Barristan Selmy: Hero or Turncoat?

[Rockroi]

The entire defense of Selmy (which is acceptable- the man IS honorable and good) presupposes that the general oath is unknowable and that the situation that Selmy was in was "unique" or so outside the bounds of reason as to make his decsioin understandable no matter what he chose.

Really?

Barristan Selmy swore an oath to Jaeneayerys Targaryen II; that oath transferred to Aerys II upon J's death. WE know that part of that oath requires that Selmy also protect those of the Royal blood (this is stated many times in AFfC, but also mentioned in Hedge Knight wherein the heir knows that that no member of the KG will attack him). This is "cannon" insofar as we have it in the actual books.

Now, apply all that to what we know: Aerys II and Rhaegar Targaryen are both slain, Slemy wounded. At that moment- irrespective of coronations, irrespective of counsels meeting or passing judgments, etc, Viserys III is King of Weseteros and all its holdings. This is because he is the dead King's sole surviving son. His heir. At that moment- much like when Jaenaryens II died, Selmy's oath TRANSFERS to the new King. There is NEVER a moment where Selmy can "opt out" of his oath (and to think otherwise would be an absurdity). The fact that Viserys is young, a bit crazy, not likely to regain power, etc IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE to anyone under the oath!

The fact is, when Selmy awoke after his wounds he made "rational" decisions that were (*GASP*) practical! They were not tied to oaths or honor or duty; they were tied to what was going on at that moment. I THOUGHT if I remember correctly, that it took Selmy about a year to recover from his wounds; well... in that year he did some hedonistic calculus that indicated trying to 1) escape from Robert , 2) make his way to Viserys 3) find Viserys, 4) swear allegiance to Viserys and 5) do whatever it was that Viserys said... would be unrealistic, unreasonable and not just a little bit nuts.

So... Selmy decides to "swear" another oath to Robert (this in and of itself is an important moment- it shows that NOBODY thought the oath from Aerys II carried to Robert I; in other words, had Selmy wanted to, he could EASILY claim that his oath was still with the son of the Mad King, which of course it was).

I have no problem with this. At all. Selmy did what was right UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES! In other words, oaths- regardless of how well-meaning, have to have some flexibility for the EXACT reason that no oath can envision each and every circumstance wherein it can be put to the test. If it did, the oath would be hundreds of pages long.

My problem grows to when people- like Ned -state that that oath is this all encompassing power that binds a person inevitably to their path in life; that supersedes all other factors, all other circumstances, all other rational and practical thoughts.

That is why acknowledging Selmy's choice is such a HUGE problem for those who claim Jaime is a bastard without honor (ie NEd), and those who claim that Dayne et all were good men because they were following their oath. Well, if you believe- as I do -that the oath has to give way to practical decisions, than you must recognize that what Jaime did can STILL be honorable, and what Dayne and the others did may not have been honorable at all (hey, lets try to kill Ned even though the war is 100% over and we are basically just killing people because our oath says so!).

Anyone who supports Selmy's decision to swear fidelity to Robert while Viserys is still alive, still of Royal blood, etc must then be at least OPEN to the idea that Jaime had honor because if SELMY can opt out of his oath given a certain set of circumstances, so can Jaime. And must also be open to the idea that the men at the ToJ may NOT have been honorable because THEY ALSO could have opted out.

That's the issue here. Not Selmy in and of himself. But how if Selmy's action was so good, why do people think Jaime's was bad? And how come they also do not think Dayne et al's actions were not bad?

[Radio Changes]

Ned's views fit largely with the widely held romantic view of honor in Westeros, which almost throw practicality and reality out the window. It's been demonstrated many times that this is a land where people who deserve credit usually don't receive it from the populace(Tyrion, Jaime), and people simply idolize Dayne and company because their actions fit so neatly and make a great song. But I don't think the readers think Jaime's actions were bad, nor do they think Dayne's were either, for all we know he was protecting an itty bitty Jon.

[Rockroi]

But I don't think the readers think Jaime's actions were bad

Well, take a look at these boards and you will find many to decry Jaime.

nor do they think Dayne's were either, for all we know he was protecting an itty bitty Jon.

But that's my whole point. Most people give Dayne a HUGE free pass on his actions at the TOJ. Dayne's actions were pretty robotic, or "pre-programmed" not taking into account the world around him (dead Aerys). As Hightower says to Ned (in Ned's probably not 100% accurate dream) "We swore an oath." In other words, as far as Dayne et al are concerned, they swore an oath and THAT OATH completely excuses any bad acts they commit in furtherance of the oath.

Remember what is happening at the ToJ; Ned Stark is trying to rescue/find his sister. He does. With his sister is, most likely, his nephew, Rhaegar and Lyanna's son. To the KG at the ToJ, they have to kill everyone who goes near the Crown Prince's son. How much sense does that make? The war is over; Ned has already fled Robert's service. Dayne and the rest could have simply stated "We are leaving with the child." But instead they see to it that 8 more people die (9 if you include Lyanna). The entire battle seems only a by-product of oath-loyalty gone bad. Now, its possible that Dayne and the rest saw Ned, heard about Rhaegar's OTHER children getting slaughtered (very good chance of that, given the discussions) and decided they did not want to chance "Jon" falling into Robert's hands. But .... neither does Ned. Why not discuss that issue? No. Not the KG. They simply revert to their default settings and defend the Royal Blood.

Now, remember, I am NOT arguing that they acted properly or that Selmy acted improperly. What I am arguing is that everyone here seems to agree that there is some leeway in the oath for practicality under various circumstances. If that is true (and I say it is) - than I think Jaime's act was honorable and I think that Dayne's et al's could very well be dishonorable.

[feardeathbywater]

Are you kidding? He's number one on my shit list. Jaime did ONE good thing. He's spent a lifetime doing crappy things, even to his own family. He deserves all the approbrium he recieves: the irony is that he is despised for his best act and loved for his most despicable.

Selmy, like so many others, bent the knee to Robert because he owed him a life-debt. Furthermore while Robert lived the Targaryen cause was hopeless. Barristan seems to take his oaths seriously, but he also has a sense of proportion. He wasn't going to serve Dany at all if she turned out to be insane, but in his heart there is still a great deal of loyalty to her house.

If Arthur Dayne died thinking he was protecting Jon from NED then he (and his sworn brothers) were beyond stupid. If they were following the letter of an order to the death, they were even further beyond. And also squarely in the wrong, keeping a brother from (what he had every right to believe was) his kidnapped sister. Perhaps if it had been Selmy there instead of Rhaegar's crony things might have turned out differently.

[Ran]

Dayne's actions were pretty robotic, or "pre-programmed" not taking into account the world around him (dead Aerys).

We don't know that. They may be supremely aware of the world around them, and are still holding to the oath they made, and the charge that was laid on them by Rhaegar, because they believed it was a better thing to do than the alternatives.

And you know what? They could have been right. We simply do not know.

Jaime's act was dishonorable. It may also have been the right choice, to a degree, though IMO he could have achieved the good part of his ends without also succumbing to the bad parts of them.

[The Mance]

But the violation of parole that you forgot to address and many other things are

What do you mean by violation of parole? Do you mean when he "escaped" from Riverrun?

You don’t see a Kingsguard’s stated opinion on the subject of loyalty transference as relevant to your theory of how their loyalty is transferred?

If Jaime had something to say about the specifics of how exactly loyalty is transfered, then yes that would be relevant. But for him to be vaguely dismissive of the process, or amused that there even is a process, or that anyone would really expect him to care....then no, I don't see how that is relevant, or proof of anything one way or the other.

He is willing to submit to the death sentence for treason, if he didn’t think he was guilty of a crime this just doesn’t make sense.

After Aerys is killed, and his heirs are killed or scattered to the wind, most of the rest of the Seven Kingdoms moves on. The Targ dynasty is ended and a new king is anointed by the High Septon. Recognized by the faith, sworn to by most if not all of the lords of the realm, blessed on the steps of the Great Sept of Baellor, legally, morally, and by all thats holy, Robert Baretheon is the new king of Westeros. So if the KG are sworn to the throne, Selmy has no reason to feel any shame for having sworn to the new king. as thats is what he must do as per his KG vows. Right? Right? Wrong! If your name is Daenarys Targaryen. To her Robert is just an opportunistic usurper. A violent, baby killing, monster, with no legitimate claim to anything. And only ever got his ass in the Iron throne because he's got a lot of friends and managed to bully The Faith into submission as well. His crowning wasn't sacred, it was an abomination, and anyone who ever showed the slightest deference to him must surely be a treasonous coward. Especially anyone who had ever sworn loyalty to her ancestors. So, see what happened there? Innocent by all the laws of Westeros, but still guilty as all hell in the eyes of Dany.

Either the vows required him to serve Robert or not, if they did Daenerys can not in fairness hold it against him.

Not in fairness, no.

[Ran]

Mance,

Not in fairness, no.

Very well said. That's exactly the thing that's part of the subtext of that scene. I don't think this means Barristan's feelings aren't genuine, but they are feelings, not statements of fact.

[Enguerrand]

What do you mean by violation of parole? Do you mean when he "escaped" from Riverrun?

“I assume you have returned to fulfill the oaths you swore my niece,” Ser Brynden said. “As I recall, you promised Catelyn her daughters in return for your freedom.” His mouth tightened. “Yet I do not see the girls. Where are they?”

Must he make me say it? “I do not have them.”

“Pity. Do you wish to resume your captivity? Your old cell is still available. We have put fresh rushes on the floor.”

And a nice new pail for me to shit in, I don’t doubt. “That was thoughtful of you, ser, but I fear I must decline. I prefer the comforts of my pavilion.”

“Whilst Catelyn enjoys the comforts of her grave.”

If Jaime had something to say about the specifics of how exactly loyalty is transfered, then yes that would be relevant. But for him to be vaguely dismissive of the process, or amused that there even is a process, or that anyone would really expect him to care....then no, I don't see how that is relevant, or proof of anything one way or the other.

In any case, you’re not like to be taken for Baelor the Blessed.”

“No,” Lancel allowed. “He was a rare spirit, pure and brave and innocent, untouched by all the evils of the world. I am a sinner, with much and more to atone for.”

Jaime put his hand on his cousin’s shoulder. “What do you know of sin, coz? I killed my king.”

“The brave man slays with a sword, the craven with a wineskin. We are both kingslayers, ser.”

“Robert was no true king. Some might even say that a stag is a lion’s natural prey.”

Notice that even though he held him in contempt and killed him, Aerys is Jaime's king, while Robert's is not.

After Aerys is killed, and his heirs are killed or scattered to the wind, most of the rest of the Seven Kingdoms moves on. The Targ dynasty is ended and a new king is anointed by the High Septon. Recognized by the faith, sworn to by most if not all of the lords of the realm, blessed on the steps of the Great Sept of Baellor, legally, morally, and by all thats holy, Robert Baretheon is the new king of Westeros.

So you say again, do you actually have someone in series thinking the kingsguard's loyalty transfers this way , or is it all in your head?

Because the series as plenty of examples of people that dismiss Robert's claim when it suits them because he wasn't a real king, like the Targaryens.

So if the KG are sworn to the throne, Selmy has no reason to feel any shame for having sworn to the new king. as thats is what he must do as per his KG vows. Right? Right? Wrong! If your name is Daenarys Targaryen. To her Robert is just an opportunistic usurper. A violent, baby killing, monster, with no legitimate claim to anything. And only ever got his ass in the Iron throne because he's got a lot of friends and managed to bully The Faith into submission as well. His crowning wasn't sacred, it was an abomination, and anyone who ever showed the slightest deference to him must surely be a treasonous coward. Especially anyone who had ever sworn loyalty to her ancestors. So, see what happened there? Innocent by all the laws of Westeros, but still guilty as all hell in the eyes of Dany.

Submitting passages in the kingguards vows that supported his decision to serve Robert would have been a better defence then this :

You protected my father for many years, fought beside my brother on the Trident, but you abandoned Viserys in his exile and bent your knee to the Usurper instead. Why? And tell it true.”

“Some truths are hard to hear. Robert was a . . . a good knight . . . chivalrous, brave . . . he spared my life, and the lives of many others . . . Prince Viserys was only a boy, it would have been years before he was fit to rule, and . . . forgive me, my queen, but you asked for truth . . . even as a child, your brother Viserys oft seemed to be his father’s son, in ways that Rhaegar never did.”

“His father’s son?” Dany frowned. “What does that mean?”

The old knight did not blink. “Your father is called ‘the Mad King’ in Westeros. Has no one ever told you?”

“Viserys did.” The Mad King. “The Usurper called him that, the Usurper and his dogs.” The Mad King. “It was a lie.”

“Why ask for truth,” Ser Barristan said softly, “if you close your ears to it?” He hesitated, then continued. “I told you before that I used a false name so the Lannisters would not know that I’d joined you. That was less than half of it, Your Grace. The truth is, I wanted to watch you for a time before pledging you my sword. To make certain that you were not . . .”

“ . . . my father’s daughter?” If she was not her father’s daughter, who was she?

“ . . . mad,” he finished. “But I see no taint in you.”

“Taint?” Dany bristled.

Barristan's basically says that he chose Robert over Viserys because he fancied him better, nothing about what the vows compelled him to do. Most probably because there is nothing in the vows that adress the situation, other then implicit part that a knight is faithful to the family he serves no matter if it's deposed or not, which as we see seldom is honored in practice.

Really if it's Barristan goal to say anything to get into her good graces and stay alive, this seems a rather risky way of doing it. Not to mention it's seems totally adverse to the Barristan's personality as he appear in the dialogue.

[SFDanny]

You protected my father for many years, fought beside my brother on the Trident, but you abandoned Viserys in his exile and bent your knee to the Usurper instead. Why? And tell it true.”

“Some truths are hard to hear. Robert was a . . . a good knight . . . chivalrous, brave . . . he spared my life, and the lives of many others . . . Prince Viserys was only a boy, it would have been years before he was fit to rule, and . . . forgive me, my queen, but you asked for truth . . . even as a child, your brother Viserys oft seemed to be his father’s son, in ways that Rhaegar never did.”

“His father’s son?” Dany frowned. “What does that mean?”

The old knight did not blink. “Your father is called ‘the Mad King’ in Westeros. Has no one ever told you?”

“Viserys did.” The Mad King. “The Usurper called him that, the Usurper and his dogs.” The Mad King. “It was a lie.”

“Why ask for truth,” Ser Barristan said softly, “if you close your ears to it?” He hesitated, then continued. “I told you before that I used a false name so the Lannisters would not know that I’d joined you. That was less than half of it, Your Grace. The truth is, I wanted to watch you for a time before pledging you my sword. To make certain that you were not . . .”

“ . . . my father’s daughter?” If she was not her father’s daughter, who was she?

“ . . . mad,” he finished. “But I see no taint in you.”

“Taint?” Dany bristled.

Barristan's basically says that he chose Robert over Viserys because he fancied him better, nothing about what the vows compelled him to do. Most probably because there is nothing in the vows that adress the situation, other then implicit part that a knight is faithful to the family he serves no matter if it's deposed or not, which as we see seldom is honored in practice.

Really if it's Barristan goal to say anything to get into her good graces and stay alive, this seems a rather risky way of doing it. Not to mention it's seems totally adverse to the Barristan's personality as he appear in the dialogue.

I wouldn't put it in quite this way - "fancied?" - but I think this quote destroys the argument of Ser Barristan being compelled to serve Robert because the oath somehow transferred to him instead of Viserys. Barristan knows from the beginning where his oath tells him he should have gone - with Viserys - but he can't get himself to serve another mad king, and this one a powerless mad boy in exile. It's a hard decision, but Barristan rationalizes his way to a choice that most people I think can understand. It doesn't, however, make it less of a treason to the Targaryens. Dany is right in condemning him for leaving her and Viserys to exile with only unreliable allies at best to help them. What a difference in their lives he could have made if he had been where his oath told him he should have been all along. Of course, Ser Barristan, is also right, in an oath-breaking sort of way, that Viserys would have made a truly horrible king. Martin gives us another brilliant example of how life's choices aren't always clear or easy.

[Enguerrand]

I wouldn't put it in quite this way - "fancied?"

What to call it then? Barristan doesn't argue from what custom, law or honor requires of him, He simply compares his options character and suitability as king and chose the one he likes best.

I find this remarkable since there are rules for how bannermen switch loyality when their liege lord dies, even though it's sometimes ignored.

[SFDanny]

What to call it then? Barristan doesn't argue from what custom, law or honor requires of him, He simply compares his options character and suitability as king and chose the one he likes best.

I find this remarkable since there are rules for how bannermen switch loyality when their liege lord dies, even though it's sometimes ignored.

My only problem is with the word choice. "Fancied" has the connotation of choosing due to a whim or caprice. I don't think that applies in this case. Ser Barristan makes a choice based on, imo, the collapse of his world. His king, his prince, and all his sworn brothers who he respected and admired are dead. The Targaryens have been reduced to being powerless, and all of its staunch allies - excepting Dorne - have gone over to the usurper. In many ways Ser Barristan is as abandoned by events as Viserys is, but unlike Viserys he is given another option by Robert. So, I don't have any problem with the idea you are arguing, only the connotation of the word choice to describe the process.

[Rockroi]

We don't know that. They may be supremely aware of the world around them, and are still holding to the oath they made, and the charge that was laid on them by Rhaegar, because they believed it was a better thing to do than the alternatives.

That is very much a possibility. However, to hold onto what Rhaegar was saying still smacks of auto-pilot reasoning. Why are they in the mountains with a pregnant woman and a newborn? Why the HELL won;t they let Ned0 the woman's brother - see her? Why are they fighting him? I mean, are we to believe that this meeting was pre-ordained to end in bloodshed had the KG been a TAD more reasonable? I mnea, what would Ned have done had Dayne said, "Lord Stark, please, before there is anymore bloodshed, may I accompany you inside? You have it on my honor that no harm will come to you while you are under my protection." What? Ned would have thought "Hmmm.. I don't know, Dayne... " PFT! Not likely. Ned would have practically fallen into Dayne's arms at the chance to act all honorable. So they would have gone upstairs and ... Ned and Dayne could have come to an arrangement (which, you will note, Ned does anyway, on his own).

Now, again, I agree - there is obviously a large gray area wherein we can only make assumptions about what happened at the ToJ. However, one BIG one is that the KG NEVER attempted to retard hostilities. No. From Ned's (obviously clouded memory) its actually the KG that seem raring for the fight. Why? And even if Ned's band were the ones aching to kill the KG, wouldn't a simple "Hey let's talk" from any of the KG have forestalled that outcome?

To me, so far, even with the absence of evidence, I think the KG went totally on the "just following orders" path wherein they had decided to just listen to what thei (now dead) Crown Prince had sais and eschewed the rest. However, I am very much open to hearing the rest of that tale to get the remaining information that is critically missing in order to reach a final conclusion.

And you know what? They could have been right. We simply do not know.

Meh... not sure what they could have been "right" about. They are guarding the Targ child for no other reason than they were ordered and there is no evidence that "fighting to the death" was a necessary move. In fact, seems really wasteful. And remember, the KG were practically begging for a fight- they said as much in their dialog with Ned. They said Ned was lucky they were not with Raehgar; that they would have defended Aerys to the bitter end; and that they do not run or bend a knee. It does not get much clearer than that. How many other ways do you have to tell a guy "You are going to have to kill us!" And then Hightower with his "We swore an oath" - which goes to my whole point: they are putting the oath above everything else, even reason and practicality.

This is a very long way of saying that while I agree that there is much we do not know- AND That many possibilities exist as to what DID happen -it still feels like that the KG were the ones that controlled what happened; Ned was prepared to give them a lot of leeway and the KG were effectively saying "No, today is a good day to die." I am not quite sure there is much evidence that points to the contrary BUT will reiterate that I need more evidence before I can make a final judgment.

Jaime's act was dishonorable. It may also have been the right choice, to a degree, though IMO he could have achieved the good part of his ends without also succumbing to the bad parts of them.

It cannot really be both dishonorable AND the right thing. Honor is not an end in and of itself; honor is a MEANS to an end (or at least that's what Aristotle said). We have had this discussion all over these boards and I am unclear how Jaime can do anything but kill Aerys who is ACTIVELY trying to burn the city to cinders. By this logic, Jaime can do everything under the sun EXCEPT kill him: So, attack Aerys, beat him up, subdue him, hold him so others can do anything else to him INCLUDING KILL HIM... and if Jaime does that he is an honorable and decent man, but DEAR GOD don't kill the murderous tyrant! You ... swore ... an ... oath...

See what I am getting at? Either the oath is flexible (as it was for Selmy, you seem to agree) or its not (as you seem to be saying for Jaime). And I am unsure what Jaime was supposed to do, especially when Aerys STILL had many people loyal to him who could have carried the message out EVEN AFTER he was captured. Really, really not a smart thing to keep him alive.

But that's the problem: people who think Jaime acted dishonorably want it both ways- they want Aerys impotent and LATER dead, but they do not want to get their hands dirty in actually having somebody kill him (except if its a faceless, nameless axeman). In the end, Jaime spared everyone that nonsense (to say nothing of the HUGE army at Storm's End and Dorne still unbowed). But ... Aerys needed a trial?

In the end Jaime acted because his actions were, as you yourself said, possibly the right move. And that's really all I need to know. The PRACTICAL outweighing the desire to live up to arbitrary oaths.

[SFDanny]

Rockroi, I think you are missing the story's context when you wonder why the Kingsguard trio fight Ned instead of letting him see Lyanna. The reader knows Ned means his sister and possibly her new child no harm. The trio does not. Ned is one of the rebel generals, and one who comes recently from the sack of King's Landing where Rheagar's wife and children were savagely murdered. They have every reason to deny him access.

[Enguerrand]

My only problem is with the word choice. "Fancied" has the connotation of choosing due to a whim or caprice.

ah I see no I didnt mean he did it on a whim, Barristan stated reason for chosing Robert is akin to someone comparing 2 pieces of fruit and taking the one that you think better. There is no big words about honor, vows etc that you would think would accompany someone who devoted his life to stuff like that, Chosing a king just seem a practical matter.

[Ran]

It cannot really be both dishonorable AND the right thing.

Sure it can. Even GRRM notes it: when asked if Jaime's actions would be perceived as honorable or dishonorable by the public at large, if they knew everything, his answer was noting that some might say "both".

In so far as he stopped Aerys from destroying the city, that was honorable. In so far as he did it in the most oath-shattering way possible, that he did it in part for purely selfish motives, and followed that up by recklessly selfish behavior, that was dishonorable.

[Blue Steel]

See what I am getting at? Either the oath is flexible (as it was for Selmy, you seem to agree) or its not (as you seem to be saying for Jaime). And I am unsure what Jaime was supposed to do, especially when Aerys STILL had many people loyal to him who could have carried the message out EVEN AFTER he was captured. Really, really not a smart thing to keep him alive.

But that's the problem: people who think Jaime acted dishonorably want it both ways- they want Aerys impotent and LATER dead, but they do not want to get their hands dirty in actually having somebody kill him (except if its a faceless, nameless axeman). In the end, Jaime spared everyone that nonsense (to say nothing of the HUGE army at Storm's End and Dorne still unbowed). But ... Aerys needed a trial?

In the end Jaime acted because his actions were, as you yourself said, possibly the right move. And that's really all I need to know. The PRACTICAL outweighing the desire to live up to arbitrary oaths.

I don't think many people hate Jaime on these boards for killing Aerys. The only ones who really chastised him for that in the books were Ned, Barristan and Brienne. Barristan almost gave his life for Rhaegar on the Trident while Jaime was back in Kings Landing breaking his oath. I can see why Barristan would feel that way about Jaime. By the time Barristan bent the knee to Robert, Aerys, Rhaegar and the rest of the Targaryens were dead -- the only ones alive were Viserys and Daenarys. Barristan probably should have gone to them, but he would have been killed by Robert before he even left the camp and he would have done no good for them then. Of course, Jaime could have gone to Viserys and Daenarys as well and he actually had a better chance of making it to Dragonstone, but he stayed behind too. So anything Barristan did wrong, Jaime did as well except worse because he failed to protect Elia and the children from his father and because he's done a lot more wrong in his life than just the decision to forsake his oath.

Barristan was dishonorable once. Jaime was dishonorable many times.

He threw a child out of a window, had an affair with the Queen, broke his oath to Catelyn by raising arms against Riverrun and killed Jory.

Jaime's actions also caused a lot more strife in Westeros than any action by the Catelyn (who is also hated on these boards) because of his affair with the Queen resulted in Joffrey. If it wasn't for this, Ned would have supported Robert's heirs if they were the trueborn children. Heck, Catelyn wouldn't even have kidnapped Tyrion if Jaime hadn't thrown Bran out of a window in the first place.

[The Mance]

Notice that even though he held him in contempt and killed him, Aerys is Jaime's king, while Robert's is not.

I see where you're trying to get with that, but I think you fall short. If Jaime had said something more personal like "Robert was not my true king" or "Aerys was my only true king", that could arguably carry the weight of an explicit legal/moral pronouncement. As it is, "no true king" just sounds like his subjective personal assessment of Robert's character as a lecherous drunk.

So you say again, do you actually have someone in series thinking the kingsguard's loyalty transfers this way , or is it all in your head?

Submitting passages in the kingguards vows that supported his decision to serve Robert would have been a better defence then this

Of course everything I've said is just conjecture on my part. I've never claimed to have proof of anything regarding the process of how loyalty is transfered. But really, until we hear the KG vows being spoken or specifically quoted, none of us has any real proof either way. I just strongly objected to the characterization of Selmy as a turncoat and proposed what I felt was a reasonable explanation of events that painted him in a light more in keeping with my assessment of his character.

I think the conversation between Dany and Selmy is your best argument so far, but it still isn't close to conclusive. I mean, if you want to point to statements that aren't there as proof of Selmy's treason, does Dany ever point out that he swore to serve only a rightful heir from her family until death? Because that would be a persuasive statement in your favor. And there are several points that refer to Selmy having made a choice, and Dany only ever treats them as having been the wrong choice, never that his vows clearly remove any choice he might have in the matter. Also, he says that he has returned to pledge his sword to her. But isn't that a curious thing to do if, as you claim, his sword has actually been pledged to her all along?

[Enguerrand]

I see where you're trying to get with that, but I think you fall short. If Jaime had said something more personal like "Robert was not my true king" or "Aerys was my only true king", that could arguably carry the weight of an explicit legal/moral pronouncement. As it is, "no true king" just sounds like his subjective personal assessment of Robert's character as a lecherous drunk.

Then you are missing the context, Lancel is filled with remorse over being complicit in the killing the king he served. You are saying that Jaime is trying to comfort Lancel with it being defensible to kill the king because Robert was a womanizer and drunkard? Hardly something people in their society would consider justifing kingslaying. And Jaime contrast his own behaviour as the real sin, even though most people would agree that Aerys character was far more vile then Roberts.

But of course if Robert never was a true king, then what Lancel did wasn't kingslaying.

That Jaime doesn't consider Robert entitled to his kingsguardly service, can be infered for such subtle matters as aborting his children, fucking his queen, making certain he dies without legitimate issue and regretting that he didn't kill him.

Of course everything I've said is just conjecture on my part. I've never claimed to have proof of anything regarding the process of how loyalty is transfered.

Why of course? I find it quite common that people possess knowledge about the series and are able to establish or refute claims made by other posters.

If you are making conjectures about how things stand in a fantasy world, without any textual support it's really no point in discussing it.

I mean, if you want to point to statements that aren't there as proof of Selmy's treason, does Dany ever point out that he swore to serve only a rightful heir from her family until death? Because that would be a persuasive statement in your favor. And there are several points that refer to Selmy having made a choice, and Dany only ever treats them as having been the wrong choice, never that his vows clearly remove any choice he might have in the matter.

Sorry I don't follow. Why wouldn't Barristan have a choice? Even if the kingsguard vow require something he can always chose to disregard it. As for treating chosing Robert's service as the wrong morale choice it's not just Dany but all present and no one castigate Barristan harder then himself.

“Why are you here?” Dany demanded of him. “If Robert sent you to kill me, why did you save my life?” He served the Usurper. He betrayed Rhaegar’s memory, and abandoned Viserys to live and die in exile. Yet if he wanted me dead, he need only have stood aside . . . “I want the whole truth now, on your honor as a knight. Are you the Usurper’s man, or mine?”

“Yours, if you will have me.” Ser Barristan had tears in his eyes. “I took Robert’s pardon, aye. I served him in Kingsguard and council. Served with the Kingslayer and others near as bad, who soiled the white cloak I wore. Nothing will excuse that. I might be serving in King’s Landing still if the vile boy upon the Iron Throne had not cast me aside, it shames me to admit. But when he took the cloak that the White Bull had draped about my shoulders, and sent men to kill me that selfsame day, it was as though he’d ripped a caul off my eyes. That was when I knew I must find my true king, and die in his service—”

“I can grant that wish,” Ser Jorah said darkly.

“Quiet,” said Dany. “I’ll hear him out.”

“It may be that I must die a traitor’s death,” Ser Barristan said. “If so, I should not die alone. Before I took Robert’s pardon I fought against him on the Trident. You were on the other side of that battle, Mormont, were you not?

Also, he says that he has returned to pledge his sword to her. But isn't that a curious thing to do if, as you claim, his sword has actually been pledged to her all along?

I have claimed what? Barristan pledged his sword to Robert, so of course its up to Daenerys to decide if she accept his service or not.

[The Mance]

You are saying that Jaime is trying to comfort Lancel with it being defensible to kill the king because Robert was a womanizer and drunkard?

I suppose, though defensible is probably too strong a word. He is definitely trying to mitigate the guilt his cousin feels for his part in Robert's death.

But of course if Robert never was a true king, then what Lancel did wasn't kingslaying.

Are you saying you think Jaime is a Targ loyalist that didn't recognize Robert as king?

That Jaime doesn't consider Robert entitled to his kingsguardly service, can be infered for such subtle matters as aborting his children, fucking his queen, making certain he dies without legitimate issue and regretting that he didn't kill him.

I doubt there many people that Jaime would consider "worthy" of his kingsgaurdly service, but it was Cersei that aborted Robert's children. And Jaime had been fucking Cersei long before she was ever Robert's queen, and likely would have continued fucking her no matter whose wife she'd become, so I don't see that as a particular statement about Robert.

Why of course? I find it quite common that people possess knowledge about the series and are able to establish or refute claims made by other posters.

If you are making conjectures about how things stand in a fantasy world, without any textual support it's really no point in discussing it.

As I said, until we hear some particulars about the actual KG vows all of us can only speculate about the terms of Barristan's loyalty. Someone accused Selmy of being a turncoat and put forth their interpretation of dialogue and events in the book to support that claim. I disagreed, and put forth a very different interpretation of Barristan's actions and motives. And here we are establishing and refuting claims with textual support. I don't claim to know that what I suggested is true, but certainly it is possible. You seem to feel that there is enough textual evidence to know that Selmy is a turncoat. I say that based on what we've been presented in the books, you can't possibly claim to know any such thing.

Why wouldn't Barristan have a choice?

If he is bound by the terms of his KG vows to serve the Crown, or the anointed king on the Iron Throne or whoever, then he has no real choice who he serves if he wishes to stay true to his vows. True he could disregard them, but not without shaming himself. And isn't what we are discussing here? Whether Barristan could have honorably served Aerys, and then Robert, and now Dany without being an oath breaking turncoat?

I have claimed what? Barristan pledged his sword to Robert, so of course its up to Daenerys to decide if she accept his service or not.

Sorry, I though you've been saying that the KG swear and serve for life. Are you saying now that there is some legitimate process for transferring the loyalties of the KG?

[Lady Blackfish]

I don't hold anything against Selmy for swearing fealty to Robert. A major point in the series is that the source of power is difficult to define, and once the Targaryens fell a lot of people in the kingdom accepted Robert. Selmy's "hypocrisy", to me, is an earnest kind. I tend to believe that reality makes 99% of the human population hypocrites, just through some internally conflicted nature of life the universe and everything, so I don't really hold it against Barristan that he accepted a break in the power chain that most of Westeros did too.

I do hold his implicit support of Aerys against him, though I can respect that it was difficult in the sense that, yes, subordinates need to be loyal for the system to work. Still, it's hard to argue against the fact that Aerys was a ridiculously malignant presence at the top of the power structure. Honor is important but in this case something was more important than honor.