The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread Part VII

[nana&crow]

Bullshit. Aerys demanded that Jon Arryn surrender Robert and Ned. That was the last straw that kicked off the rebellion.

I think that prompted Jon to join the cause, rather than kicking off the rebellion.

IMHO it is both Lyanna's abduction and the consequent death of Brandon and her father that give rise toit. don't forget that one of the main points of the rebellion was Robert's claim to the throne through his descent of Aegon V - it was not Jon Arryn's war, but his ward's - for the love he bore them he refuses to hand them to the Mad King and joins the cause; he doesn't, however start it all.

[Dreadwolf]

I think that prompted Jon to join the cause, rather than kicking off the rebellion.

IMHO it is both Lyanna's abduction and the consequent death of Brandon and her father that give rise toit. don't forget that one of the main points of the rebellion was Robert's claim to the throne through his descent of Aegon V - it was not Jon Arryn's war, but his ward's - for the love he bore them he refuses to hand them to the Mad King and joins the cause; he doesn't, however start it all.

Well yes but I think that Aerys demand was the point of no return. Considering that the Mad King had already demonstrated what would happen to anyone who answer his demand (Lord Rickard Stark and other fathers of the Brandon*s Stark companinos). By that time still there had been at least in theory a slightest chance for peaceful solution.

[SFDanny]

The start of the rebellion is usually dated from Jon Arryn's actions because it is he that first calls his banners together in revolt and refuses his king's lawful order to send him Robert's and Ned's heads. One can certainly look to earlier actions, Brandon's cry for Rhaegar to "come out and die" or Rhaegar's "kidnapping" of Lyanna etc., all of which lead directly to Jon Arryn's rebellion, but his is the first actual rebellious act.

[the silent speaker]

Why are all three of the remaining loyalist Kingsguard sitting around a lonely tower on the Dornish border when it looks like their oath should have at least one of their members heading to Dragonstone to protect Viserys? Only the presence of the heir to the throne at the Tower of Joy provides much of a satisfactory answer to that question.

It doesn't answer the question at all. One of them should still have headed off to Dragonstone to guard the blood royal that was there. That would be true even if Rhaegar himself were at the Tower.

And maybe the Faith could handle either or, but not both.

[Rockroi]

It doesn't answer the question at all. One of them should still have headed off to Dragonstone to guard the blood royal that was there. That would be true even if Rhaegar himself were at the Tower.

And maybe the Faith could handle either or, but not both.

Although this is off topic, I will reiterate one of my core theories: the 3 KG at the TofJ are there for the express purpose of sitting out the war. They do not want any part in defending Crazy Aerys and his destructive reign. They say this to Rhaegar and Rhaegar "assigns" them to guard Lyanna at the Tower of Joy. Yeah, they could have gone to the Trident with Rhaegar, but had 3 KG anyway. If he was walking around with 6 that would have alarmed his mad father. And he needed some to guard Lyanna.

Once word reached them that Aerys was dead, they could have gone to guard the queen and (almost as nuts) Viserys, but by that point the child had been born and they needed to do something. My guess is that they decided to go to Dorne, but Lyanna was too weak to travel. So they waited and were found by Ned. And in that scene, they basically admit to their scheme in the way they answer NEd's questions, basically telling Ned that Robert was lucky they were not at the Trident or Storm's End...

... but they never say a word about King's Landing.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

basically telling Ned that Robert was lucky they were not at the Trident or Storm's End...

... but they never say a word about King's Landing.

Flat out wrong.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

[Rockroi]

Flat out wrong.

"When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were."

"Far away," Ser Gerold said, "or Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

Good point.

But by a happy accident, that actually bolsters my point: Hightower is basically saying that Ned et al were lucky that they were not there... in other words, Ned, you should be thanking us for taking ourselves out of this war.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

But by a happy accident, that actually bolsters my point: Hightower is basically saying that Ned et al were lucky that they were not there... in other words, Ned, you should be thanking us for taking ourselves out of this war.

It really doesn't jibe with the picture we get of Hightower: inflexible loyalty to his king, no matter how monstrous. After Aerys burned Lord Rickard in that mockery of a trial, Hightower actually reprimands Jaime for..well it's hard to say what for, since he didn't do anything. Not smile convincingly enough at Aerys' atrocities? "It's our job to guard the king, not to judge him" doesn't make much sense from a guy who's trying to weasel out of his duty by getting a cushier reassignment.

[Rockroi]

It really doesn't jibe with the picture we get of Hightower: inflexible loyalty to his king, no matter how monstrous.

Other-in-Law:

Obviously, Hightower's reputation was that of a loyal, subject-knight who was honorable and true. However, we only know that by reputation. And that reputation has been varnished by the lacquer of "revisionism"; ie: "Things were better back in the day when ..." This has been a recurring theme in the books: that the fondness of memory out-tips the accuracy of fact. Its easier to condemn the likes of Jaime NOW if you can say that BACK THEN the Kingsguard was far better.

After Aerys burned Lord Rickard in that mockery of a trial, Hightower actually reprimands Jaime for..well it's hard to say what for, since he didn't do anything. Not smile convincingly enough at Aerys' atrocities? "It's our job to guard the king, not to judge him" doesn't make much sense from a guy who's trying to weasel out of his duty by getting a cushier reassignment.

(Hold the thought that Hightower was in KL when Brandon and Rickard were slain)

Interestingly enough, I think you were onto something here that backs my point. Why DID Hightower say what he said? Maybe because Hightower (by using Jaime as a surrogate) was actually trying to talk TO HIMSELF about his own misgivings, as sudden and overwhelming as they had become. I mean, picture it, you are the Lord Commander of the KG; you have sworn to protect the King... and that King is not just unstable; not just "crazy"; not just "bad" or clumsy or angry or mean or despotic. No. He's dangerous. He is dangerous to all. And you are 67 years old (I made that age up; he was old). You have NOTHING but Aerys.

That's your life. Aerys FUCKING Targaryen, his fingernails, his long hair, his crazy son Viserys, his cuts, his hatred, his paranoia.

And he just burns two men for basically angering him. The death's are not done by trial; they are brutal, agonizing and torturous. And you are standing there guarding Aerys the Mad.

And maybe... just maybe... you just realize you can't do it anymore. You are too smart, too good, too sensible to stand there anymore.

In King's Landing. Remember?

Which leads to this question: How the HELL did Gerold Hightower, the Lord Commander of the KG get from KL to Dorne IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR? How did anybody NOT notice this? What assignment was he on? It wasn't war related: Jaime recounts all the activities of the Loyalist military moves contemporaneous to the Battle of the Bells: Hightower was NOT a part of the war. So what brought him to Dorne? And why did he stay there? It seems completely nonsensical that Aerys would ORDER him to stay in the South?

My theory is simple: Aerys probably sent Hightower to find Rhaegar. He found him. And then Hightower explained- maybe subtly; maybe in a passionate tone; maybe just by inference- that he could no longer stand guard to the Mad King. He probably requested that Rhaegar allow him to sit the rest of the war out. And Rhaegar have him exactly what he wanted- the same thing that Dayne and Whent wanted: an assignment that would give them maximum "plausible deniability" - they could avoid the war without appearing like they were. He gave them to Lyanna and Jon.

Because in the end, that sound coming from Hightower's lips is not defiance. "We swore an oath." It sounds a lot more like a plea that somebody- even Ice Cold Ned Stark -understand what he did and why he did it.

[SFDanny]

I will reiterate one of my core theories: the 3 KG at the TofJ are there for the express purpose of sitting out the war. They do not want any part in defending Crazy Aerys and his destructive reign. They say this to Rhaegar and Rhaegar "assigns" them to guard Lyanna at the Tower of Joy.

This is the core of the theory? Let me get this right. You think the three men, the three always seen as the epitome of what it means to be a member of the Kingsguard, asked their prince to let them sit out the greatest threat to Targaryen rule since the conquest because they finally decided Aerys was too much, and you think Rhaegar - who leaves his love nest to take up his own responsibility in the war - thinks this is a good idea and tells them "fine, guys, if you don't like dad just stay here"? Pardon me, but there are sooo many problems with this theory that it's hard to begin.

First, I don't have any problem with any of the Kingsguard thinking that Aerys was crazy and some of his actions went way overboard. Any sane human being would think so. I DO have a huge problem with thinking these men who have committed their lives to an oath to guard their king with their lives, to protect his secrets with their lives, to follow his orders even if it means giving up their lives, etc. etc. deciding one day to just say to their Crown Prince - the man who will be their king - that we don't want to do our job anymore and will you just let us sit out this threat to, not only Aerys's rule, but the rule of all future Targaryen Kings. Perhaps Ser Boros would do so, but the White Bull? the Sword of the Morning? and Whent? Your theory transforms these three into something unrecognizable.

Second, If these men are the cravens you make them out to be, and they are cravens and oath breakers if they do what you say they do, then why do they fight Ned? Why do they give their lives to protect whatever or whomever is in the Tower of Joy? They have sat out the war so far, in your theory anyway, why start now? Why not hightail it to the Free Cities? or farther into Dorne? They could certainly have given Ned access to the Tower, to Lyanna, and not have had to fight this last battle of the war which you say they sat out. Except they don't.

Lastly, while I agree with what you say about how Hightower gets to the Tower, he is almost certainly the one, or one of the people, who find Rhaegar after the Battle of the Bells, I think you miss the point of Rhaegar's assignment of the Kingsguard to their duties during this period. Rhaegar assigns the three men he trusts most to guard Lyanna, and, if you believe she is pregnant, to guard their child - the third head of the dragon. He assigns Jaime, for many reasons, to help guard his father - along with thousands of soldiers inside the symbol of Targaryen power, the Red Keep. He uses the remaining three members of the Kingsguard to help him fight the upcoming battle against the main rebel force. He has his mother and brother stashed away in an island fortress - against a foe with no navy. In short, he has done everything he can do to fight the war and safeguard his family, including his orders to Hightower, Whent, and Dayne. In no way can this be interpreted as letting the last three sit out the war. They are an integral part of his plan for winning the war, for maintaining Targaryen rule, and fulfilling what he sees as the prophecy for the greater fight to come. Sitting out the war doesn't even come into this.

[Rockroi]

SFDanny:

Good, solid post.

I stated its one of MY core theories; not a core theory of the books.

I don't want to derail the thread, so I will let your points and mine stand alone. You raise excellent points that I am happy to retort to; I just think that THIS particular thread is not the right place.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

My theory is simple: Aerys probably sent Hightower to find Rhaegar. He found him.

Agree completely so far...

And then Hightower explained- maybe subtly; maybe in a passionate tone; maybe just by inference- that he could no longer stand guard to the Mad King. He probably requested that Rhaegar allow him to sit the rest of the war out. And Rhaegar have him exactly what he wanted- the same thing that Dayne and Whent wanted: an assignment that would give them maximum "plausible deniability" - they could avoid the war without appearing like they were. He gave them to Lyanna and Jon.

I look at it from the other side completely; Rhaegar plans to depose his father and the unflinchingly honourable Hightower is a deadly obstacle to doing so. If Aerys orders him to kill Rhaegar, he'll obey He swore a vow. Maybe Rhaegar has sounded out some of the rest and can trust them to at least be neutral, but not the LC. So how to get around the problem? Make sure Hightower isn't there when he makes his move. So he orders him to stay, and in lieu of specific orders to the contrary from Aerys, he obeys the Prince.

Because in the end, that sound coming from Hightower's lips is not defiance. "We swore an oath." It sounds a lot more like a plea that somebody- even Ice Cold Ned Stark -understand what he did and why he did it.

I think that's reading much and more into those three words than are actually there.

[Edward the Great]

So he orders him to stay, and in lieu of specific orders to the contrary from Aerys, he obeys the Prince.

Rockroi appears to be of the same opinion as me, that this explanation blows big C. The only alternative is that Hightower failed in absolute obedience to the king, and then it's just a matter of exactly when and in what way he failed. My old idea is that he failed to murder Lyanna and Jon as he was supposed to do after Rhaegar fell at the Battle of the Trident.

[SFDanny]

SFDanny:

Good, solid post.

I stated its one of MY core theories; not a core theory of the books.

I don't want to derail the thread, so I will let your points and mine stand alone. You raise excellent points that I am happy to retort to; I just think that THIS particular thread is not the right place.

No problem. If you want to start a new thread to discuss it, I'll participate there. Thanks

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Rockroi appears to be of the same opinion as me, that this explanation blows big C. The only alternative is that Hightower failed in absolute obedience to the king, and then it's just a matter of exactly when and in what way he failed. My old idea is that he failed to murder Lyanna and Jon as he was supposed to do after Rhaegar fell at the Battle of the Trident.

You aren't expressing yourself very clearly. "The only alternative is that Hightower failed in absolute obedience to the king, and then it's just a matter of exactly when and in what way he failed."

That's the only alternative to what? My idea that Aerys didn't give explicit instructions to return with Rhaegar, and instead said something more ambiguous like "Go find my son and make him return"? If those were the instructions, Hightower didn't fail in obedience by staying behind, especially if Rhaegar ordered him to. Nor is it the only alternative; Hightower may have been ordered to stay behind by Aerys, for some reason. That may not be the most appealing alternative, but it's an alternative.

It's also generally useful to articulate why you disagree with something, rather than just saying "it blows."

[Edward the Great]

You aren't expressing yourself very clearly. "The only alternative is that Hightower failed in absolute obedience to the king, and then it's just a matter of exactly when and in what way he failed."

That's the only alternative to what? My idea that Aerys didn't give explicit instructions to return with Rhaegar,

Exactly. It looks like you understand what I'm saying.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Exactly. It looks like you understand what I'm saying.

Then I don't understand why you think the only alternative to my idea is that Hightower is disobedient, or why disagree with my idea.

[Edward the Great]

Then I don't understand why you think the only alternative to my idea is that Hightower is disobedient,

Disobedient or violates his oath in some way. I don't consider Rockroi's idea much different from mine. It's a simple contrapositive.

If Aerys orders Hightower to return and Hightower keeps his vows, then Hightower must return.

If Hightower doesn't return then either Aerys didn't order Hightower to return or Hightower doesn't keep his vows.

or why disagree with my idea.

At some point rational analysis ends and aesthetics begin. Why is "Men call me Darkstar, and I am of the night" the worst sentence of Martin's career? Because it blows.

Why don't I like your idea? Because it blows.

[SFDanny]

It's clear from Jaime's description of events that Rhaegar is sent for to command the loyalist response to the rebellion after the Battle of the Bells. That includes the disposition of the Kingsguard. It is Rhaegar who gives the order for the three men to stay at the Tower of Joy (Martin tells us this,) and it is he who tells Jaime he has to stay in King's Landing (Jaime tells us so,) and he who commands the rest of the Kingsguard as they go to the Trident. So it isn't a question of Hightower or any of the others being disobedient to Aerys. Aerys has delegated these decisions to his son as he descends further into his madness. It would take explicit commands by Aerys to countermand Rhaegar's orders, and given the actions of the members of the Kingsguard who have proven their loyalty to Aerys over many years the logical conclusion is that those countermanding orders never came. To assume some drastic change in the character of these men makes little or no sense - particularly since at this point both King and Crown Prince are working for the same immediate goal, the defeat of the rebellion.

With Hightower, OIL, may well be right that Rhaegar has other plans regarding setting his father aside (Jaime's account of Rhaegar's last words to him point to this) that would best be started with the Lord Commander away from Aerys's ability to easily reach him, but it is also true that Hightower has shown himself to be dedicated to his oath and part of that includes following the orders of his Crown Prince. He needs no other reason to be at the Tower of Joy - at this point - than that Rhaegar ordered him to be there.

The real question comes when Hightower knows Aerys is dead, Rhaegar is dead, Aegon is dead, and, if we believe Viserys is the rightful heir, why Ser Gerold isn't on his way to his king's side, or at least sending Whent or Dayne there? We know Rhaegar had ordered him to the Tower of Joy. What we don't know is what these men do when there are conflicting duties based on their oath to both safeguard their king and to follow the orders of those of royal blood. My contention has always been that they would try to do both, if at all possible, but the first duty, as Jaime calls it, is to defend their king. That leads me to the conclusion, that the most likely reason all three men are still at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrives, and they refuse Ned entry, is that there is NO conflict between these aspects of their oaths, because their primary responsibility is to be where their Prince ordered them to be - safeguarding the heir at the Tower, not Viserys on Dragonstone. They know Ser Willam Darry and Targaryen loyalists safeguard Viserys and his mother in the fortress island guarded by the Targaryen fleet, and they know they are the only three loyalists swords left to safeguard the heir to the throne.Their actions are best resolved by this scenario, and any other one raises all kinds of difficult to understand problems such as reducing to the Kingsguard to mindless robots who only obey the last order given them. So, yes TSS, it does answer the question. Perhaps not in the way you think it needs to, or certainly not in the only way possible, but it answers it quite well.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

At some point rational analysis ends and aesthetics begin. Why is "Men call me Darkstar, and I am of the night" the worst sentence of Martin's career? Because it blows.

Why don't I like your idea? Because it blows.

At least you're not pretending to be rational.

As SFDanny has pointed out, GRRM has said those three remained at the ToJ on Rhaegar's orders, and we have Rhaegar's intention to set aside his father from Jaime. Hightower's rebuke of Jaime gives an idea of Hightower's view of the obedience required of a KG. All of the building blocks are established, I'm just giving a meaning to Rhaegar's reason for giving the order and traveling back alone, instead of taking a KG back with him. I really fail to see any rational reason to reject my interpretation outright, especially when no explanation for doing so is forthcoming.

Using "aesthetics" as an excuse for inability to back up one's position with anything is kind of amusing, considering the fields of film, music, and art criticism; people who are able to explain why they don't aesthetically like something in great detail.