders and gives as an example that they would follow Rhaegar's orders, he does not say that they would follow those orders if they are in direct conflict with other parts of the oath. Those are both inferences one has to draw in order to come to the conclusion that what Martin is saying is that Rhaegar's orders take precedence over the duty to protect a King Viserys. Instead, what I'm arguing for is we don't make those assumptions and read Martin's quote for what it does say. The kingsguard doesn't make up its own orders, and the kingsguard would follow an order from Rhaegar. Both of those things are obviously true, but they don't lead one to jump to the conclusion that orders take preference to the core of the Kingsguard's oath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I mean Martin's response. The questioner tries to pin Martin down on a much debated point and Martin doesn't answer the thrust of the question. He answers by saying the Kingsguard can't make up their own orders (no one said they could, certainly not the questioner) and that they would follow Rhaegar's orders (something assumed by everyone.) What it doesn't answer is what the three men, as presumably loyal members of the kingsguard would do if faced with a contradiction between their oath to protect their king and an order given to them by Rhaegar. The only way to read Martin's response as dealing with this contradiction is to assume two things: (1) that Martin is saying Viserys is their king, and (2) that the trio chooses to ignore their oaths to protect Viserys in preference to an order from the now dead Rhaegar.

I think we have a different view of, well, what an "answer" in general means. I think the question matters a great deal and that people in general do not have to repeat the content of the question in their answer to have covered the points in the question. Martin was entirely free to say, "next question." He does that a lot in the rest of the SSM. He didn't here. He answered the question which was about why the KG stayed to fight Ned rather than go to the remaining royal family members. "Remaining royal family members" means King Viserys to those KG at the tower as that's just the laws of succession, at least from the context of the question. And obeying orders, which means orders to stay at the tower instead of going to the remaining royal family members, is what Martin says they do.

I tried to deal with this slim possibility in the last paragraph of my last post, but let me try again. Not only do we have lots of examples of the kingsguard placing the safety and the authority of the king as paramount - something this scenario specifically rejects - but we are also forced to conclude that the trio make a choice to abandon their oaths concerning Viserys in preference to Rhaegar's orders. As I said, this is in direct contradiction to the idea that Martin is talking about in his response. He says the kingsguard don't make up their own orders. If true, which I don't dispute, how do they make up their own oaths? Not only are the trio transformed from loyal members of the kingsguard, who are supposedly the epitome of what the kingsguard should be, into the same type of betrayers of House Targaryen as Ser Barristan becomes. They must have, under this scenario, chosen to abandon Viserys.

emphasis mine

Yes we are to bolded part. That is why I said it is lame. To underlined part, that is not in "direct contradiction" to what Martin is talking about. Martin is talking about obeying orders. You are talking about upholding oaths.

I've tried to explain above why I think it makes no sense, but let me try it this way. If we accept the scenario that the trio has chosen to abandon Viserys in preference to carrying out Rhaegar's order to guard Lyanna and maybe her bastard child, then we have transformed the "loyal and true" men of the Targaryen kingsguard who would never shirk their duty by making up their own orders into men who do just that. They have betrayed their oaths. They have chosen to abandon Viserys. They are neither "loyal" or "true" to their oaths. Instead they are rebels who carry out orders in contradiction to duty, even if those orders were given by Rhaegar. Is this possible? Of course, but there had better be a hell of a backstory as to how these men are transformed into traitors because there is nothing in the story that even remotely suggests this.

I can see why you'd want a backstory. I guess I do too since I think it's pretty lame. But I don't really care to get into speculating on it right now.

First, the typical argument, I would argue, goes a long way after the "king is in the tower" step to provide evidence that Jon is likely that king. The mere presence of the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy does suggest the presence of the heir, but that's not the same thing. Second, Martin's response only suggests, over all other evidence in the books, that it's order over oath if one makes the assumptions I outline above. Note that no where in his response does Martin say Viserys is the rightful king. Note also that while Martin goes to great pains to talk about how the Kingsguard follows orders and gives as an example that they would follow Rhaegar's orders, he does not say that they would follow those orders if they are in direct conflict with other parts of the oath. Those are both inferences one has to draw in order to come to the conclusion that what Martin is saying is that Rhaegar's orders take precedence over the duty to protect a King Viserys. Instead, what I'm arguing for is we don't make those assumptions and read Martin's quote for what it does say. The kingsguard doesn't make up its own orders, and the kingsguard would follow an order from Rhaegar. Both of those things are obviously true, but they don't lead one to jump to the conclusion that orders take preference to the core of the Kingsguard's oath.

emphasis yours

I agree the typical argument for King Jon Targaryen goes a long way past "king is in the tower" but I said "simplest form." However, I should have just said the argument for "king is in the tower regardless of who it is" is in its most simple form, all the remaining KG are there and not with Viserys, so there's the king. I think that is acceptable for that minor tangent.

I don't really see the points you see as inferences to be inferences. They are right there in the question and Martin answered the question. With regard to your second bolded part, I guess that means you have backed off what you considered "the most straightforward interpretation" that there is "no problem of conflicting oaths."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have a different view of, well, what an "answer" in general means. I think the question matters a great deal and that people in general do not have to repeat the content of the question in their answer to have covered the points in the question. Martin was entirely free to say, "next question." He does that a lot in the rest of the SSM. He didn't here. He answered the question which was about why the KG stayed to fight Ned rather than go to the remaining royal family members. "Remaining royal family members" means King Viserys to those KG at the tower as that's just the laws of succession, at least from the context of the question. And obeying orders, which means orders to stay at the tower instead of going to the remaining royal family members, is what Martin says they do.

No, we both agree what an answer means. I just obviously disagree that a plain reading of Martin's response means anything close to what you think it means. He avoids saying very specific things in his response, either just to avoid the topic or because they aren't relative to the scenario he is discussing. The jump to a conclusion that what he says in his answer means he has set out some hierarchy of response that places Rhaegar's orders above the oath of the kingsguard is, imo, not warranted by either the text of his statement or the text of the books.

emphasis mine

Yes we are to bolded part. That is why I said it is lame. To underlined part, that is not in "direct contradiction" to what Martin is talking about. Martin is talking about obeying orders. You are talking about upholding oaths.

What is the origin of why the kingsguard is bound to follow the orders of a member of the royal family? It is, iirc, because of the oath they swear both as a knight and as a member of the kingsguard. It is part of the same thing. When Martin says the kingsguard can't make up their own orders and will follow Rhaegar's orders he is talking about the need of the trio to loyally fulfill their oaths to obey the royal family. Yet that is in contradiction to the first duty of the kingsguard to protect their king, if we assume something Martin never says - that Viserys is their king.

I can see why you'd want a backstory. I guess I do too since I think it's pretty lame. But I don't really care to get into speculating on it right now.
We agree that any interpretation that means the trio are "robotic morons" is quite lame.

emphasis yours

I agree the typical argument for King Jon Targaryen goes a long way past "king is in the tower" but I said "simplest form." However, I should have just said the argument for "king is in the tower regardless of who it is" is in its most simple form, all the remaining KG are there and not with Viserys, so there's the king. I think that is acceptable for that minor tangent.

I don't really see the points you see as inferences to be inferences. They are right there in the question and Martin answered the question. With regard to your second bolded part, I guess that means you have backed off what you considered "the most straightforward interpretation" that there is "no problem of conflicting oaths."

If the inferences are not what I point to, can you show me where in Martin's response he references Viserys status as the heir to the throne? Can you show me where he talks about what happens when oaths come into conflict? Those things are not "right there." They are assumed by some readers because the questioner was trying to get a response that would deal with both of those topics. Martin doesn't give him one.

And, no, I haven't dropped my assertion the simplest and most straightforward reading of Martin's answer is that he doesn't even bother to think there is any contradiction of oaths to deal with in this case. If the heir is at the Tower, then there is no contradiction between the first duty of the Kingsguard to protect the king and the duty to follow orders of a member of the royal family. It fits his response to a "T" but others can be advanced such as that he is just avoiding the question, or that what we have is a betrayal on the part of the trio of their basic duty and they are committing the same treason Ser Barristan does. The latter is not supported by anything else in the text or any other comments by Martin that I know of, but an argument can be made that this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gagging over the rhetoric you use trying to make "They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."" mean "They can say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else", but they happened to like that order so there's no problem.". You'd need to argue black is white to be taken less seriously. It's irritating. Can't the theory stand on its own without twisting everything into a foreshadowing/hint/dissimulation of the truth that is R+L=J, sometimes, like in this case, in direct disregard of what is actually said and written?

Oh, also, the old kingsguard is totally lame anyway. Let's not forget they are accessory to murder, rape and torture. That's what the unquestioning obedience they call honour does to you. Only Jaime redeemed himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of blood in childbirth.

The most common interpretation by adherents of L+R=J of the facts as we know them concerning Lyanna's death (fever, blood, her isolation in a room with of roses after a prolonged period with Rhaegar, etc.) is that Lyanna dies from complications from childbirth - specifically most likely puerperal fever. She gives birth to Jon at the Tower of Joy, and then she shortly thereafter dies from the loss of blood, and/or the spread of the infection and fever. It fits with the facts as we know them. Other scenarios can be made to fit as well, but L+R=J isn't ruled out by anything we know at the present.

I understand the theory I was asking more for the people that don't believe R+L=J. It seems to deny the theory you would need to present your own version of how she died, I really can't think of anything that would make sense though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SFDanny,

No, we both agree what an answer means. I just obviously disagree that a plain reading of Martin's response means anything close to what you think it means. He avoids saying very specific things in his response, either just to avoid the topic or because they aren't relative to the scenario he is discussing. The jump to a conclusion that what he says in his answer means he has set out some hierarchy of response that places Rhaegar's orders above the oath of the kingsguard is, imo, not warranted by either the text of his statement or the text of the books.

I offer to agree to disagree then. I would re-state my point one last time here but I will do so later in this post.

What is the origin of why the kingsguard is bound to follow the orders of a member of the royal family? It is, iirc, because of the oath they swear both as a knight and as a member of the kingsguard. It is part of the same thing. When Martin says the kingsguard can't make up their own orders and will follow Rhaegar's orders he is talking about the need of the trio to loyally fulfill their oaths to obey the royal family. Yet that is in contradiction to the first duty of the kingsguard to protect their king, if we assume something Martin never says - that Viserys is their king.

Okay, I see what you mean by "direct contradiction." Agreed.

We agree that any interpretation that means the trio are "robotic morons" is quite lame.

Actually, (and I suspect you know this already :)) I think the Kingsguard are robots in this matter. And I think the construction is lame. But not the assertion that the KG are robots; that I don't find lame.

If the inferences are not what I point to, can you show me where in Martin's response he references Viserys status as the heir to the throne? Can you show me where he talks about what happens when oaths come into conflict? Those things are not "right there." They are assumed by some readers because the questioner was trying to get a response that would deal with both of those topics. Martin doesn't give him one.

emphasis mine

As you know, my assertion is that the points are raised in the question. And Martin gave him an answer. He didn't say "no comment", "keep reading", or "you'll have to wait for further books for that", responses he gives frequently in the rest of the SSM. He doesn't have to say, "The KG chose to stay and fight at the tower of joy instead of going to the remaining royal family members because [now what he actually said]" for him to have addressed the points in the question. Viserys doesn't have to be stated as "heir to the throne" or "King." Of the "remaining royal family members" one of them is the ruler. If that qualifies as an assumption, so be it. That the Kingsguard are ignoring their oath to guard Viserys in favor of their order from Rhaegar, is the "wha-what? Why'd they do that" of the question. As I said in my last post, different view.

And, no, I haven't dropped my assertion the simplest and most straightforward reading of Martin's answer is that he doesn't even bother to think there is any contradiction of oaths to deal with in this case. If the heir is at the Tower, then there is no contradiction between the first duty of the Kingsguard to protect the king and the duty to follow orders of a member of the royal family. It fits his response to a "T" but others can be advanced such as that he is just avoiding the question, or that what we have is a betrayal on the part of the trio of their basic duty and they are committing the same treason Ser Barristan does. The latter is not supported by anything else in the text or any other comments by Martin that I know of, but an argument can be made that this is the case.

You said, "Instead, what I'm arguing for is we don't make those assumptions and read Martin's quote for what it does say. The kingsguard doesn't make up its own orders, and the kingsguard would follow an order from Rhaegar." emphasis mine (and "Instead" all the way to "say" was bolded last time but not here)

Now maybe I'm making an assumption again (:)) but you seem to be saying you are not making assumptions in your read. So my question is, does Martin say there is no contradiction between the first duty of a Kingsguard to protect the king and the duty to follow orders of a member of the royal family? Or is this assumed or inferred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, why not, exactly? I seem to remember he started a whole bloody civil war over this Lyanna "hello, I have no political importance whatsoever" Stark girl.

Yes, indeed.

Another is the will to utterly ignore whatever doesn't fit the theory, like thus:

Even though Martin said clearly, unambiguously that they would if ordered?

Oh, also, the old kingsguard is totally lame anyway. Let's not forget they are accessory to murder, rape and torture. That's what the unquestioning obedience they call honour does to you. Only Jaime redeemed himself.

I would have to just guess that being a member of the kingsguard might put your top priority as GUARDING the KING over all else...you know, like they rather explicitly told Jaime that it took precedence over other vows when Aerys was raping his wife... and considering Jaime redeemed himself I find it odd that he specifically told everyone in the KG not to follow certain orders from the king once he claimed the mantle of Lord Commander with no real complaints and let's not even get to Barristan ignoring his king's orders to retire because he didn't want to, either. I mean, we might want to utterly ignore all that as it doesn't conform to the theory you were espousing.

I respect your position on it, nor am I completely sold on R+L=J but you can't have it both ways when arguing. Arguing for either side of it automatically makes you discount certain portions of the other in one fashion or another and as much of the evidence is so much vapor either side is equally valid and equally potentially interesting.

There is plenty of ambiguity (or at least enough ambiguity can be developed from it, much like the book information itself) left in the statement is all I was trying to get across, albeit far less eloquently than SFD. A conflict of oaths easily exists if not when ordered then immediately afterward any way you want to slice it save if R+L=J is true and more valid than Viserys to them. That GRRM doesn't address it as a real potential conflict is where the interest grows on it and rightly so given what can be inferred either way. To dismiss it out of hand is very....odd for a series such as this has been with regard to the conflict of oaths and thus of note.

I think them defending the ToJ in the first place is easily explained as simply underestimating the opponents or being out of touch while there to how the rebellion is going. However, them knowing that all of the royal line save 2 people that are fleeing have died and them not doing anything about it because they were ordered to stay at a tower in the middle of nowhere becomes a bit of a lame cop out unless there's something more to the story....which I think everyone believes there is in some fashion or another.

-sorry if I keep coming across as bull headed or anything on these. I'm always afraid my tone will be seen as hostile for some reason, so apologies if so as I truly do appreciate every side of the arguments for making me think on things like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rhaegar gave the KG orders before he died, does his death invalidate those orders? In Ned's fever dream about the Tower of Joy, he remembers one of the KG (I can't remember which one) explaining their absence at the Trident and other places Ned expected to see them by saying "We swore an oath."

Is this "oath" the oath they took when they became members of the KG--an oath that, I assume (and I may be wrong) includes obeying orders given to them by the royal family and protecting the royal family? Or is it a different oath they made specifically to Rhaegar? IF they have been ordered by their now-dead Crown Prince to protect the child in the Tower of Joy and if that child is in fact the Targaryen heir to the throne, then by protecting him they are fulfilling the orders given to them by Rhaegar Targaryen and living up to their oath to protect the royal family at the same time. We don't know that Rhaegar and Lyanna were ever married, but if they were (and I emphasize that that's a big "IF,") and if proof of this marriage was ever found, then if Lyanna gave birth to a trueborn son of Rhaegar, that child is the legitimate king, outranking Viserys.

When Aerys dies, his oldest legitimate son becomes king (or would have, if Rhaegar wasn't already dead). When Rhaegar's legtimate sons are all used up (although some may suspect that there was another surviving son, that is yet to be proven), then the succession passes to the next legitimate male heir in line--Viserys, in this case. But if Viserys is not the next legitimate heir, there is no reason for the KG to guard him any more specifically than they guard the other members of the royal family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to just guess that being a member of the kingsguard might put your top priority as GUARDING the KING over all else...
That's the point. I was saying that Aerys' Kingsguard is lame precisely because unquestioning obedience is lame, much like others said before me, but I expanded on it by pointing that it didn't begin with "The Rhaegar order that they cannot choose to ignore", as per the SSM titbit, but that they had been involved in rape, murder and torture way before that.

My remark about Jaime wasn't about honour, it was about morality. Fuck oaths, honour and blind obedience, doing the right thing, even if you are mistaken at times, elevates you above the automaton to duty.

considering Jaime redeemed himself I find it odd that he specifically told everyone in the KG not to follow certain orders from the king once he claimed the mantle of Lord Commander with no real complaints and let's not even get to Barristan ignoring his king's orders to retire because he didn't want to, either.
Jaime ordering his KG to think and not act like automatons is totally consistent with his slaying of Aerys, I thought. He's relegating the KG oath to where it belongs, a distant second place behind common sense and morality. Perhaps it is dishonourable to decide what you obey and what you don't, but I love the concept. Had I a kingsguard, I would want good knights, but ones that thought for themselves and would prevent me to burn cities if I ever became batshit insane.

Barristan didn't ignore his king's order to retire, he left the Kingsguard. However, it's true that he changed obedience from Vyserys to Robert, when placed before the fait accompli, then again, Aerys and Rhaegar were dead, and he still tells Dany that he shouldn't have followed Robert, showing his return to beliefs of automaton-ness

A conflict of oaths easily exists [...] To dismiss it out of hand is very....odd for a series such as this has been with regard to the conflict of oaths and thus of note.
That a conflict exists, or doesn't exist is beside the point. The point is that GRRM's answer is clear as spring water: "They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."" means that if given an order they cannot say "we'll do something else", how do you put that in simpler English? The corollary is that they can be ordered to be somewhere away from the King. It does destroy the argument that the only reason the KG were there was because the king was there, but it certainly does not mean that the king couldn't have been there. Their presence just doesn't prove anything one way or another, contrary to what has been argued.

Moving on, I don't see what's odd with GRRM's statement. While the story itself deals with conflict and ambiguous situations, the world is totally choke-full with black and white oaths and point of views. This is the very premise of Jaime's problem, that the kingsguard oath, among others, forbids so totally personal initiative and thoughts and so cannot bend to accommodate doing the moral thing, or actually, anything you want to do and are ordered not to.

This being said, even if it was odd, I would expect better from the R+L=J fanatics than to basically say GRRM lies about his own work.

sorry if I keep coming across as bull headed or anything on these. I'm always afraid my tone will be seen as hostile for some reason
You don't come off as hostile, but your post I quoted before was just a perfect example of twisted logic. As I said before, it's irritating in R+L=J threads, to have everything support the theory, whether it's something GRRM says, writes, or doesn't say or write, no matter if it visibly contradicts some argument it ends up supporting it with a bit of twisting, even if the original said "They cannot choose to not obey" and the result is "they can choose to not obey (but they obviously didn't have to, since Jon is here and is the king, and so them staying there proves Jon was there and is the king)".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the fact that there were other people in Dragonstone to defend Viserys I see no problem with tree KG staying at ToJ on Rhaegar's orders, even in the absence of a royal heir or a new king at ToJ. If Rhaegar ordered them to stay there to protect Lyanna they would obey whether she is a wife or just a lover, whether she has a child or not, whether her child is a true king or a bastard or dead. Some of them might say “By Seven, I’d rather be at Dragonstone†but they would stay at ToJ anyway, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That actually all makes sense, EB. :thumbsup: Guess I misunderstood/misread a few things you were onto there or made up a few things in my own head on it :blush:

I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the theory as a whole, but I do think there's a significant bit more going on with it and that there's a LOT of wiggle room written in inherently to it on every side for good reason. I think I'll enjoy the trip on where it goes regardless, but I don't want to lock myself in to or against any of it so much so that I won't be able to fully appreciate the unveiling of it all is my only real feeling on it. Thus, I find myself arguing this as a valid theory completely, while at the same time knowing and noting that simply being valid in theory doesn't make it absolutely correct necessarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhaegar was Aerys' oldest surviving legitimate son. Since Rhaegar died before the end of the war, HIS oldest surviving legitimate son is the heir to the kingdom. If Aegon had survived, he would be king. If Rhaegar had another legitimate son who survived his father, that child is the heir to the kingdom. I think that makes the KG's duty at this point guarding whoever is the heir to the kindom. Someone upthread mentioned vows the KG had taken in connection with Viserys. I assume that those vows would require them to guard him as a member of the royal family, but if someone else is the heir to the kingdom, that is who the KG would guard most zealously. No oaths they might have taken concerning Viserys would require them to make Viserys the king if, in fact, he is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the fact that there were other people in Dragonstone to defend Viserys I see no problem with tree KG staying at ToJ on Rhaegar's orders, even in the absence of a royal heir or a new king at ToJ. If Rhaegar ordered them to stay there to protect Lyanna they would obey whether she is a wife or just a lover, whether she has a child or not, whether her child is a true king or a bastard or dead. Some of them might say “By Seven, I’d rather be at Dragonstone†but they would stay at ToJ anyway, IMHO.

I'm curious what the order itself would have been. If it was 'protect Lyanna' I find it odd that she was found dying when her saviors showed up, if it was 'keep her here and safe until I return' it kind of becomes irrelevant when he dies and her brother shows up to pick her up although it would still fall under their order blanket. If they felt honor-bound to stay there, I would imagine/hope there's more to the story than just a vague order, but as pointed out, that is all it would take given the circumstances although possibly not all there was.

Rhaegar was Aerys' oldest surviving legitimate son. Since Rhaegar died before the end of the war, HIS oldest surviving legitimate son is the heir to the kingdom. If Aegon had survived, he would be king. If Rhaegar had another legitimate son who survived his father, that child is the heir to the kingdom. I think that makes the KG's duty at this point guarding whoever is the heir to the kindom. Someone upthread mentioned vows the KG had taken in connection with Viserys. I assume that those vows would require them to guard him as a member of the royal family, but if someone else is the heir to the kingdom, that is who the KG would guard most zealously. No oaths they might have taken concerning Viserys would require them to make Viserys the king if, in fact, he is not.

Did we ever actually see/hear the Kingsguard vows or are there plans to do so? I can't recall ever reading them, despite so many people jumping into and out of the position and it being so prominent....that seems odd too! ;) Seems like they would have popped in there by now and could potentially clear/muddle things up rather helpfully right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that we've ever seen or heard the oath that the members of the KG take. It might be in one of the Dunk and Egg stories. I think it's reasonable to assume that the KG oath would include protecting the royal family with their lives, if necessary, and obeying all orders given to them by the royal family. Others, of course, might think differently.

We don't know who was at the Tower of Joy or how long they were there, although Lyanna seems to have been there before Ned and company showed up. Some have suggested that a Maester and/or a wetnurse might have been present. We know that three of the KG were there and that they made a connection to Ned between their presence in that out-of-the-way place and an oath they had taken. We also notice that they didn't express any anger towards those of their number who weren't also at the Tower of Joy, which indicates that they didn't think all of the KG had to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was 'protect Lyanna' I find it odd that she was found dying when her saviors showed up, if it was 'keep her here and safe until I return' it kind of becomes irrelevant when he dies and her brother shows up to pick her up although it would still fall under their order blanket.

I maintain that the order was 'imprison Lyanna'. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...