R+L=J v.27

[rmholt]

Ned pulled down the ToJ. Jon was at Starfall (to be Edric;s milk brother) until he went north. No reason to think Wylla went along - she served Starfall - just some wetnurse (and not Nan, either!)

[Hombre_Lobo]

I think that the trip from the North to the South made by a pregnant Lyanna may well be the cause of her death.

Which is another negative for R beeing 'in love' with L. You don't do that to 'the love of your life'. Aldough R+L=J is true I am starting to doubt the 'starcrossed lovers' angle.

I'm not sure that they traveled from winterfell all the way to dorne

[knownothing]

Ned pulled down the ToJ. Jon was at Starfall (to be Edric;s milk brother) until he went north. No reason to think Wylla went along - she served Starfall - just some wetnurse (and not Nan, either!)

I don't disagree that Wylla possibly did not go to Winterfell, another wet nurse may have. But, Jon was not at Starfall to be Edric's milk brother. Edric is a few years younger than Jon. They are 'milk brothers ' only because at some point Jon (whether at the TOJ or Starfall for a period of time, or both) and Edric each had Wylla as a wetnurse. That is all a milk brother/sister means, that at one point children were nursed by the same woman and not necessarily at the same time.

[Joan of Arc]

Here is my vision on the oath that the KG swears to protect 'the king and his heirs' instead of 'Targaryen' dynasty.

Original post:

"There is also a way in which Ned is adressing where he had missed them, at the Trident, in KL. Aldough they state that the KG does'nt flee, it is a lie. They wanted Jon so they could have a claim on the Iron Throne."

In this post I pointed at the line Ned gives to the 3 KG that are at the ToJ.

Neds line: "I missed you at the Trident,at the sacking of KL and at Storms End"

In this line he is telling them that he missed them at all the places where there would possibly be an Targ heir to the Iron Throne. This stands out as one of the Iron Clad points as to why R+L=J. I am not trying to bust that.

But I had a sudden drop of a coin moment here as to a perfect reason why the KG where at the ToJ, a one that still makes Jon the song of ice and fire and why Ned HAD to take him to Winterfell. It also perfectly fits this statement of Ned.

This has everything todo with the subtille difference between 'bending your knee'and'swearing an oath' in the realm of Westeros.

First of the overall theme of a song of ice and fire to me is balance. Good vs Bad, Ice vs Fire, Black vs White.

We have two different parties in Westeros that do swear oaths.

First the Night Watch. Their job is to protect the realm from the Others. They swear and oath and we have the text of that oath. To become a brother of the NW you swear an oath for the Old God or the New. That oath swears you into the Brotherhood of the NW for life.That oath is cleverly designed to make sure that the NW never goes to war in the realm.

Even Jon the current commander of the NW does not do that. He reffused Stannis offer that would have made him Jon Stark Lord of Winterfell. A position Jon did'nt even dream about of having. Still Jon says: No.

Things are corrupted at the NW, true. But look at what happend with Janos Slink. He down right reffused a direct order of the Commander of the NW and off came his head. No one of the NW did revolt, they all watched how Jon punished Janos fully legit to the oath of the NW.

Second the KG. Their job is to protect the King and his heirs. They too swear an oath, but we don't have the exact text. But we do know that it must be similar to that of the NW.

The oath is sworn once in front of the King, the members are also a brotherhood with a commander. True the KG was founded by the Targs, but even a Targ would be smart enough to make that oath as solid as the oath of the NW. To make sure that what ever happens the king and the heirs are protected by the KG.

When Robert was made King, Baristan bended his knee to Robert and Robert made him commander of the KG. There is no mention in the text that Baristan said his oath again replacing 'Targaryen' with 'Baratheon'. Baristan bend his knee to the NEW King and accepts his new possition in the KG.

So I think that the oath the KG swears is just as cleverly designed to make sure that the King would allways be protected.

If the NW swears an oath to protect "the realm" why can't the oath a KG member swears be 'the king and heirs' instead of "Targaryan'.

A good example of why 'the king and his heirs' would work is 'Kingslayer' Jaime Lannister. He was there at KL and killed Aerys, yet he remains into the KG. If that oath he swore was to a 'Targaryan' they would have chopped off his head. But if it where 'the king and its heirs' Jaime would bend his knee to Robert and could still remain in the KG. 'King slayer'is a clever nickname.

Than to the Ned line "Trident, KL, Storms End' as said it looks a lot like Ned is saying "I was looking for you doing your job and you where not there'. This is replied with "the KG never flees", which I call (just like Ned) a lie.

The ToJ was after Robert became the new king. The KG was on the run with Lyanna trying to get a Targ heir (Jon) to Dorne.

If you replace 'Targaryen dynasty' with 'the king and his heirs'it explains the location of the KG, Jon would still be "ice and fire" he will still be a essential part in the battle of the dawn. But what is far more important he will be prepared for doing battle at the Wall.

[Serie]

Here is my vision on the oath that the KG swears to protect 'the king and his heirs' instead of 'Targaryen' dynasty.

just a note and please correct me if I'm wrong. The KG protects the king and royal family, not only the heir. Targ and Baratheon era same thing.

Example: Jaime asked Hightower (IIRC) whether they should stop Mad King Aerys from hurting his Queen since they were supposed to protect her as well.

[Pod The Impaler]

I think R+L = J is the truth. Lyanna and the tourney at Harrenhal have "blue rose" written all over them. Jon being a warg means he is of Stark blood, so that's either Ned or Lyanna. But he seems to look the most Lyanna-ish of any Stark child save Arya. Dayne-like looks can easily be confused with Targ looks, but if someone thinks Jon looks a lot like Ned, then perhaps they can pull out the book quote to back it.

Ned's promise to Lyanna is the thing that convinces me the most. If Ned and Ashara Dayne had a bastard child, there would be no reason to keep Jon's mother a secret from everybody including Jon himself. Jon Snow is a known bastard anyway, so it certainly isn't for causing a stigma. Ned trusted Robert like a brother, and even after Robert is considered, then surely he could have trusted Benjen or even Catelyn with that info if Jon was from Ashara and himself.

But look at R+L=J and the extreme secrecy finds its purpose. If Jon was known to be Rhaegar's bastard son, he would be dead.

First of all, Robert would have wanted to exterminate another Targaryen on personal grounds, as Jon would be either the product of a rape which ultimately killed the woman he loved, or the product of the woman he loved spurning him for another man whom she ran off with.

Second of all, remember Robert was a Usurper. Politically kings (usurper's especially) cannot have leave alive any rivals for the crown, which is what Jon would have been. A Targaryen born to the crown prince would be a rallying point for opposition to Robert and even if Robert felt some merciful sympathy for Lyanna's child instead of rage, you can bet his courtiers would not. Courtiers like the Lannisters who just got through murdering Elia and her children, and would fear another Targ child growing up to seek revenge.

So, of course Lyanna would fear for her child. Of course Ned would promise to keep that secret. At the very least, Ned if it came out that Jon was Lyanna and Rhaegar's child, it would have been hell for Ned to choose between the last living remnant of his beloved sister, and his best friend who was practically a brother to him. He didn't want to knock Robert off the throne, nor could he simply ignore the child's plight. Solution? The child grows up about as far away from the Iron Throne as one can be, and is never a threat to anyone.

And I'm sure Eddard never figured both he and Robert would be dead so soon after he went south to become hand and Jon went to the wall..

[nothatso]

Even Jon the current commander of the NW does not do that. He reffused Stannis offer that would have made him Jon Stark Lord of Winterfell. A position Jon did'nt even dream about of having. Still Jon says: No.

I don't even want to get involved in this argument, but I'm so sick of people using this as evidence for anything. Stannis would have required Jon to burn weirwoods and convert to Melisandre's religion. Weirwoods - as in the religious symbols of the lords that would have been sworn to him. Beyond that, Stannis didn't even have Winterfell. He still doesn't. Jon didn't view it as Stannis's to give. Further, Jon would have had to swear fealty to Stannis, which is not something to be taken lightly when Stannis is in such a delicate position himself.

It's much more complicated than obeying vows.

[rmholt]

KG serves for life. If the king changes, it would seem they have to switch over or die.

[Hombre_Lobo]

A good example of why 'the king and his heirs' would work is 'Kingslayer' Jaime Lannister. He was there at KL and killed Aerys, yet he remains into the KG. If that oath he swore was to a 'Targaryan' they would have chopped off his head. But if it where 'the king and its heirs' Jaime would bend his knee to Robert and could still remain in the KG. 'King slayer'is a clever nickname.

I don't really see what the confusion is here. The kings guard doesn't appear to be exactly the same as the nights watch, in terms of vows or what have you. As far as Jamie goes, he was a sworn kings guard and clearly broke whatever vows he made in killing Aerys II, this point is hammered through throughout the series, with nearly everyone remarking that 'a kingslayer's honor is worth shit'. The only reason he wasn't summarily executed for this is that he is Tywin's son, and Robert needed Lannister gold.

Their offices aren't necessarily 'transferable', like it's been said, it appears that they must swear fealty to a new king when a new king is in place. On the trident, didn't Roose Bolton insist that Robert kill Selmy? Rob pardoned Selmy and made him his own KG.

[Hombre_Lobo]

I don't even want to get involved in this argument, but I'm so sick of people using this as evidence for anything. Stannis would have required Jon to burn weirwoods and convert to Melisandre's religion. Weirwoods - as in the religious symbols of the lords that would have been sworn to him. Beyond that, Stannis didn't even have Winterfell. He still doesn't. Jon didn't view it as Stannis's to give. Further, Jon would have had to swear fealty to Stannis, which is not something to be taken lightly when Stannis is in such a delicate position himself.

It's much more complicated than obeying vows.

Not to mention the hairy bit that if Stannis lost, Jon's legitimacy would dissolve.

[Joan of Arc]

I don't even want to get involved in this argument, but I'm so sick of people using this as evidence for anything. Stannis would have required Jon to burn weirwoods and convert to Melisandre's religion. Weirwoods - as in the religious symbols of the lords that would have been sworn to him. Beyond that, Stannis didn't even have Winterfell. He still doesn't. Jon didn't view it as Stannis's to give. Further, Jon would have had to swear fealty to Stannis, which is not something to be taken lightly when Stannis is in such a delicate position himself.

This is also a good reason why Jon would refuse such an offer. But if Jons says 'my oath keeps me at the Wall' it would be perfectly good for Stannis to. So that end result is the same, it is true, he does'nt help Mel to destroy the weirwoods, he still has the support of the North and he is in place to fight off the Others.

Stannis would have respected that Jon stays true to his oath.

[Ygrain]

Here is my vision on the oath that the KG swears to protect 'the king and his heirs' instead of 'Targaryen' dynasty.

Original post:

In this post I pointed at the line Ned gives to the 3 KG that are at the ToJ.

Neds line: "I missed you at the Trident,at the sacking of KL and at Storms End"

In this line he is telling them that he missed them at all the places where there would possibly be an Targ heir to the Iron Throne. This stands out as one of the Iron Clad points as to why R+L=J. I am not trying to bust that.

But I had a sudden drop of a coin moment here as to a perfect reason why the KG where at the ToJ, a one that still makes Jon the song of ice and fire and why Ned HAD to take him to Winterfell. It also perfectly fits this statement of Ned.

This has everything todo with the subtille difference between 'bending your knee'and'swearing an oath' in the realm of Westeros.

First of the overall theme of a song of ice and fire to me is balance. Good vs Bad, Ice vs Fire, Black vs White.

We have two different parties in Westeros that do swear oaths.

First the Night Watch. Their job is to protect the realm from the Others. They swear and oath and we have the text of that oath. To become a brother of the NW you swear an oath for the Old God or the New. That oath swears you into the Brotherhood of the NW for life.That oath is cleverly designed to make sure that the NW never goes to war in the realm.

Even Jon the current commander of the NW does not do that. He reffused Stannis offer that would have made him Jon Stark Lord of Winterfell. A position Jon did'nt even dream about of having. Still Jon says: No.

Things are corrupted at the NW, true. But look at what happend with Janos Slink. He down right reffused a direct order of the Commander of the NW and off came his head. No one of the NW did revolt, they all watched how Jon punished Janos fully legit to the oath of the NW.

Second the KG. Their job is to protect the King and his heirs. They too swear an oath, but we don't have the exact text. But we do know that it must be similar to that of the NW.

The oath is sworn once in front of the King, the members are also a brotherhood with a commander. True the KG was founded by the Targs, but even a Targ would be smart enough to make that oath as solid as the oath of the NW. To make sure that what ever happens the king and the heirs are protected by the KG.

When Robert was made King, Baristan bended his knee to Robert and Robert made him commander of the KG. There is no mention in the text that Baristan said his oath again replacing 'Targaryen' with 'Baratheon'. Baristan bend his knee to the NEW King and accepts his new possition in the KG.

So I think that the oath the KG swears is just as cleverly designed to make sure that the King would allways be protected.

If the NW swears an oath to protect "the realm" why can't the oath a KG member swears be 'the king and heirs' instead of "Targaryan'.

A good example of why 'the king and his heirs' would work is 'Kingslayer' Jaime Lannister. He was there at KL and killed Aerys, yet he remains into the KG. If that oath he swore was to a 'Targaryan' they would have chopped off his head. But if it where 'the king and its heirs' Jaime would bend his knee to Robert and could still remain in the KG. 'King slayer'is a clever nickname.

Than to the Ned line "Trident, KL, Storms End' as said it looks a lot like Ned is saying "I was looking for you doing your job and you where not there'. This is replied with "the KG never flees", which I call (just like Ned) a lie.

The ToJ was after Robert became the new king. The KG was on the run with Lyanna trying to get a Targ heir (Jon) to Dorne.

If you replace 'Targaryen dynasty' with 'the king and his heirs'it explains the location of the KG, Jon would still be "ice and fire" he will still be a essential part in the battle of the dawn. But what is far more important he will be prepared for doing battle at the Wall.

Huh?

Where does Ned call the KG lying?

Why _must_ the KG oath be similar to that of NW? The KG are within the feudal system, the NW operates outside it.

Jaime broke his vows in a most terrrible manner, was forgiven and reinducted into the KG by Robert.

"Bending the knee" is no different from swearing fealty and serves as a synonym, since oaths of fealty are taken on the knees.

You don't have to perform any complicated switches to make Jon an heir to the realm; unlike Robert's, his claim is legal. The KG oath doesn't have to contain the word "Targaryen dynasty", since for the last three hundred years, king automatically equaled Targaryen.

Once again, what exactly are you trying to prove here?

[Joan of Arc]

I don't really see what the confusion is here. The kings guard doesn't appear to be exactly the same as the nights watch, in terms of vows or what have you. As far as Jamie goes, he was a sworn kings guard and clearly broke whatever vows he made in killing Aerys II, this point is hammered through throughout the series, with nearly everyone remarking that 'a kingslayer's honor is worth shit'. The only reason he wasn't summarily executed for this is that he is Tywin's son, and Robert needed Lannister gold.

So the NW and the KG are not the same because the riff raff off Westeros is bound to defend the Wall and wear black.

While the KG wears white and is appointed to the 'honorable' task of protecting the King and his heirs. There are serveral examples about deciet in the KG as well.

One of the most importent ones beeing the sacking of Baristan and the appointment of the 'Hound of Joffery' into the kingsguard. The Hound himself does'nt even likes to be called "knight" let allone feeling honorable. Besides, he was already protecting Joffery. By making the Hound swear an oath to protect the king and his heirs. Am I mistaken or was the hound already on the job as Joffery's protector. The Lannisters made him swear 'the king and his heirs' to make absolutely sure that he would. (Sounds like a Cercei plan to me)

[Lady Octarina]

Second the KG. Their job is to protect the King and his heirs. They too swear an oath, but we don't have the exact text. But we do know that it must be similar to that of the NW.

The oath is sworn once in front of the King, the members are also a brotherhood with a commander. True the KG was founded by the Targs, but even a Targ would be smart enough to make that oath as solid as the oath of the NW. To make sure that what ever happens the king and the heirs are protected by the KG.

When Robert was made King, Baristan bended his knee to Robert and Robert made him commander of the KG. There is no mention in the text that Baristan said his oath again replacing 'Targaryen' with 'Baratheon'. Baristan bend his knee to the NEW King and accepts his new possition in the KG.

So I think that the oath the KG swears is just as cleverly designed to make sure that the King would allways be protected.

If the NW swears an oath to protect "the realm" why can't the oath a KG member swears be 'the king and heirs' instead of "Targaryan'.

As others said before, Robert was not an heir; he and his allies murdered the royal family, and then took the throne for themselves.

The Kingsguard is not the same kind of "institution" as the Night's Watch. The NW is impersonal; anyone from any part of the kingdom can join. A KG is chosen by the king and swears to protect that king and his family ONLY. It's a personal contract: in exchange for that honorable position they'll do whatever it takes to protect the king's life and that of his family. Give and take. The contract doesn't extend to Robert; that could happen if all Targaryens died naturally and then the line had to go to the closest relative, which would be the eldest Baratheon. But things didn't go that way: the eldest Baratheon was responsible for the deaths of all those people they swore to protect; he was, therefore, their enemy. Swearing fealty to him would be betraying the contract made with the Targaryens Robert destroyed.

Again; the KG is not a brotherhood; it's simply an association of people who dedicate their lives to the same objective: protecting the lives of the king who gave them that honor and his descendants.

A good example of why 'the king and his heirs' would work is 'Kingslayer' Jaime Lannister. He was there at KL and killed Aerys, yet he remains into the KG. If that oath he swore was to a 'Targaryan' they would have chopped off his head. But if it where 'the king and its heirs' Jaime would bend his knee to Robert and could still remain in the KG. 'King slayer'is a clever nickname.

Jaime is hardly a good example of anything, as he betrayed his vow to protect the king at all costs. He broke his contract; therefore, accepting Robert as king was basically the only way to keep his head on his shoulders.

[Joan of Arc]

just a note and please correct me if I'm wrong. The KG protects the king and royal family, not only the heir. Targ and Baratheon era same thing.

Example: Jaime asked Hightower (IIRC) whether they should stop Mad King Aerys from hurting his Queen since they were supposed to protect her as well.

To protect the King and his heirs.

Exactly. If Jaime would have offed Aerys there (because he needs to protect the King and his heirs) he would have been breaking his oath.

Instead of that he kills Aerys and sits on the Iron Throne waiting for Ned to arrive and claim the Throne for Robert. Ned would have killed him if he had broken his oath. But Jaime gets away with a smart move, he sits on the Iron Throne and is waiting on what happens next. And what happens is that King Robert gets installed, Jaime bends his knee to the NEW King and does not re-swears his oath.

An oath binds you to your task, with the effect that it may kill you if you do not.

With 'bending your knee' you just aknowledge authority, you can do that to another with just bending your knee.

Apperantly the words of an oath are not wind. But they can get you killed.

[Joan of Arc]

Jaime is hardly a good example of anything, as he betrayed his vow to protect the king at all costs. He broke his contract; therefore, accepting Robert as king was basically the only way to keep his head on his shoulders.

Oh, Jaime is a bad example because he does just the opposite of what is expected of an honorable Knight in the KG. Right. And yet at the end of a DwD he is in command of the KG. So the KG does promote an oath-breaker, because he and his family have drawn up 'a new contract' with the NEW king. Which replaces an oath who binds him to his task at the penalty of dead.

[Serie]

To protect the King and his heirs.

Exactly. If Jaime would have offed Aerys there (because he needs to protect the King and his heirs) he would have been breaking his oath.

Instead of that he kills Aerys and sits on the Iron Throne waiting for Ned to arrive and claim the Throne for Robert. Ned would have killed him if he had broken his oath. But Jaime gets away with a smart move, he sits on the Iron Throne and is waiting on what happens next. And what happens is that King Robert gets installed, Jaime bends his knee to the NEW King and does not re-swears his oath.

An oath binds you to your task, with the effect that it may kill you if you do not.

With 'bending your knee' you just aknowledge authority, you can do that to another with just bending your knee.

Apperantly the words of an oath are not wind. But they can get you killed.

My point was that the KG does not only protect the king and the heirs but ALL the royal family (in the sense that the Queen is not a direct heir).

However I think that although Jaime broke his oath, Ned did not kill him because he was cautious in general and not hot blooded as his bro and Robert were.

[Joan of Arc]

My point was that the KG does not only protect the king and the heirs but ALL the royal family (in the sense that the Queen is not a direct heir).

However I think that although Jaime broke his oath, Ned did not kill him because he was cautious in general and not hot blooded as his bro and Robert were.

OK. I swear an oath to protect to all members of the royal family, understanding that in this caser the Queen is not an direct heir.

If that was Jaime's oath, why would he ask his fellow KG why they don't kill Aerys because he is abusing his wife. With the oath as stated abouve this would not even be a question for Jaime.

"I swear an oath to protect the king and his heirs"

If that was Jaime's oath, he would have questioned why they did'nt stop Aerys.

That same oath also would have led to the result of what happend during the sacking of KL. That same oath makes it possible to acknowledge bastard heirs, once they are 'proven'.

'I swear a oath to protect the Targaryen family and all off its Heirs'

This to fits for most events except the killing of Aerys by Jaimne in KL. With this oath his head would be off. With this oath in place all the KG had to come to KL to reswear their oath to: 'I swear an oath to protect the Baratheon family and all of his heirs', to bind them to their NEW King Robert by oath.

Baristan bending his knee to Robert was to accept him as his King. Robert made Baristan commander and in that moment the liege of the KG changed from 'Targaryan' as royal family to 'Baratheon' as royal family. Simple, perfect for a member of the Kings Guard that will serve a lifetime and will maybe serve many Kings.

[Serie]

OK. I swear an oath to protect to all members of the royal family, understanding that in this caser the Queen is not an direct heir.

If that was Jaime's oath, why would he ask his fellow KG why they don't kill Aerys because he is abusing his wife. With the oath as stated abouve this would not even be a question for Jaime.

because first comes the king and then the rest. So they would have to turn against the king in case they defended his wife.

[Sapphire]

I'm rather lost as to the recent turn of conversation to the KG's oaths. We don't know the exact words, but I vaguely remember Jaime saying it was a rather lengthy process. It's possible the Targaryens assumed they would always be in power and had the oaths made to the throne, not their dynasty. That seems unlikely though. Whatever the case, the KGs at the ToJ are staunchly loyal to the Targs and fight to the death instead of swearing fealty to Robert.

Also on this point, regarding this prince Aegon, what leads you to believe that he isn't the actual Aegon? I recall from one of Tyrion's later chapters in ADwD where he (Tyrion) seems pleased that Aegon "took the bait" in traveling to Westeros to establish himself and draw Daenerys' attention, but I don't remember any specific details that point to him not being who he says he is.

Sellswords have a bad rep for turning to whichever cause pays the most, yet the Golden Company have a sterling record for never breaking a contract. Until they abandon Myr, I believe, to support Aegon in Westeros. Illyrio tells Tyrion this is because this contract is "writ in blood". Bittersteel founded the Golden Company to put a Blackfyre on the Iron Throne. It's explicitly said that the male Blackfyre line is extinct. Some believe Aegon is not Rhaegar's son, but a Blackfyre descendant through the female side.