The Rhaegar + Lyanna = Jon Thread, Part X

[Blue Steel]

I agree that Jaime acted morally when he slew Aerys. Screw honor at that point. But he then went on to sleep with the new King's Wife, throw Bran out of a window and basically act as a catalyst for all of the realms current problems. If he didn't sleep with Cersei, there would be no Joffrey, and thus there would be no war of five Kings. Any good that Jaime achieved by saving the people of King's Landing from Aerys he threw away when he helped plunge the realm into war at the worst possible time (huge winter coming as well as Other invasion).

So if you call Gerold Hightower, Barristan Selmy and Arthur Dayne overrated, then what is Jaime if not one oft he most morally corrupted characters in the series?

As for Jon, if the oath of the Night Watch is like a contract, then that contract would be invalid because Jon was not made aware of everything he was giving up and information was purposely witheld from him about who he was. He thought he was a bastard with nothing to live for, when he very well could be a legitimate heir to the throne of Westeros.

[iamthedave]

An oath is not a contract between two people unless specifically stated as such (like when Cat and Brienne exchange oaths). The oath of the Night's Watch is an oath sworn to the world, more or less.

Right at the beginning it's constantly stated by Benjen and Ned that they're queasy about Jon taking the oath 'because he doesn't know what he's giving up', and once he's taken it, that's it. No way out, no way back.

You'd have thought Ned would have had it in mind that he'd be giving up a shot at the throne, too, come to think of it...

There hasn't been the shadow of a loophole mentioned anywhere in the text. The only way Jon can leave the watch is to become an oathbreaker, and the only apparent way - and even this is debatable - that he might ever get out of his duty is if the wall comes down. But even that is debatable since the oath again does not specify the wall.

Although, if a King or Queen were to specifically disband the watch, that ought to free him from his oath. I'd have thought the ruler would have the ability to do that.

[Yarl Snow]

If the Kingslayer had been not been part of an important family - he would have been banished if not executed for showing such treachery.

Jaime's betrayal is vastly different from the uprising against Aerys by House's Stark, Baratheon and Arryn. Aerys killed the Lord Stark and his heir, killed the Arryn heir and wanted to kill Ned Stark and the Lord Baratheon. Of course they are going to raise the banners. It is not really explained why the Tully's joined them, maybe Hoster had his own grievance with Aerys. It is likely that he was longstanding friends with Jon Arryn and Rickard Stark, hence the betrothal of Brandon to Cateyn.

Hoster Tully's motivation for joining the rebellion is explained in a Catelyn chapter. In ASoS, IIFC. His price was marrying off Lysa to Jon Arryn. Not quite sure to which Warden the Riverlands hail, though, West or East. As I recall, they are quite close to Casterly Rock. I'm sure someone can further explain the motivations of Hoster Tully.

I do not agree that any other kingsguard would have been banished. Robert was a forgiving king, except when it came to Targaryens. Also, Jaime was clearly not on the Targaryen side, both by action and by blood. He pardoned Barristan, as well as Jaime. Though I think Jaime being a Lannister was not insignificant.

[SFDanny]

Whatever Hoster Tully's motivations, he commits to the rebellion before Jon Arryn marries Lysa by participating in the Battle of the Bells. Of course, he could have done so based on the pledge that Arryn and Ned would marry his daughters. Makes him into a trusting sort of guy to commit treason based on someone else's word they will do something in the future, doesn't it?

However, if Tully joins the rebellion based on pledges from the Lords Arryn and Stark, why does Jon Arryn make the marriage pact? He has an heir until the Battle of the Bells. A marriage for Tully swords I'd guess. As simple as that.

[Lady Winter Rose]

Whatever Hoster Tully's motivations, he commits to the rebellion before Jon Arryn marries Lysa by participating in the Battle of the Bells. Of course, he could have done so based on the pledge that Arryn and Ned would marry his daughters. Makes him into a trusting sort of guy to commit treason based on someone else's word they will do something in the future, doesn't it?

However, if Tully joins the rebellion based on pledges from the Lords Arryn and Stark, why does Jon Arryn make the marriage pact? He has an heir until the Battle of the Bells. A marriage for Tully swords I'd guess. As simple as that.

Maybe he was attacker by Tyrells (sp.) or Lannister (unlikely).

[Xenophon]

Re. why Tully joined the rebellion, I was just looking at the awesome HBO maps, and it seems like geography might have forced his hand. With the North and the Eyrie in rebellion, the Riverlands couldn't really remain neutral and wait to pick sides like the Lannisters, since the armies of the North and East would have to pass through them to get to King's landing. So Tully either had to side with King and face an immediate invasion by two major houses, or effectively side with the rebels by letting march through his lands unopposed.

[Thoheeks Bili]

Re. why Tully joined the rebellion, I was just looking at the awesome HBO maps, and it seems like geography might have forced his hand. With the North and the Eyrie in rebellion, the Riverlands couldn't really remain neutral and wait to pick sides like the Lannisters, since the armies of the North and East would have to pass through them to get to King's landing. So Tully either had to side with King and face an immediate invasion by two major houses, or effectively side with the rebels by letting march through his lands unopposed.

ANDDDDD as the Tully's were officially linked to the North/Starks(via Catelyn and Brandon Ned), they kinda had to also stick up for the families/allies to. :fencing:

[Kariggi]

Divine right 16th century?

Divine right has been touted by rulers since before the pharaohs of egypt, and if you didn't believe them their armies were sure to convince you of their "divine" right to rule.

[Dragonfish]

It is quite clear that Jaime's actions in killing Aerys were terrible. It would be like a Secret Service member assassinating the US President. There is simply no acceptable justification for it that would prevent that person always being reviled as a traitor.

Really? No acceptable justification? What if the President were about to unilaterally nuke Washington D.C.? Would it be unjustified for a Secret Service member to shoot him then? To make the analogy a little clearer, imagine that this president had absolute power and control over the armed forces, and that there was no democratic remedy or recourse to prevent him from doing this.

This is essentially what happened with Aerys. He was about to burn the entire capital city to the ground, and Jaime was the only one who knew about this and wanted to stop it. In this situation, I think he was perfectly justified in killing the King, because the King had forsaken his duties as a protector of the realm and therefore had no right to continue to be protected. Now, as I've said before, I'm sure other members of the Kingsguard would argue this point. But I don't think the issue is by any means "clear."

There were bad kings before Aerys. The Kingsguard still served them though. There were incidents of betrayals that Jaime looks up, but none ever killed their King. Until the Kingslayer.

There were indeed bad Kings before Aerys. None of them tried to burn the capital city and all its people to the ground, though.

The Kingsguard's principal duty is to safeguard the Royal Family. Jaime completely broke that oath and tarnished the reputation of the Kingsguard that went back hundreds of years.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but here goes: Jaime also swore an oath to protect the people. Does the oath to protect the King supersede this oath? Perhaps, you could certainly make an argument for it. But once again, it is by no means clear that protecting the King comes before protecting the people, at least in a situation where the two oaths so blatantly conflict.

Jaime's betrayal is vastly different from the uprising against Aerys by House's Stark, Baratheon and Arryn. Aerys killed the Lord Stark and his heir, killed the Arryn heir and wanted to kill Ned Stark and the Lord Baratheon. Of course they are going to raise the banners.

Yes, of course they are going to raise their banners, because their loyalty to the King only lasts as long as the King fulfills his mutual obligation to protect them. Once he broke that obligation, the lords were no longer duty-bound to obey him. Similarly, once Aerys decided to break his implicit oath to protect the people, you could argue that Jaime was no longer duty bound to protect him. Again, I'm not saying that I'm absolutely correct on this one, just that the matter can be argued and is by no means clear.

It is indeed the fact that the Kingsguard's principal duty to protect the Royal Family that lends huge weight. to the theory about Jon Stark being Rhaegar's son. Why else would a whopping 3 members of the Kingsguard be in the Tower of Joy when they should have been in the Trident, or KL or Dragonstone? They make it quite clear in Ned's flashback that the Kingsguard were not there because they had fled as the cause was lost. They explicitly state they do not run and they are upholding their vow. What is their vow? To protect the members of the Royal Family. So their presence and these lines are enough to imply MASSIVELY that a member of the Royal Family is present at Tower of Joy. The only other thing Ned says about the Tower of Joy is that Lyanna is there dying and makes his make a promise. So R + L = J.

Here you and I agree. I do believe the Kingsguard were there because Lyanna was with child. That said, this is merely a belief on my part, as it is not necessarily the case that the Kingsguard were there to protect a pregnant Lyanna. Remember, the Kingsguard also swear to obey the King and his family, so conceivably they were there simply because Rhaegar ordered them to guard the Tower. This is something that GRRM pointed out in a SSM.

[Xenophon]

Divine right 16th century?

Divine right has been touted by rulers since before the pharaohs of egypt, and if you didn't believe them their armies were sure to convince you of their "divine" right to rule.

No, Corbon's right. What we call the doctrine of divine right is originally an early modern doctrine, developed to legitimate rulers who had broken with the Pope. Obviously, as you point out, many rulers have claimed some sort of divine favor throughout history, but the specific claim that Kings are granted unconditional legitimacy by God is fairly unique. Generally even God-Kings like the Pharaohs or Chinese/Roman Emperors conceded that their legitimacy in some way depended on their justice and ability to keep the peace.

And in general, it seems to me like Westeros fits the normal feudal pattern, where monarch do have some duties to their vassals and people, such that it might be legitimate to overthrow a mad and unjust king. But I do see why iamthedave wonders if the story itself suggests something more like divine right, since it's beginning to look like only the Taegaryens and their dragons can keep the peace and save the world from the Others. Against that, however, is the fact that the Taegaryens are explicitly said to be conquerors, and I don't remember anywhere where they claimed that their invasion of Westeros was divinely sanctioned.

[Mandurang]

I think it is a mistake trying to attribute a false historicity to Westeros based on real chronology. Does not mean that because it evolved that way in real life it would happen like this in Westeros. After all, we are talking about a land where knights have been around for thousands of years.

But even if we assume for the sake of argument that it probably would happen like in real life, a similar concept, the Mandate of Heaven, was around as early as 100 BC in China.

But I do see why iamthedave wonders if the story itself suggests something more like divine right, since it's beginning to look like only the Taegaryens and their dragons can keep the peace and save the world from the Others.

In my opinion, avoiding this pitfall is one of the challenges that Martin has to face, but I'm sure he'll be equal to the task.

[Xenophon]

I think it is a mistake trying to attribute a false historicity to Westeros based on real chronology. Does not mean that because it evolved that way in real life it would happen like this in Westeros. After all, we are talking about a land where knights have been around for thousands of years.

But even if we assume for the sake of argument that it probably would happen like in real life, a similar concept, the Mandate of Heaven, was around as early as 100 BC in China.

Oh, I wasn't trying to suggest anything about a historical progression of ideas. I was just observing that the idea of "divine right" as we use the term today is very unusual, so we shouldn't just assume that it applies in Westeros. Even the mandate of heaven, for example, requires that the ruler is effective--if the ruler is horrible, then the mandate passes on to someone else. The idea that a king is legitimate regardless of how unjust or incompetent he is, is really really peculiar. Almost nobody ever believed this in RL, and I don't see much evidence that it is widely held in GRRM's world either.

[BladeDancer]

Thanks for your replies. I see things differently wrt Jaime's actions but I understand your arguments too.

Really? No acceptable justification? What if the President were about to unilaterally nuke Washington D.C.? Would it be unjustified for a Secret Service member to shoot him then? To make the analogy a little clearer, imagine that this president had absolute power and control over the armed forces, and that there was no democratic remedy or recourse to prevent him from doing this.

This is essentially what happened with Aerys. He was about to burn the entire capital city to the ground, and Jaime was the only one who knew about this and wanted to stop it. In this situation, I think he was perfectly justified in killing the King, because the King had forsaken his duties as a protector of the realm and therefore had no right to continue to be protected. Now, as I've said before, I'm sure other members of the Kingsguard would argue this point. But I don't think the issue is by any means "clear."

I think it is clear though. Aerys was going to take actions to kill lots of innocent people. It is not the responsibilty of the King's bodyguard to tell the King what to do. That is not part of his brief.. The Kingsguard do not dictate policy except when the Royal Family are taking actions that imperil them. US Presidents have taken decisions to nuke cities and kill innocent people. They have ordered bombing blitzes of foreign countries and invasions by sea or air. It is not the call of the Secret Service to assasinate the President because they disagree with decisions that result in numerous deaths. If you think a Secret Service Agent could whack his own President and NOT subsequently be deemed a traitor in the eyes of many, then I disagree with you. Does the Secret Service oath of service have a clause saying that they can shoot the President if they are taking unlawful actions? I think not. There are checks and balances and procedures within the US Goverment to tackle unlawful actions by the US President. Shooting the President is not an option without consequence. If Jaime decided to overrule Aerys and overpower him, knock him out, capture him, imprison him etc then that is one thing , but killing him? That is too far. his primary duty was to keep his monarch alive. End of story. That is what being a Kingsguard is about, you sacrifice all personal ambition and previous loyalties to keep the Royal Family alive.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but here goes: Jaime also swore an oath to protect the people. Does the oath to protect the King supersede this oath? Perhaps, you could certainly make an argument for it. But once again, it is by no means clear that protecting the King comes before protecting the people, at least in a situation where the two oaths so blatantly conflict.

Does the oath to protect the people mean that the Kingsguard cannot allow the King to kill or murder any people? Like Ned Stark? Or Brandon Stark etc? The Kingsguard oath quite clearly allows Kings to execute subjects with very little in the way of justifiable cause. Septa Mordane? Head on spike. Mycah the Butcher Boy, Sentenced to Death. The Kingsguard oath allows the King at the time to kill all these people without requiring intervention. The King it appears is well within his customary rights to issue death warrants to various subjects without Kingsguard intervention. Indeed one of the powers granted to the Iron Throne Holder is the power to judge subjects.and condemn them to death. That;s why a bad or mad king is bad news for everyone, because these powers can be abused. It is quite clear that the oath to 'protect the people' does not mean the King can be prevented from inflicting harm on his subjects. Sansa was beaten by the various Kingsguard members under orders from the King. Where was the oath to 'protect' Sansa?

It is demonstrated throughout the books that the King was the ultimate power in the Land and had the power to order death or harm to his subjects and the Kingsguard would not feel obligated by their oath to intervene. Barristan the Bold would provide a check on Robert and give advice because he was an honourable and just person, not because he was a Kingsguard. As a member of the Small Council as Lord Commander, he has the power to give council to the King, however the King makes the final decision. There is no conflict of duty that compels Jaime to slay Aerys to save some lives. It is only a moral obligation rather than one of duty. It is dilemma where duty wars with personal moral code. A Kingsguard is expected to sacrifice their personal feelings and desires in order to perform their duty. That is the nature of the oath. The Kingsgaurd are NOT there to provide checks and balances on the King's actions. Jaime's actions were unprecedented. Even someone as honourable as Barristan the Bold, although they would disapprove of Aerys murdering the Starks, he would not allow his personal feelings on the matter to cause him to intervene beyond giving advice.

Yes, of course they are going to raise their banners, because their loyalty to the King only lasts as long as the King fulfills his mutual obligation to protect them. Once he broke that obligation, the lords were no longer duty-bound to obey him. Similarly, once Aerys decided to break his implicit oath to protect the people, you could argue that Jaime was no longer duty bound to protect him. Again, I'm not saying that I'm absolutely correct on this one, just that the matter can be argued and is by no means clear.

The King keeps his bannermen sweet because he needs them. He needs his bannermen because they provide him with his military strength. A King should treat his bannermen well because of pragmatism alone rather than obligations. Mistreating them and alienating them will cause them to withdraw their military support and in extreme cases, rebel. It is in the power of the King to strip Lords of their titles and lands and order their arrest. Obviously if a King does this without good cause then other Lords would fear for their own skins and so be more likely to rebel. Murdering Lord Stark and his heir, and then Elbery Aryn without cause is obviously going to cause them to rebel. Aery's caused too many of his bannermen to rebel at the same time, such that they won the war. It's not that Aerys was neglecting to protect these bannermen, he was actively killing them. So to preserve themselves they had to rebel or die.

Here you and I agree. I do believe the Kingsguard were there because Lyanna was with child. That said, this is merely a belief on my part, as it is not necessarily the case that the Kingsguard were there to protect a pregnant Lyanna. Remember, the Kingsguard also swear to obey the King and his family, so conceivably they were there simply because Rhaegar ordered them to guard the Tower. This is something that GRRM pointed out in a SSM.

I just don't believe that half of the Kingsguard (including the greatest fighter and the Lord Commander) would be sent to guard a Tower. That is not their primary duty. There were thousands of regular loyal soldiers who could guard the Tower. The Kingsguard are EXTREMELY unlikely to just guard a Tower. If you wanted it protected you have hundreds of soldiers guarding it rather than a mere 3 Knights. Theoretically yes, they could have been ordered to do so, but it just seemed so out of their remit of responsibilities when they could have been used to guard the King, the Queen or be with Rhaegar or his family, all of which are within their expected duties. Even the presence of a single Kingsguard would raise suspicions about the presence of a Targaryan but three of them together. It clinches the theory to me, once it is established by their words that they have not travelled there because they just fled a losing cause.

Anyway, hopefully we'll have some revelations on the matter in Dance with Dragons.

[Ded As Ned]

...In the previews we have seen the Dragons are beginning to get a out of control, burning children and such...

Thanks for the spoiler man

[Snow White]

Aerys was going to take actions to kill lots of innocent people. It is not the responsibilty of the King's bodyguard to tell the King what to do.

Yes, it rather is. That's what the Nuremberg trials were all about.

[morbiczer]

Yes, it rather is. That's what the Nuremberg trials were all about.

Westeros =/= Nazi Germany, or the real world in general

[morbiczer]

Thanks for the spoiler man

This is from the preview chapter at the end of ASOS (!). It was released like 10 years ago. Is there anybody who hasn't read that?

[Xenophon]

In the article on Jamie, it says that he once wanted to stop the king from raping his wife and he was told that, yes, it was his duty to protect the Queen, but not from the King. I wonder if you can substitute "the people" for "the Queen".

[Dragonfish]

I think it is clear though. Aerys was going to take actions to kill lots of innocent people. It is not the responsibilty of the King's bodyguard to tell the King what to do. That is not part of his brief... It is not the call of the Secret Service to assasinate the President because they disagree with decisions that result in numerous deaths. If you think a Secret Service Agent could whack his own President and NOT subsequently be deemed a traitor in the eyes of many, then I disagree with you. Does the Secret Service oath of service have a clause saying that they can shoot the President if they are taking unlawful actions? I think not.

You didn't address my specific example though. In my example, the President is clearly insane, is about to nuke Washington, D.C. for no reason other than to spite his enemies, and has no democratic checks on his actions. In that situation, if a Secret Service member were to kill him, would people view him as a traitor? Undoubtedly some would, but I think others would not if they knew the full circumstances. Similarly, I think if everyone in the Seven Kingdoms knew what Aerys was about to do before Jaime killed him, a lot more people would approve of his actions and might even call them honorable. But since no one knows the real story, everyone most likely thinks he killed Aerys in order to protect his family, which would clearly be dishonorable.

Does the oath to protect the people mean that the Kingsguard cannot allow the King to kill or murder any people?...The King it appears is well within his customary rights to issue death warrants to various subjects without Kingsguard intervention. Indeed one of the powers granted to the Iron Throne Holder is the power to judge subjects.and condemn them to death. That;s why a bad or mad king is bad news for everyone, because these powers can be abused. It is quite clear that the oath to 'protect the people' does not mean the King can be prevented from inflicting harm on his subjects. Sansa was beaten by the various Kingsguard members under orders from the King. Where was the oath to 'protect' Sansa?

No, their oaths don't necessarily mean that they must always prevent the King from murdering people, because as you say it is the King's job to pass judgment on people and sometimes that judgment will require execution. But in those cases, the executions ostensibly serve to protect the realm from traitors and subversives. This doesn't mean that the power to pass judgment can't be abused to murder innocent people (it clearly can and has been abused), but the rationale of protecting the rest of the realm still provides "cover", if you will, for the Kingsguard. But in Aerys's case, what was the rationale for burning down King's Landing? Would it have protected the realm in any way? Would it have served a higher cause? No, clearly not. Aerys's actions were spiteful to his enemies, and did nothing to serve the realm. He had forsaken his obligation to protect the realm, and thus had forsaken his right to protection by the Kingsguard.

Let me put this another way. If a knight came across a bandit about to murder a passing merchant, would the knight be justified in killing the bandit to protect that merchant? Would this be honorable, even though killing the bandit would seem to violate his oath to protect people? I think it would be honorable. The bandit, in committing a harmful and unlawful act, has forsaken his right to be protected by the knight. And the knight, in killing the bandit, is still serving the higher purpose of protecting someone about to be harmed. He is harming someone in order to protect. Similarly, when the King orders executions, it is in service of a higher cause of protecting the rest of the realm. In this scenario, he is like the knight protecting the merchant by killing the bandit. But when the King performs an act so extreme as to clearly fall outside the rationale of protecting the realm, and clearly harms people without serving a higher purpose, then he has forsaken his protection by knights and should be stopped. In this scenario, he is like the bandit who is killed by the knight in order to protect the merchant. And in that scenario, I believe the actions of the knight would be honorable.

It is demonstrated throughout the books that the King was the ultimate power in the Land and had the power to order death or harm to his subjects and the Kingsguard would not feel obligated by their oath to intervene.

The King is the ultimate power, but this fact only holds so long as he fulfills his mutual obligation to protect the realm. Aerys's actions contravene that obligation in no uncertain terms. If you want to argue this point, then you need to show how Aerys's plan to burn the city was in service of protecting the realm as a whole.

The Kingsgaurd are NOT there to provide checks and balances on the King's actions. Jaime's actions were unprecedented.

Jaime's actions were indeed unprecedented, but then again so were Aerys's. Given the extremity of what Aerys was about to do, I think that Jaime was morally obligated as well as duty bound to act to prevent it.

Even someone as honourable as Barristan the Bold, although they would disapprove of Aerys murdering the Starks, he would not allow his personal feelings on the matter to cause him to intervene beyond giving advice.

Agreed, but that's Barristan's opinion, and he is not the ultimate arbiter on this issue. Ned Stark is also honorable, yet he turned against his King. More on that below.

The King keeps his bannermen sweet because he needs them. He needs his bannermen because they provide him with his military strength. A King should treat his bannermen well because of pragmatism alone rather than obligations. Mistreating them and alienating them will cause them to withdraw their military support and in extreme cases, rebel.

Emphasis mine.

I disagree. A King should treat his bannermen well because of pragmatism and because of his mutual obligations. That's the whole point, indeed the very definition, of being King. As soon as he ceases to fulfill his obligations, the Lord's are no longer duty-bound to obey him. Simple as that.

It's not that Aerys was neglecting to protect these bannermen, he was actively killing them. So to preserve themselves they had to rebel or die.

Well, Ser Jorah was about to be brought to justice by Ned (it has never been clear to me if Ned was going to execute him or not), but chose to flee in order to preserve himself. Yet Ned and others view his choice to flee as dishonorable. Ned believes Ser Jorah was duty bound to turn himself in. But does Ned view his own actions in rebelling against his sovereign, rather than turning himself in, as dishonorable? I doubt it. This is what I mean when I say that these things aren't so clear cut as you're making them out to be.

I just don't believe that half of the Kingsguard (including the greatest fighter and the Lord Commander) would be sent to guard a Tower. That is not their primary duty. There were thousands of regular loyal soldiers who could guard the Tower. The Kingsguard are EXTREMELY unlikely to just guard a Tower. If you wanted it protected you have hundreds of soldiers guarding it rather than a mere 3 Knights. Theoretically yes, they could have been ordered to do so, but it just seemed so out of their remit of responsibilities when they could have been used to guard the King, the Queen or be with Rhaegar or his family, all of which are within their expected duties. Even the presence of a single Kingsguard would raise suspicions about the presence of a Targaryan but three of them together. It clinches the theory to me, once it is established by their words that they have not travelled there because they just fled a losing cause.

This is a good argument, I think. GRRM was probably trying to deflect suspicion with his quote about the Kingsguard having to obey Rhaegar.

Thanks for your replies. I see things differently wrt Jaime's actions but I understand your arguments too.

Thank you for yours. If I came across as snippy before, then I apologize.

[iamthedave]

Let me put this another way. If a knight came across a bandit about to murder a passing merchant, would the knight be justified in killing the bandit to protect that merchant? Would this be honorable, even though killing the bandit would seem to violate his oath to protect people?

The thing is though that the Kingsguard aren't normal knights. They swear a very different oath and it overrides the others.

Agreed, but that's Barristan's opinion, and he is not the ultimate arbiter on this issue. Ned Stark is also honorable, yet he turned against his King. More on that below.

Ned turned against Aerys, but can you think of any more ardent critics of Jaime in the first book? He refuses to call him ANYTHING but 'Kingslayer'. Bearing in mind Robert's exclamation (which I found hilarious even at the time) 'Oh, someone had to kill him!', the implication is pretty clear: Jaime should not under any circumstances have been the one to do the deed. His oath binds his hands.

Maybe had he knocked the king out, tied him up or somesuch, he would not be so reviled. Heck, you could even argue he followed his oath doing that (the king intended suicide; Jaime protected him from himself). But instead he explicitly and directly broke his oath by killing the man.

Well, Ser Jorah was about to be brought to justice by Ned (it has never been clear to me if Ned was going to execute him or not), but chose to flee in order to preserve himself. Yet Ned and others view his choice to flee as dishonorable. Ned believes Ser Jorah was duty bound to turn himself in. But does Ned view his own actions in rebelling against his sovereign, rather than turning himself in, as dishonorable? I doubt it. This is what I mean when I say that these things aren't so clear cut as you're making them out to be.

Ned was indeed going to execute him; there's a line relating to Mormont about taking Ice with him to the island when he hears Mormont has fled.

Ned never addresses this point directly, but Stannis does. And Stannis was pretty clear that it was indeed dishonorable. Doesn't he say it was the hardest choice he ever made?

I wonder if the difference lies in Northern honor vs Southern honor?