The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon thread, Part VIII

[Lummel]

In that situation the three men have either decided their duty lies in staying at the Tower or they are overcome by the course of events before they can do anything about it. The latter case seems very unlikely to me given that all it would take would be for one of their members to travel through Dorne, a still loyal province, to the port of Starfall, something Ned does later on when he returns the Sword of the Morning to the Daynes - under much more dangerous circumstances. Once reaching the port of Starfall, a trip by ship to Dragonstone, with Robert's forces still lacking the battle fleet to attack the island for many months, would seem something a skilled knight of the Kingsguard would have no trouble attempting. So unless we think the news of the Sack reaches the Tower of Joy almost immediately before Ned arrives, then it is hard to understand why one of them doesn't attempt the trip - unless they have no need to do so because the heir is already with them.

What's the timeline here? If Ned is moving at full speed from Kings Landing, to Storm's End and then to the Tower of Joy is he going to be slower than the news of Rhaeger's defeat and the death of Aerys?

As there are only three of them, sending one of there number on a round trip to Dragonstone via Starfell just on the off chance that there might be some news seems a little unlikely, but on the other hand even at teh Tower of Joy they can't be completely cut off, presumeably there are some peasants or servants bringing them food and supplies on a regular basis who would be sharing what ever news there was.

[SFDanny]

What's the timeline here? If Ned is moving at full speed from Kings Landing, to Storm's End and then to the Tower of Joy is he going to be slower than the news of Rhaeger's defeat and the death of Aerys?

Estimates of the timeline, given real world times to travel the distance, put Ned's arrival at the Tower of Joy sometime about six weeks or so after the Sack. So, no, it's likely news of the events reach the Tower faster than Ned, which is what we see in Ned's dream of his encounter with the Kingsguard trio.

As there are only three of them, sending one of there number on a round trip to Dragonstone via Starfell just on the off chance that there might be some news seems a little unlikely, but on the other hand even at teh Tower of Joy they can't be completely cut off, presumeably there are some peasants or servants bringing them food and supplies on a regular basis who would be sharing what ever news there was.

I'm not suggesting any round trip to Dragonstone and back to the Tower took place. Simply that news arrives at the Tower of the events at the Trident and King's Landing (and Storm's End) some time before Ned arrives, via peasants servicing the Tower or a still loyal network of spies who have members who report to the ToJ or whatever method, and they therefore make a choice, if Viserys is their rightful king, by the fact of all three remaining at the Tower between following the last orders of Rhaegar and their first duty to guard their new king. Given the portrait of the three men we are given, I don't think they would have made the choice they seemingly did under those circumstances. I think their loyalty to the Targaryen Kings is paramount, and the fact they are all still there at the Tower tells me the heir to the Targaryen throne is with them, not on Dragonstone. This is amplified by the fact they all are willing to die rather than let Ned see his sister. Why? To protect a mistress and maybe her bastard child? To fulfill some last order from Rhaegar to the exclusion of their primary duty? Because they have apparently lost all ability to think and decide between what their oath tells them they must do and what they were doing? I don't think so. On the other hand, the existence of either Aegon or a legitimate Jon at the Tower explains the actions of the trio, including their willingness to die rather than hand the heir over to one of the generals of the rebellion. And of the two, a legitimate Jon seems by far the most likely.

[Lummel]

I think their loyalty to the Targaryen Kings is paramount, and the fact they are all still there at the Tower tells me the heir to the Targaryen throne is with them, not on Dragonstone. This is amplified by the fact they all are willing to die rather than let Ned see his sister. Why? To protect a mistress and maybe her bastard child? To fulfill some last order from Rhaegar to the exclusion of their primary duty? Because they have apparently lost all ability to think and decide between what their oath tells them they must do and what they were doing? I don't think so. On the other hand, the existence of either Aegon or a legitimate Jon at the Tower explains the actions of the trio, including their willingness to die rather than hand the heir over to one of the generals of the rebellion. And of the two, a legitimate Jon seems by far the most likely.

It's an impressive agrument that, as you point out above, ties up neatly some loose ends from the text. When Ran finally gets round to incorporating this board as a university I'll be putting your name forward to the senate for a Doctorate!

[Errant Bard]

I think their loyalty to the Targaryen Kings is paramount, and the fact they are all still there at the Tower tells me the heir to the Targaryen throne is with them, not on Dragonstone.

It must be why they chose to not defend the actual king or his heirs, whereas said heir tried to defend the king alone. I guess Dorne bunnies are so dangerous that one twice removed heir has to have the protection of multiple legends, but armies that threaten to kill king and actual heirs and WILL come down to ally with the Dorne bunnies are small time.

Seriously now, they're supposed to be a protection from what? From the rebel army that will not move down if Rhaegar doesn't die (wins)? Sounds real slick, that: "stay there: if I win, you won't fight, if I lose (though I could maybe have won with you at my side) you'll fight a whole army. Either way you will make an obvious difference"

This is amplified by the fact they all are willing to die rather than let Ned see his sister.

Not a fact. GRRM said that Ned's dream was not coherent. One could probably guess by the sky made of blue roses petals. They fought, but we are never told why nor in what order the events there unfolded, nor if the scene itself actually happened.

Plus, I have a hard time swallowing that non-drones would be willing to die for nothing, especially as it's clear Ned will not kill Lyanna nor her baby, and you can talk to the guy... As much as I have to figure how they knew Lyanna was carrying a male.

And of the two, a legitimate Jon seems by far the most likely.

No, not really. I don't believe they chose anything (as per GRRM's SSM where he says the Kingsguard doesn't get to choose what they obey), but if they could, the fact that they don't try to protect people they should protect, namely Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon, because of the, you know, rebel army bearing down on two while the other one puts himself in the way would rather show that they don't give a toss about who is king and heir. After all who cares about who is the actual king, when you can go protect the heir of the heir of the heir?

Sounds like a good plan to stay alive: once one becomes king, leave him even if he needs fighters, and instead go chill with the heir of the heir of the heir who only needs wetnurses. I guess once Aegon, Rhaegar and Aerys died, they planned to go hang around with... humm let me see... if Aerys=Jon (king), Rhaegar=Vyserys (heir), Rhaenys=Dany (I guess), Aegon=Robert (heh)...), then Stannis.

[Liliedhe]

I agree that the actions of the Kingsguard make absolutely no sense. Because, even if an heir is there, they cannot protect him. Against Ned and 6 guys, maybe. Against Robert and his army? No way.

If they were to protect someone there, their ONLY chance would have been to take him/her away, not stay there and be a sitting duck. But they didn't.

My - completely unsubstantiated and mostly stemming from Jaime's dream on ASoS - explanation would be they stayed to die. They were ordered to stay, for whatever reason (guard, keep captive, kill the hostage before she is rescued but so that the rescuers actually see her die...) and stayed, even after Aerys and Rhaegar were dead, because they had done horrid things under Aerys and the only way to wash out that stain was to take the consequences: Do their duty to the end.

If they really stayed to die in combat, like maybe Samurai, and took the consequences for helping Aerys murder and massacre and be a monster, then I can also see why Ned still considers them great. In the bad dilemma of conflicting oaths, the only honorable course is to keep one, and take the consequences for breaking the other. They kept their honor intact and chose death.

[corbon]

It must be why they chose to not defend the actual king or his heirs, whereas said heir tried to defend the king alone.

Surely the actual King (and his other children) had at least one KG present (Jaime), while said heir had several (the other 3?) KG present in his army at the battle of the Trident.

1 for the Mad King and his other family in the place of greatest safety (the fortress in his capital).

3 for the heir, going to battle.

3 for the heir's heir (well, newest child, away from the others of the family and possibly key to prophecy), secretly stashed away without significant other defences.

It might not be quite the distribution some would have chosen, but Rhaegar had his own motivations, priorities and expectations.

Seriously now, they're supposed to be a protection from what? From the rebel army that will not move down if Rhaegar doesn't die (wins)? Sounds real slick, that: "stay there: if I win, you won't fight, if I lose (though I could maybe have won with you at my side) you'll fight a whole army. Either way you will make an obvious difference"

From whatever. From rebel sympathisers, from raiding parties like Ned's, from random bandits. Not from whole armies - Rhaegar wasn't planning to lose to the rebels.

Presence of the KG also adds a considerable degree of legitimacy to Lyana and her child should she be 'found' publicly. Without them she could be just a runaway girl of noble birth with a bastard child. With them she has support for claiming she is wife to Rhaegar and carrying his child. That could be critical if interactions with minor (or even major) nobility are required.

Plus, I have a hard time swallowing that non-drones would be willing to die for nothing, especially as it's clear Ned will not kill Lyanna nor her baby, and you can talk to the guy...

If Rhaegar and Lyanna were legally married then their baby, if male, is legally in line to be King and legally king once Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon are dead. Non-drone KG still are required to defend their king to the death, even if the the odds are hopeless.

And if they'd won, the could still have raised further support in Dhorne and maybe Highgarden. Things were very bad, but not necessarily hopeless, especially if the Dhornish passes could be held. Or they could flee to exile.

As much as I have to figure how they knew Lyanna was carrying a male.

Experienced midwives and doctors can get a fairly good idea, if not certainty.

Not to mention prophecy or 'dreams'.

They don't need to 'know', they just need to be told by a reasonably believable (for them) source.

[corbon]

If they were to protect someone there, their ONLY chance would have been to take him/her away, not stay there and be a sitting duck. But they didn't.

The news from of Trident and/or sack of the Red Keep can't have reached them all much before Ned arrived, not more than a few weeks at best.

Depending on the exact timing of when the news arrived, and the exact timing of the birth, they are then stuck with Lyana being either heavily pregnant or very recently birthed - and suffering post birth complications (possibly puerpueral fever I have seen others propose, which was common in the comparable time in our own history) to boot. In neither case is she likely to be capable of travel, so it is better to sit tight and hope the rebels don't know their location (it seems to be pretty much a secret, or at least not general public knowledge) until she is able to travel safely.

[Liliedhe]

I shouldn't do this... But well. ^^

Hightower and the others knew of the Trident and the Sack, they also knew that Viserys and the Queen were on Dragonstone. Even if Lyanna (or the supposed baby) was not fit to travel far, they were in Dorne, which was halfway to rebelling for Viserys anyway.

And their location was known enough that somebody could have fetched Rhaegar to King's Landing. So, presumably, some people IN King's Landing knew and might be "persuaded" to talk.

Also, Ned did not rush south from King's Landing straight away, he sorted out Storm's End first which is in the other direction.

On a sidenote: I find it strange that everyone is so fixated on the idea that if Lyanna had a baby by Rhaegar, it must be Jon. That all argumentation (about timing, length of pregnancy and so on) always hinges around Jon... Couldn't she have had another child? That maybe died (despite Ned promising to keep it safe - accounting for a huge amount of guilt), or grew up somewhere else (like, at Starfall...), or even - crackpot time - was sent to the free cities with Ashara Dayne whose death was faked? (they never found her body. if a body is not found, the usual paranoid response should be she is not dead^^)

Besides, Rhaegar wanted a daughter, not a son. Of course, even Targaryens don't always get what they want^^. The child could also be significantly older, if Lyanna conceived at Harrenhal and ran away to hide the pregnancy or bring the child to its father.

Just saying.^^

[Errant Bard]

Surely the actual King (and his other children) had at least one KG present (Jaime), while said heir had several (the other 3?) KG present in his army at the battle of the Trident.

But the kingsguard job is to guard the king (note the "KING" in kingsguard), not the third heir. (I remind you that AEGON is Rhaegar's heir)

From an oath point of view, it makes no sense. Your king is in danger, you go protect him, you don't decide to stay away because he isn't totally defenseless (but still is getting his ass kicked)

From a strategical point of view it makes no sense: The dangers and benefits you mention are minor, hypothetical and totally dwarfed by the consequences of a failure in KL, which are guaranteed, if it happens.

From a tactical point of view, it makes no sense: three men alone are dead meat, even attacked by a small party, as shown by Ned, when they can make a difference on the battlefield (see Lewyn Martell versus Lyn Corbray, Robert vs Rhaegar, Jaime versus Robb's guard (think Robb would be alive without the Kastarks?))

From a logistical point of view: it makes no sense: as you mention, they most likely had a midwife somewhere, and probably the confidence of Starfall, they could without problem leave the girl in a loyalist castle along the road. It's not like pregnancies or rebellions happen overnight, or that anyone would refuse a request from the Kingsguard supermen and Rhaegar.

But let's not forget that I was arguing against the idea that it made sense that the three KG stayed only if Lyanna was married to Rhaegar and had his son, because of this legitimacy thing, which ought rather to have spurred these loyalty automatons to protect the three people who had full legitimacy, precedence and were in certain, immediate and mortal danger.

[corbon]

But the kingsguard job is to guard the king (note the "KING" in kingsguard), not the third heir. (I remind you that AEGON is Rhaegar's heir)

From an oath point of view, it makes no sense. Your king is in danger, you go protect him, you don't decide to stay away because he isn't totally defenseless (but still is getting his ass kicked)

Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Wrong conceptually and wrong in details.

Conceptually, the Kingsguard general function is to guard the King and his family.

Is Myrcella the King? She has a Kingsguard with her (or did!)

In fact, it seems clear that the Kingsguard's actual function is to take orders from the King/Regent/Hand involving the King's personal safety, his family's safety and the realm's safety, not just to personally guard the king and only the king.

Jaime is sent to deal with Riverrun, rather than protect the King himself, because that is dealing with the realm's safety - not the king's (directly). As long as at least one KG is protecting the King, the rest can and are often sent on other missions, especially missions involving the family of the king.

Detail-wise, it seems fairly clear that the rebellion wasn't being treated all that seriously until long after the Kingsguard were assigned. When the 3 (maybe more) KG went south they were almost certainly with Rhaegar and Lyana, leaving 1-4 KG with the king. Later Rhaegar is summoned back to deal with the rebellion. He takes the choice to leave 3 KG with the pregnant Lyana and I very much doubt they could refuse his order, even if he then travelled without any KG accompaniment back to KL (and he may have had more KG that did return with him, I'm not sure if we have any info on this).

Then, before leaving to deal with the rebels Rhaegar makes a comment that things will change after (presumably, from context, regarding Aerys being put aside due to his growing madness and Rhaegar ruling more openly, even if as regent), so he still is expecting to defeat the rebels comfortably. Further, Connington was exiled for losing a battle. You only do that, even mad, when losing was pretty much inconceivable (ie, the rebellion still isn't being taken seriously, even after this lost battle).

Rhaegar then leaves 1 KG with Aerys and the rest of Aerys' family, in the never-stormed Red Keep (eventually only taken by treachery when Pycell opens the gates) in the heart of Targyren power. And he takes 3 KG with him to battle.

Oathwise, the King isn't in any particular danger until suddenly, all at once (pretty much), Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are all dead, which makes a male child of married L+R king.

From a strategical point of view it makes no sense: The dangers and benefits you mention are minor, hypothetical and totally dwarfed by the consequences of a failure in KL, which are guaranteed, if it happens.

From a tactical point of view, it makes no sense: three men alone are dead meat, even attacked by a small party, as shown by Ned, when they can make a difference on the battlefield (see Lewyn Martell versus Lyn Corbray, Robert vs Rhaegar, Jaime versus Robb's guard (think Robb would be alive without the Kastarks?))

Excuse me? I need to clarify this. You say that they are dead meat if attacked by even a small party, yet can make a difference on the battlefield? :lmao:

They are not dead meat if attacked by any old party. The mere presence of 3 KG, let alone legends like these, would like deter any bandits or minor raiders. Only a well equipped, specially motivated group of the best veterans, like say, Ned's group, are likely to attack them.

From a logistical point of view: it makes no sense: as you mention, they most likely had a midwife somewhere, and probably the confidence of Starfall, they could without problem leave the girl in a loyalist castle along the road. It's not like pregnancies or rebellions happen overnight, or that anyone would refuse a request from the Kingsguard supermen and Rhaegar.

What we forgot is that Rhaegar was there with them. Then left to go deal with the rebellion. Leaving at least 1 KG there would be practically mandatory, especially if R+L is legal. With Rhaegar's motivations and beliefs (prophecy) leaving three is not unreasonable.

But let's not forget that I was arguing against the idea that it made sense that the three KG stayed only if Lyanna was married to Rhaegar and had his son, because of this legitimacy thing, which ought rather to have spurred these loyalty automatons to protect the three people who had full legitimacy, precedence and were in certain, immediate and mortal danger.

Quite.

If legitimate, they stay because Rhaegar told them to and it fits within their normal duties. When the bad news comes they must still stay, because now they have the King, if the baby is male.

If not legitimate, they stay because Rhaegar told them to and it fits within their normal duties. When the bad news comes their responsibilities would be to the King, not Rhaegar's bastard, so you would expect them to drop everything and race to Viserys' side, since he is a King with no KG protection. They might leave one KG behind with Lyana, they might not.

They only all stay with Lyana + child, logically, if child is the King, not Viserys.

[SFDanny]

Ok, I typed most of this yesterday and haven’t been able to finish until now. I see where Corbon has done an excellent job in responding to most of this, but let me throw in my rather long wandering post just to add to any confusion. ;)

It must be why they chose to not defend the actual king or his heirs, whereas said heir tried to defend the king alone. I guess Dorne bunnies are so dangerous that one twice removed heir has to have the protection of multiple legends, but armies that threaten to kill king and actual heirs and WILL come down to ally with the Dorne bunnies are small time.

Seriously now, they're supposed to be a protection from what? From the rebel army that will not move down if Rhaegar doesn't die (wins)? Sounds real slick, that: "stay there: if I win, you won't fight, if I lose (though I could maybe have won with you at my side) you'll fight a whole army. Either way you will make an obvious difference"

Ok, EB, let's try to do this sans snark, ok? I haven't a clue what "Dorne bunnies" are all about, so I'm going to deal with what I can in a straight up respectful way and appreciate the same in return - fair enough?

It is clear the trio are at the Tower by way of orders from either Rhaegar or Aerys, with it almost certainly coming from Rhaegar. Either way, they did not choose to not defend Aerys. They follow the orders given to them knowing that others of their number have the responsibility for the personal safety of both the king and the crown prince. There is no conflict for these three men, up to the point of the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Elia's children, between their stationing at the Tower and following their vows.

But you raise the question of why they, or perhaps some of the three, are not where they can make more of a difference at either the Trident or at King's Landing? It's a great question from hindsight. Surely if Ser Arthur was at the Trident Rhaegar's personal safety would have been more secure. If Ser Gerold had been in King's Landing, Jaime likely can't kill Aerys and the White Bull may have had enough sway with the mad Aerys to prevent him from letting the Lions within the gates. One can argue, ad infinitum, the "what ifs" of a different strategy than the one Rhaegar chose. To me the question is does the strategy Rhaegar chooses make sense without the foreknowledge of what is about to happen? I think it does.

His strategy calls for Rhaegar to lead an army he has gathered and rebuilt against the combined forces of Robert, Ned, Jon Arryn, and Hoster Tully - in short against 4 out of 7 of the great lords of the seven kingdoms. At this point, I don't think there is any question this is the only choice Rhaegar can make. He can't negotiate terms with the rebels, not after the blood that has been shed on both sides, at least not while there is a viable rebel army controlling vast parts of Westeros. Not if he wants to maintain Targaryen rule. To accomplish this Rhaegar has not only brought together a numerically superior force, but he also brings with him seasoned commanders in the form of the three members of the Kingsguard who do accompany him. Ser Barristan is an obvious choice with his experience fighting in the Ninepenny War and at Duskendale. He has fought against rebellion before and proved his worth. Prince Lewyn commands Dornish forces at the Trident and as such he brings not only his value as an experienced member of the Kingsguard, but also a Dornish voice in maintaining the loyalty of those Dornish troops so needed by Rhaegar. Makes sense. Darry is Darry. Seemingly another experienced member of the White Swords and also the one member who has family ties to the area in which the battle is likely to be, and actually is, joined. All three men make sense, especially since he has four members readily available to choose from. But why not more of the Kingsguard? Or why not send to Dorne and enlist all of their number?

We know from Jaime's meeting of the Kingsguard that their oaths call for them to account for the King's safety at all times. To even have a short meeting they must be assured of the quality of the men who guard the king while they meet. This points to the need for them to have at least one of their members in charge of guarding the King. Jaime takes on this role for Rhaegar. He also helps, as Rhaegar tells him, soothe Aerys's anxiety over Tywin and what he may do. But Rhaegar doesn't leave Jaime alone to guard the king. He has thousands of troops stationed in King's Landing with the Targaryen fleet guarding the sea lanes for an escape route and for reinforcing the city. Rhaegar doesn't anticipate that his father will by pass all of these defenses and let the enemy into the front gates, but who would?

Now, to the core of your points, or at least as I see it, why are three of the kingsguard stationed at the Tower of Joy with Lyanna? Well, we don’t know for sure they are for the whole time between Rhaegar’s return and Ned’s arrival. It is likely at least one of them, my guess is Ser Arthur, is with Lyanna from the time of Rhaegar’s “kidnap” of her to Ned’s arrival. That doesn’t mean the other two are there as well. In fact we know Hightower is present in King’s Landing when Rickard and Brandon are murdered. It is possible that when Rhaegar is found, probably by Hightower, that some of the trio are given other assignments as well. If so, they arrive back at the Tower and take up the guarding of Lyanna with whomever is already there.

But whether they are all with Lyanna from the arrival of Hightower or engaged in other missions versus guarding Aerys or Rhaegar misses the point, in my opinion. The Kingsguard has a particular mission and skill set - they are the bodyguards to the royal family. So, while the ability to command armies maybe something Dayne, Hightower, and Whent excel at, the crucial role they play is the ability of the royal family, Rhaegar in particular, to count on their unwavering loyalty and commitment to not only follow orders but their willingness to lay down their lives in the defense of whatever family member they guard. Lyanna, while no family member if she is not married to Rhaegar, needed guarding and secrecy in hiding her from Rhaegar’s enemies and Rhaegar's allies who might not be Lyanna’s friends - Dornish supporters of Elia pissed at Rhaegar’s actions with Lyanna, wavering loyalists in the Reach who have found out where Rhaegar and Lyanna have hidden, etc. That task calls upon men like the trio in question. Rhaegar’s choice to use these three in this way makes sense, especially if he knew Lyanna was pregnant.

Not a fact. GRRM said that Ned's dream was not coherent. One could probably guess by the sky made of blue roses petals. They fought, but we are never told why nor in what order the events there unfolded, nor if the scene itself actually happened.

Plus, I have a hard time swallowing that non-drones would be willing to die for nothing, especially as it's clear Ned will not kill Lyanna nor her baby, and you can talk to the guy... As much as I have to figure how they knew Lyanna was carrying a male.

Perhaps you’re referring to something Martin said that I don’t know about, but what I do know about doesn’t say that Ned’s dream is “not coherent.” Let me quote so there is no misunderstanding.

You'll need to wait for future books to find out more about the Tower of Joy and what happened there, I fear.

I might mention, though, that Ned's account, which you refer to, was in the context of a dream... and a fever dream at that. Our dreams are not always literal.

So Spake Martin - SSM Tower of Joy

“Our dreams are not always literal” is quite different from saying Ned’s dream is “not coherent.” This is especially true in that much of Ned’s dream is verified by other parts of the text when Ned is not dreaming. For instance, we know the number of people who die at the tower corresponds to the number Ned remembers in his dream minus himself and Howland Reed. We know this because of the number of cairns raised with the Tower’s stones by Ned in his burial of the dead and the fact we are told that Lyanna’s body is taken back to Winterfell. We know Ned tells Bran that Ser Arthur would have killed him but for Howland Reed. We know Ned returns the greatsword Dawn to House Dayne in Starfall after the battle. We know from Martin that Ned did not bring any army into Dorne, and, if the Tower is on the Dornish side of the border, this rules out the presence of Ned’s troops at the Tower. In fact we know from Ned's dream that it reflects real life in the the basic facts of the battle between the seven and the three ("In the dream as it was in life.") So, while it is fair to say that the sky of blue petals is an effect of Ned’s dream state, just as Ned’s companions appearing in his dreams as wraiths is an effect of the dream, it would be completely false to equate the confrontation between Ned’s party and the Kingsguard trio with those blue petals. The battle took place at the Tower of Joy between those three men and Ned’s seven, and only Ned and Howland, of the combatants, survived it.

Does the conversation Ned dreams of have to have taken place as Ned dreams it? Possibly not, but the dream certainly reflects Ned’s lack of understanding why the trio were at the Tower. All of his questions also reflect the reality of the time setting. Ned arrives at the Tower after the Trident, the flight of Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone, after King’s Landing, after Storm’s End. He doesn’t encounter any of the trio before then, just as in his dream. Given the time line, after the events at Storm’s End, I find it extremely likely that Ned’s dream reflects not just his puzzlement with the presence of the trio at the Tower, but also the trio’s response to that puzzlement. Their responses fit with the facts as we know them - all one has to assume is that somehow during the six weeks or so between the sack of King’s Landing and the lifting of the siege of Storm’s End the trio receives news from the outside world. That is not a stretch in credibility at all, in fact, it would be odd if they didn’t try to find out on a regular basis what was going on in the war.

What I do find likely as a product of Ned’s dream state is Lyanna’s shout of “Eddard!” It is more likely this is Ned melding his dream with the waking world reality of being summoned to see Robert. Her scream may never have taken place, or it might not have taken place when it seems to in his dream. If we add this to the wraiths and petals I think we know what Martin’s “not always literal” is referring to. That doesn't mean Lyanna wasn't at the Tower or that the Kingsguard wasn't there to guard her. If that's the nature of your questions we can go into that in a later post.

No, not really. I don't believe they chose anything (as per GRRM's SSM where he says the Kingsguard doesn't get to choose what they obey), but if they could, the fact that they don't try to protect people they should protect, namely Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon, because of the, you know, rebel army bearing down on two while the other one puts himself in the way would rather show that they don't give a toss about who is king and heir. After all who cares about who is the actual king, when you can go protect the heir of the heir of the heir?

I don’t think they made a choice either. I don’t think they had to make a choice. That doesn’t mean that when oaths are in conflict even the Kingsguard must make a choice between which to follow. My point is this: given the hypothetical situation that Viserys is the new Targaryen king and the trio has existing orders to guard Lyanna, and/or her bastard child, these three men will choose to do both if possible, and guard their king first if it means they can’t continue to guard Lyanna as well. The simple fact that not one of the trio is going to Viserys means something. Indeed, it means a lot. The stuff about guarding Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon I’ve dealt with already.

Sounds like a good plan to stay alive: once one becomes king, leave him even if he needs fighters, and instead go chill with the heir of the heir of the heir who only needs wetnurses. I guess once Aegon, Rhaegar and Aerys died, they planned to go hang around with... humm let me see... if Aerys=Jon (king), Rhaegar=Vyserys (heir), Rhaenys=Dany (I guess), Aegon=Robert (heh)...), then Stannis.

If these men were the type you describe then they would have surrendered to Ned and entered into Robert’s service. The don’t. They die doing their duty.

[Errant Bard]

Is Myrcella the King? She has a Kingsguard with her (or did!)

Is a rebel army threatening to kill Joffrey and Tommen?

But anyway, this is the point: they don't need to have a legitimate heir to be somewhere. Circumstances will make them do other stuff, hence the idea that they stay only because of official marriage and official heir being bollocks.

Oathwise, the King isn't in any particular danger until suddenly, all at once (pretty much), Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are all dead, which makes a male child of married L+R king.

He's in more potential danger than a chick in Dorne. You were the one to list dangers that required three kingsguard to stay. Well now, for me "real huge rebel army" is way more threatening than "possible bandits" or something. And Aerys + Rhaegar + Aegon + Elia + Rhaenys > Lyanna + son (as it may be)

Excuse me? I need to clarify this. You say that they are dead meat if attacked by even a small party, yet can make a difference on the battlefield? :lmao:

Yes. They can, for example, kill key figures in battle or defend key figures. The Kastarks boys who defended Robb from Jaime would still have died if they had been alone in the North against, say, Ygritte's party. However, their presence allowed Robb to live after the whispering wood. Similarly, a Dayne presence could have allowed Rhaegar to live. Because they are not actually alone against many on a battlefield, they're part of an army.

Surely you're not arguing that Rhaegar going back to KL makes no difference, by the way?

They are not dead meat if attacked by any old party. The mere presence of 3 KG, let alone legends like these, would like deter any bandits or minor raiders. Only a well equipped, specially motivated group of the best veterans, like say, Ned's group, are likely to attack them.

Except, of course, that they are not the best veterans, they are only his friends, and that any group of armed men would have the same effect (bowmen would be even better).

And that, of course, raiders don't exist much at that place and time... And that kingsguards just send a huge signal in the sky saying "We're here, rebels, come and try to kill us with your huge army"

With Rhaegar's motivations and beliefs (prophecy) leaving three is not unreasonable.

Yes, and a marriage has nothing to do with that. The guy ignited a civil war with the help of those guys, and it wasn't anymore "legal".

If not legitimate, they stay because Rhaegar told them to and it fits within their normal duties. When the bad news comes their responsibilities would be to the King, not Rhaegar's bastard, so you would expect them to drop everything and race to Viserys' side, since he is a King with no KG protection. They might leave one KG behind with Lyana, they might not.

Only, they get the news when Ned comes.

[Errant Bard]

I haven't a clue what "Dorne bunnies" are all about

They are just a shorthand to mean there isn't anything dangerous in Dorne except maybe bunnies of doom (think holy grail)

But you raise the question of why they, or perhaps some of the three, are not where they can make more of a difference at either the Trident or at King's Landing? It's a great question from hindsight.

There is absolutely no need for hindsight: Rhaegar went to KL for a reason, and it wasn't because he thought the rebels would be crushed easily and were not a threat. It speaks of some humongous level of hubris that he thought that his lone presence would be enough to tip the scales, and that he and his family in KL was so invincible they didn't need all the fighting resources they could muster.

That task calls upon men like the trio in question. Rhaegar’s choice to use these three in this way makes sense, especially if he knew Lyanna was pregnant.

I don't see where a legitimate marriage changes anything.

“Our dreams are not always literal” is quite different from saying Ned’s dream is “not coherent.”

It's the same, for me. As I said, while it's clear they fought (Ned recalls deatils matching that on other occasions), it doesn't mean that what we see is what happened, nor in the chronological order it happened. As such, the scene where the shiny kingsguards are waiting in heroic poses uttering cryptic one-liner has good chances to only be an hyperbole born from Ned's brain.

If these men were the type you describe then they would have surrendered to Ned and entered into Robert’s service. The don’t. They die doing their duty.

That's a bit circular. You don't know why they die except for something about an unspecified vow and a thing about not running:

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

Of course if your premise is that they are there because duty to royal lineage, your conclusion will be that they are here because of duty to royal lineage.

In any case I can't see a reasonable case that 1) they could have been warned long before that KL had fallen and people had died or fled 2) they could have thought that they'd be useful and able to reach their charges in exile before being killed by Ned 3) They'd leave the dying lover of their prince, the one that was worth a civil war, for the vultures depending on the marital status 4) that a marriage has meaning if nobody knows (or actually, if not everybody knows. Proofs would surely be as convincing as the one about how Joffrey isn't Robert's son)

ETA: And of course, it's not like a baby cannot be carried away. "Last stand because the king is here" is always funny that way: there isn't a need for a last stand.

[SFDanny]

Is a rebel army threatening to kill Joffrey and Tommen?

Yes. Before the Battle of the Blackwater, when Myrcella is in Dorne with Oakheart, Stannis is threatening the city and would kill Joffrey especially, and likely Tommen as well, on sight. Ser Boros with Tommen also is a case in point.

But anyway, this is the point: they don't need to have a legitimate heir to be somewhere. Circumstances will make them do other stuff, hence the idea that they stay only because of official marriage and official heir being bollocks.

I always find that using words like "bollocks" when not dealing with the points others have made is unhelpful in the extreme.

He's in more potential danger than a chick in Dorne. You were the one to list dangers that required three kingsguard to stay. Well now, for me "real huge rebel army" is way more threatening than "possible bandits" or something. And Aerys + Rhaegar + Aegon + Elia + Rhaenys > Lyanna + son (as it may be)

Don't know how you know this about possible bandits, but I tried above to deal with the reasons why Lyanna is in danger and it makes sense for Rhaegar to use three trusted members of the Kingsguard to guard her.

Yes. They can, for example, kill key figures in battle or defend key figures. The Kastarks boys who defended Robb from Jaime would still have died if they had been alone in the North against, say, Ygritte's party. However, their presence allowed Robb to live after the whispering wood. Similarly, a Dayne presence could have allowed Rhaegar to live. Because they are not actually alone against many on a battlefield, they're part of an army.

Surely you're not arguing that Rhaegar going back to KL makes no difference, by the way?

I think they could have made a difference if they had been used differently, but that is a very different thing from saying that Rhaegar's strategy didn't make sense at the time. As I posted above, if one doesn't work from hindsight, Rhaegar's positioning of the Kingsguard within an overall response to the rebellion makes a lot of sense.

Except, of course, that they are not the best veterans, they are only his friends, and that any group of armed men would have the same effect (bowmen would be even better).

And that, of course, raiders don't exist much at that place and time... And that kingsguards just send a huge signal in the sky saying "We're here, rebels, come and try to kill us with your huge army"

Kingsguard walking around a populated area with their cloaks on would draw a lot of attention, but three knights hidden away at a remote small round tower in the mountains with only trusted people having any contact with them, dressed in their cloaks or not, would send no signal. What the Kingsguard give Rhaegar that no other larger force can is trust. Secrecy concerning Lyanna's location is what Rhaegar is trying to maintain with the assignment of the Kingsguard to the Tower, not force of arms to take on an army. The fact Ned only goes there after Storm's End tells me it is highly likely he doesn't find out Lyanna's location before then. I can't imagine that Ned wouldn't rush to rescue his sister earlier if he knew where she was and could do anything about it..

Yes, and a marriage has nothing to do with that. The guy ignited a civil war with the help of those guys, and it wasn't anymore "legal".

A marriage and a child would explain why the trio seemingly ignore their first duty. It isn't the only explanation, for instance Aegon could be at the tower, but for the child of Lyanna to be the first priority of these three men it is best explained by Jon being the legitimate child of Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Only, they get the news when Ned comes.

How do you get this? I read the responses to Ned's questions as already knowing the basic facts of recent history. As I said, it would make little sense for the Kingsguard not to try to get information about the conduct of the war.

[SFDanny]

They are just a shorthand to mean there isn't anything dangerous in Dorne except maybe bunnies of doom (think holy grail)

Ok, but I think there are people in Dorne and the Reach who might well be dangerous to Lyanna. Beginning, but not ending, with Elia's two brothers. It is highly likely they are not pleased with Rhaegar's treatment of Elia - meaning his running off with Lyanna. The trio are people Rhaegar can trust to guard her from sources such as these.

There is absolutely no need for hindsight: Rhaegar went to KL for a reason, and it wasn't because he thought the rebels would be crushed easily and were not a threat. It speaks of some humongous level of hubris that he thought that his lone presence would be enough to tip the scales, and that he and his family in KL was so invincible they didn't need all the fighting resources they could muster.

Confidence, yes; hubris, no. Rhaegar believed he could win at the Trident. He believed his family was safe in King's Landing. Those are not outrageous things for him to believe.

I don't see where a legitimate marriage changes anything.

It doesn't until the Kingsguard finds out about the news from the Trident and King's Landing. Then it changes everything. Their first duty is to their king, and when they find out Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon are dead at least one of their number should have been headed to Dragonstone.

It's the same, for me. As I said, while it's clear they fought (Ned recalls deatils matching that on other occasions), it doesn't mean that what we see is what happened, nor in the chronological order it happened. As such, the scene where the shiny kingsguards are waiting in heroic poses uttering cryptic one-liner has good chances to only be an hyperbole born from Ned's brain.

Sorry, can't see how you think both are the same.

That's a bit circular. You don't know why they die except for something about an unspecified vow and a thing about not running:

"Ser Willem is a good man and true," said Ser Oswell.

"But not of the Kingsguard," Ser Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

Of course if your premise is that they are there because duty to royal lineage, your conclusion will be that they are here because of duty to royal lineage.

In any case I can't see a reasonable case that 1) they could have been warned long before that KL had fallen and people had died or fled 2) they could have thought that they'd be useful and able to reach their charges in exile before being killed by Ned 3) They'd leave the dying lover of their prince, the one that was worth a civil war, for the vultures depending on the marital status 4) that a marriage has meaning if nobody knows (or actually, if not everybody knows. Proofs would surely be as convincing as the one about how Joffrey isn't Robert's son)

ETA: And of course, it's not like a baby cannot be carried away. "Last stand because the king is here" is always funny that way: there isn't a need for a last stand.

It's not circular logic. It's a response to a characterization on your part that makes no sense if they choose to fight Ned and his company instead of surrendering to him. That's the case if they die to fulfill Rhaegar's order in defiance of their first duty, or they die fighting to save the new king at the Tower.

As to the need to have a last stand, I agree that moving a child, especially taking flight to the Free Cities or Dragonstone via Starfall, makes much more sense than staying to fight whoever finally discovers their hiding place. I just think they couldn't leave without a dying Lyanna.

Sorry, EB, have to go to bed. Work tomorrow. Good night, but I'll look for your response when I can.

[Errant Bard]

I always find that using words like "bollocks" when not dealing with the points others have made is unhelpful in the extreme.

It's a qualifier like any other, when I've just explained the reasons I use it.

But anyway, just one thing, tell me how this:

Kingsguard walking around a populated area with their cloaks on would draw a lot of attention, but three knights hidden away at a remote small round tower in the mountains with only trusted people having any contact with them, dressed in their cloaks or not, would send no signal.

can be reconciled with this:

How do you get this? I read the responses to Ned's questions as already knowing the basic facts of recent history. As I said, it would make little sense for the Kingsguard not to try to get information about the conduct of the war.

and this

What the Kingsguard give Rhaegar that no other larger force can is trust.

So... the KG are the only one trustable, but actually, they are not, since apparently there are less trustable people that happen to be in a better position to spill the beans (and actually end up spilling the beans FAST, as we can see when Ned just shows up a few weeks after leaving KL). And these less trustable people definitely won't recognize the Kingsguard.

It doesn't make sense. A stream of messengers going to and from the tower and they're supposed to be hidden? (plus the midwife thing, and the problem of supplies)

Littlefinger does it right, with Sansa, this isn't remotely in the same ballpark.

The trio are people Rhaegar can trust to guard her from sources such as these.

Yeah, we saw with Ned how reliable they are in the face of such people. Hindsight, you will say, only not really, GRRM made it abundantly clear that 1) Everyone can die 2) People of Westeros don't think they are supermen

Rhaegar believed he could win at the Trident. He believed his family was safe in King's Landing. Those are not outrageous things for him to believe.

They are outrageous things for him to be so certain of that he won't take precautions.

Sorry, can't see how you think both are the same.

Well I can't see how you think "not literal" can mean "literal except for some details"

It's not circular logic. It's a response to a characterization

It's both.

That's the case if they die to fulfill Rhaegar's order in defiance of their first duty

I'll be using snark, but... remind me, what did Arys do, while not protecting an heir, against Otah?

As to the need to have a last stand, I agree that moving a child, especially taking flight to the Free Cities or Dragonstone via Starfall, makes much more sense than staying to fight whoever finally discovers their hiding place. I just think they couldn't leave without a dying Lyanna.

But you're here, arguing that they (or at least one of them) would leave a dying Lyanna AND any potential child if that child was not legitimate. So you've got to explain how it makes sense to say (I quote)

"Their first duty is to their king, and when they find out Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon are dead at least one of their number should have been headed to Dragonstone."

and not

"Their first duty is to their king, and when they find out rebels are closing in at least one of their number should have been headed to <somewhere else> with Jon."

Your theory implies that dying for nothing (not even to give time to escape, like a Syrio scenario) and then handing your king to your enemies can be equated to protecting him. And that, somehow, they feel a dying girl has to... have some company, and be protected from her own brother, BY ALL OF THEM, putting the king in danger, if she gives birth to said "rightful" king. (whereas if it's just a bastard of the heir, then they can just die)

[3idcrow]

It seems to be a difficult question with many possible answers and as such should perhaps be addressed in terms of probability?

Is the presence of KG in the Tower guarantees that Lyanna gave birth to a rightful heir?

No.

Does it make it more probable?

Yes.

[Errant Bard]

Does it make it more probable?

Yes.

I don't see it that way. A scenario has a possibility of being true, consequences that can be triggered by other scenarios have no bearing on it, except to rule it out or not.

In other news, the fact that Varys being Varys fits into the Grand Merling Unified Theory doesn't make what Nightflyer wrote more probable.

(Also, probability feel a bit off considering it's all down to what the author decides. Putting odds on second guess of the author's intentions is so dependent on subjectivity that it's meaningless)

[corbon]

Circumstances will make them do other stuff, hence the idea that they stay only because of official marriage and official heir being bollocks.

If there is no official heir/infant king then the moment they learn of the Death of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aeron then their primary duty lies in protecting Viserys and it supercedes their current duties as Viserys is King and unprotected.

We don't know when they learned the news exactly, but there is certainly time for them to have learned before Ned got there (he went somewhere else first). Their encounter didn't read like they were unaware of current events, though it didn't prove anything either way in that respect.

He's in more potential danger than a chick in Dorne. You were the one to list dangers that required three kingsguard to stay. Well now, for me "real huge rebel army" is way more threatening than "possible bandits" or something. And Aerys + Rhaegar + Aegon + Elia + Rhaenys > Lyanna + son (as it may be)

You have the right to ignore "huge field army, thousands of defenders in never-stormed fortress and unchallenged fleet to flee on" if you wish. It doesn't do much for your argument though.

Yes. They can, for example, kill key figures in battle or defend key figures. The Kastarks boys who defended Robb from Jaime would still have died if they had been alone in the North against, say, Ygritte's party. However, their presence allowed Robb to live after the whispering wood. Similarly, a Dayne presence could have allowed Rhaegar to live. Because they are not actually alone against many on a battlefield, they're part of an army.

Surely you're not arguing that Rhaegar going back to KL makes no difference, by the way?

Fair enough, in part. OTOH, you have to concede that they can equally kill key figures in a raiding party or bandit group. In fact, if it weren't for Howland Reed they would have done just that!

Except, of course, that they are not the best veterans, they are only his friends, and that any group of armed men would have the same effect (bowmen would be even better).

And that, of course, raiders don't exist much at that place and time... And that kingsguards just send a huge signal in the sky saying "We're here, rebels, come and try to kill us with your huge army"

The fact that they are Ned's friends mean that, Howland Reed possibly apart, they are a relatively elite group. They will all have excellent equipment and a lifetime of military training. And most probably, have fought at Ned's side through the war, making them combat veterans. They are far, far, above common bandits, and even generally far above regular soldiers. I expect, for example, that a dozen redcloaks wouldn't go near them.

And who said raiders don't exist? That is exactly what Ned's group is. A fast raid by a small group with a single objective.

And the huge army coming to get them? Poor argument. They are on the other side of of the Dornish passes. Armies simply don't move that fast, particularly through relatively hostile terrain and relatively hostile populace, and not just to capture a child, even the king.

Only, they get the news when Ned comes.

Based on what? There is ample time for them to have received news and none of them act as if they don't know that the rebellion has effectively won.

But anyway, just one thing, tell me how this:

can be reconciled with this:

and this

Well the first two a reconciled by a) trusted people having contact and b)not advertising who they are if merchants/minstrels/travellers etc do pass through.

Just because you are incognito at a remote location does not mean you are shut off from all sources of news.

I'm not sure why the third quote needs to be reconciled, unless you think that having KG who can be trusted more than any other possible party to protect Rhaegar's family means that no one else at all can be trusted.

There is a difference between living incognito in a noble house, even friendly and living incognito relatively separately but still with regular contacts. In the first you are not only at the mercy of the nobles (some or all of whom you may trust) but also at the mercy of their entire household.

They are outrageous things for him to be so certain of that he won't take precaution

He did take precautions. He leaves thousands of troops behind at the Red Keep (which has never been taken) protecting the King and their families and he has an unchallenged fleet ready to take them to safety if anything does go wrong. There is still a KG to guard the King himself as well, and no time, or particular reason, for him to recall the KG he left in the south with the pregnant Lyana, carrying the child of prophecy (or so he believes).

I'll be using snark, but... remind me, what did Arys do, while not protecting an heir, against Otah?

Totally different. Arys' King is still guarded AFAHK by his fellow KG so he isn't bound by a higher duty. In effect, he is 'free' to do whatever he feels appropriate in following his secondary duty. Further, Arys is a conflict mess anyway, and dying honourably in his 'local' duty is a good way out for him.

If R+L is not legal, then the 3KG at ToJ are doing pretty much what Arys did, except that they had a higher duty to Viserys who was unprotected.

If R+L is legal, then they fought to the death to protect their King.

Lyanna AND any potential child if that child was not legitimate. So you've got to explain how it makes sense to say (I quote)

"Their first duty is to their king, and when they find out Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon are dead at least one of their number should have been headed to Dragonstone."

and not

"Their first duty is to their king, and when they find out rebels are closing in at least one of their number should have been headed to <somewhere else> with Jon."

Because there is no reason whatsoever for them to suspect the rebels are closing in.

Ned and his band are basically doing a raid. A small group moving much faster than a large group could and operating on special intelligence (from Ashara?, maybe even inadvertently?) to fulfill a specific purpose.

Let me paint a picture here. It is partly supposition, but fits the facts both known and implied.

The KG would like to move/flee with the baby King but can't risk it due to Lyana's difficulties. If someone lets out their location (and there is no reason why anyone trusted with the knowledge would, AFATK - ok, they were proved wrong but that could have been spying by Varys or a mistake by Ashara etc) then they should still have time to flee before a proper force can get there. So there they are, all ready to flee but waiting on Lyana's condition. Quite probably they are more or less packed and ready, but you just can't leave the mother of the infant King to die so easily, so they are waiting for her to improve or die.

As it happens (improbably but good for dramatic effect), their luck is dreadful and Ned's raid gets there just in time, as Lyana dies in his arms shortly after the fight. Another day and they'd probably have been gone already.

Your theory implies that dying for nothing (not even to give time to escape, like a Syrio scenario) and then handing your king to your enemies can be equated to protecting him. And that, somehow, they feel a dying girl has to... have some company, and be protected from her own brother, BY ALL OF THEM, putting the king in danger, if she gives birth to said "rightful" king. (whereas if it's just a bastard of the heir, then they can just die)

No. Dying trying to protect the King from rebels (the brother aspect is irrelevant) is fine. And they almost succeeded.

And the infant King's mother is sick, very sick. No they can't just leave her to die if fleeing is not clearly a life and death matter.

But if he's just a bastard of the heir, and the true king is totally unprotected, then yes, they can leave the girl, and possibly even the baby, and get to their King's side ASAP. They didn't need to fight (and indeed, would possibly have welcomed Ned reclaiming his sister and her bastard) and they probably didn't even need to be there anymore if they got the news earlier.

[Enguerrand]

It is clear the trio are at the Tower by way of orders from either Rhaegar or Aerys, with it almost certainly coming from Rhaegar.

How is this clear?

But you raise the question of why they, or perhaps some of the three, are not where they can make more of a difference at either the Trident or at King's Landing? It's a great question from hindsight.

I disagree it's not about hindsight, These are celeberties with command experience. Not placing them in a position where they can have an impact for the preservation of the Targaryen dynasty requires an explanation.

As for the rest of the discussion. My theory was that Dayne Higtower and Whent were sent on a mission of some kind involving the prohepcy, See the "far away" comment when they are asked what they were actually doing when the king died.

They simply are compelled to move to TOJ when its clear that Lyanna's child would be first in the succession order.