Maybe R+L=J is not true?

[Jamie Lannister]

Maybe Renly isn't gay...

[Brony Stark]

But Rhaegar wasn't at the ToJ

Or was he? Why were there three kings guard members at the ToJ? You wouldn't send almost half your elite guard away to protect a non member of the Royal Family maybe 1 kg member, but unless Prince Rheagar was there himself, perhaps at a castle closeby.

Next the fact about Dorne not going to Roberts side, in Dorne their marriage beliefs are different than the rest of Westeros, more lenient. What Rheagar did wasn't unusual for them.

[corbon]

As I was thinking about responding to your post it occurred to me that I am trying to reconcile what I see are seemingly contradictory facts.

My interpretation ofNed's passage is that he thinks Jon is bastard.

But my initial interpretation of the presence of the Kingsguard meant that Jon was the legitimate heir.

Which one of these facts are correct?

For you, there is no question. The presence of the Kingsguard indicates Jon is legitimate.

As such, I can see how your interpretation of the passage is reasonable.

I know this has been 'resolved' but I just want to point out that it doesn't matter, both facts can be correct. Even if Jon is legit, Ned may not (probably does not) know. The only way he would know is if Lyanna spent her dying breath telling him - somehow I think she was more concerned about the fate of her child than updating Ned on recent events.

Or if he puzzled it out the way we have done. But I don't think Ned thinks that way, nor thought that much about it. He had other things on his mind at the time. Sometimes one can be too close to the action to analyze events properly.

[corbon]

*uhhhh*

why does Jon's (or whoever the baby is) legitimacy dictate to the KG Neds intentions?

It doesn't. It does dictate their responsibilities, and therefore their actions, though.

If there is a legit son of Rhaegar at ToJ, the KG responsibilities lie at ToJ. If there is not a legit son of Rhaegar at ToJ, the KG responsibilities now lie with Viserys at Dragonstone. One of them must go to him immediately or they are shirking their primary oath. Everything else, including honour, chivalry, 'right' and so on is subordinate to that primary oath.

Why is Uncle Ned a threat to the King but not his bastard nephew?

Becuase Uncle Ned just fought a successful rebellion to destroy that king's dynasty and was party (as far as anyone who was not there can tell) to the murder to the baby King' borther, sister and mother. Clearly he is a major potential threat to the King.

His bastard nephew though? Maybe a threat, maybe not. It is not for the KG to care. They have very pressing duties at Dragonstone in that case.

And how does the line "The Kingsguard does not flee." automatically equate in into "We don't leave the King" . I see that as just some badass declaration that you'd better be prepared to fight to the death, which is supported by the line: "and so it begins".

It doesn't directly, only indirectly.

The KG do not leave the King unprotected. That is rule number one.

The KG do not flee merely shows that the KG always (including right now) follow their vows. They fight right now. But if there is no legit son of Rhaegar present, their vows require them to be elsewhere, so fighting, in an obviously to-the-death battle when badly outnumbered, here when they don't need to is failing their primary vow. They are, at best putting secondary vows or purposes ahead of their primary vow or purpose.

But yes, its a fight, with the KG prepared to fight to the death. That clearly indicates that their primary vow or purpose is being fulfilled right here.

You can't be fulfilling your primary purpose somewhere else if you are preparing to die here.

How would them staying by the king be "beginning", they are already there.

Its the beginning of the fight I guess.

Or the beginning of their struggle to save Rhaegars child and one day see him returned as King. (After all, none of the three have had the opportunity to do anything all war really, the Targaryen dynasty has crashed and burned while they stood on the sidelines).

Or even something else, take your pick out of lots of options.

[Maxpey]

I know this has been 'resolved' but I just want to point out that it doesn't matter, both facts can be correct. Even if Jon is legit, Ned may not (probably does not) know. The only way he would know is if Lyanna spent her dying breath telling him - somehow I think she was more concerned about the fate of her child than updating Ned on recent events.

Or if he puzzled it out the way we have done. But I don't think Ned thinks that way, nor thought that much about it. He had other things on his mind at the time. Sometimes one can be too close to the action to analyze events properly.

Excellent point.

I came up with the same notion on my way home from work yesterday after Dragonfish, Lady Tippy Wolfsbane and myself had finished debating the issue.

Sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees. :bang:

[House Martell]

Ned doesn't tell them that Rhaegar's other kids were killed so how do we know the KG even knows this? Even if Jon is legit without direct knowledge of Aegons death they should have been attempting to go him.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Ned doesn't tell them that Rhaegar's other kids were killed so how do we know the KG even knows this? Even if Jon is legit without direct knowledge of Aegons death they should have been attempting to go him.

Taken from the wiki...

“I looked for you on the Trident,” Ned said to them.

“We were not there,” Ser Gerold answered.

“Woe to the Usurper if we had been,” said Ser Oswell.

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

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

“I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege,” Ned told them, and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty. I was certain you would be among them.”

“Our knees do not bend easily,” said Ser Arthur Dayne.

“Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

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

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

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

“We swore a vow,” explained old Ser Gerold.

Ned’s wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

“And now it begins,” said Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. He unsheathed Dawn and held it with both hands. The blade was pale as milkglass, alive with light.

“No,” Ned said with sadness in his voice. “Now it ends.”

It's obvious from this conversation that the members of the KG are aware of The Sack Of King's Landing and The Battle at the Trident. Meaning, they are aware that Visery's is supposedly the last heir to the throne, yet they refuse to flee to be with him because they swore a vow.

It is obvious to me that they are referring to their Kingsguard vows, especially when they reference Ser Willem as not being of the Kingsguard.

So, they must be protecting who they deem to be the rightful king.

[House Martell]

It's obvious from this conversation that the members of the KG are aware of The Sack Of King's Landing and The Battle at the Trident. Meaning, they are aware that Visery's is supposedly the last heir to the throne, yet they refuse to flee to be with him because they swore a vow.

It is obvious to me that they are referring to their Kingsguard vows, especially when they reference Ser Willem as not being of the Kingsguard.

So, they must be protecting who they deem to be the rightful king.

How is it obvious they knew any of this before Ned tells them right there? Obviously they knew of the Battle of the Trident, thats where Rhaegar was going, but nothing they say implies they had any advanced or detailed knowledge of the events until right then. Ned says something and they respond. You may be right but you are assuming things that are not iron clad like you make them out to be. as a matter of fact the line:

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

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

If they knew the full details then they couldn't possibly think the 3 of them would have defeated the entire Lannister/Stark force.

You could also interpret their citing the "vow" as they die with the king and not run off with his kids. Ned tells them that Jamie killed Aerys so in their eyes there is nowhere to go, a big deal is made of Barristan continuing on in Roberts KG, I don't think typically when a King is killed they are expected to continue on, sure if a king dies of old age they could serve his heir, but they're supposed to die in defense of the king. And since Ned was part of the force that killed the king they were going to fight him to the death right there.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

How is it obvious they knew any of this before Ned tells them right there? Obviously they knew of the Battle of the Trident, thats where Rhaegar was going, but nothing they say implies they had any advanced or detailed knowledge of the events until right then. Ned says something and they respond. You may be right but you are assuming things that are not iron clad like you make them out to be. as a matter of fact the line:

If they knew the full details then they couldn't possibly think the 3 of them would have defeated the entire Lannister/Stark force.

You could also interpret their citing the "vow" as they die with the king and not run off with his kids. Ned tells them that Jamie killed Aerys so in their eyes there is nowhere to go, a big deal is made of Barristan continuing on in Roberts KG, I don't think typically when a King is killed they are expected to continue on, sure if a king dies of old age they could serve his heir, but they're supposed to die in defense of the king. And since Ned was part of the force that killed the king they were going to fight him to the death right there.

Firstly, I never said it was obvious that they knew before Ned told them...did I? I said that based on the conversation they are aware of what has happened.

Secondly, in reference to the quote:

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

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

Based on Ned's statement it's obvious to them that Jaime didn't take down King's Landing alone. I doubt they believed the three of them could destroy the Lannister/Stark forces, but Jaime definitely would have been killed. Also, they probably would have advised against Aerys allowing the Lannister forces into King's Landing, and if they had been there things would not have been so easy for Tywin.

Lastly, you do not make sense, and I'm starting to think that you may be trolling. As it has already been stated in this thread, the KIngsguard is for life, so they definitely had somewhere to go...to the last surviving Targaryren heir. You have said yourself that they should have been attempting to go to Aegon, so you must also believe this to be true.

A big deal is made about Barristan because he was serving a Baratheon king instead of a Targaryen king. Barristan even feels that he needs to go serve the last Targaryen heir, since that is the only way he feels he can fulfill his vows, which is why he seeks out Dany, since he doesn't know about Jon.

Yes, they are suppose to die in defense of their king, so why would they sacrifice themselves to avenge a dead king, if his heir is still alive.

[Dragonfish]

You could also interpret their citing the "vow" as they die with the king and not run off with his kids. Ned tells them that Jamie killed Aerys so in their eyes there is nowhere to go, a big deal is made of Barristan continuing on in Roberts KG, I don't think typically when a King is killed they are expected to continue on, sure if a king dies of old age they could serve his heir, but they're supposed to die in defense of the king. And since Ned was part of the force that killed the king they were going to fight him to the death right there.

You think the Kingsguard don't serve the next king when the previous king is killed? I guess Aemon the Dragonknight ought to have committed ritual suicide after the death of the Young Dragon, then.

[House Martell]

Firstly, I never said it was obvious that they knew before Ned told them...did I? I said that based on the conversation they are aware of what has happened.

Right, So Ned rides up and tells them: "I won at the Trident and got everyone at Storms End to bend the knee (basically winning the rebellion), Jamie killed your King, and Visarys is on Dragonstone". Now just for arguments sake assume for a second that the baby in the tower (if there is one) is not the King, you think at this point the KG are just going to just stroll past Ned and ride off for Dragonstone? You think the KG that "does not flee" is going to not engage these usurpers who have obviously come at them with bad intentions? All I have been saying is the fact that the KG fought Ned at the ToJ is not unequivocal proof they thought the new King was in the ToJ.

Based on Ned's statement it's obvious to them that Jaime didn't take down King's Landing alone. I doubt they believed the three of them could destroy the Lannister/Stark forces, but Jaime definitely would have been killed. Also, they probably would have advised against Aerys allowing the Lannister forces into King's Landing, and if they had been there things would not have been so easy for Tywin.

And again you're assuming that the KG knew the details of the Sack. How do we know that they knew about Tywin being let in and that their "counsel" would have mattered? Yes they could have stopped Jamie if they wanted to but ultimately it would have been the same results (with just a lot more dead Lannisters).

Yes, they are suppose to die in defense of their king, so why would they sacrifice themselves to avenge a dead king, if his heir is still alive.

What makes you think they would have been "sacrificing" themselves? Had it not been for Howland Reed they would have won, at which point Dayne would have made a beeline for Dragonstone and his King :cool4:

[Faint]

Isn't there a thread tailored for this specific conversation that is pinned on the first page of the forum so that we don't get duplicate threads on the same subject or did I miss something?

[House Martell]

You think the Kingsguard don't serve the next king when the previous king is killed? I guess Aemon the Dragonknight ought to have committed ritual suicide after the death of the Young Dragon, then.

I don't think he would have passed up a chance to fight any of the Dornish involved in killing Daeron.

[Dragonfish]

I don't think he would have passed up a chance to fight any of the Dornish involved in killing Daeron.

Even if his next king was in danger and was without Kingsguard protection? That'd seem like dereliction of duty to me.

[Dragonfish]

Right, So Ned rides up and tells them: "I won at the Trident and got everyone at Storms End to bend the knee (basically winning the rebellion), Jamie killed your King, and Visarys is on Dragonstone". Now just for arguments sake assume for a second that the baby in the tower (if there is one) is not the King, you think at this point the KG are just going to just stroll past Ned and ride off for Dragonstone? You think the KG that "does not flee" is going to not engage these usurpers who have obviously come at them with bad intentions? All I have been saying is the fact that the KG fought Ned at the ToJ is not unequivocal proof they thought the new King was in the ToJ.

And again you're assuming that the KG knew the details of the Sack. How do we know that they knew about Tywin being let in and that their "counsel" would have mattered? Yes they could have stopped Jamie if they wanted to but ultimately it would have been the same results (with just a lot more dead Lannisters).

What makes you think they would have been "sacrificing" themselves? Had it not been for Howland Reed they would have won, at which point Dayne would have made a beeline for Dragonstone and his King :cool4:

Ok, for the last time: it doesn't matter if the Kingsguard knew what happened in King's Landing before Ned got there, or not (though I think the context makes clear that they did know; they exhibit absolutely no surprise when Ned tells them what Jaime did, for instance). What matters is that once they do know, they still insist that their place is right there at the tower, that they are fulfilling their vows by staying there. This statement simply does not makes sense, unless their true king is there with them.

[House Martell]

(though I think the context makes clear that they did know; they exhibit absolutely no surprise when Ned tells them what Jaime did, for instance).

you mean you missed the part where Hightower raises his eyebrows when Ned says this? exhibit no surprise? what are you talking about. the fact that Ser Gerald damns Jamie to the 7 hells shows a bit of an emotional response but either way its a book so I can't really tell what their body language was at the time.

[Dragonfish]

you mean you missed the part where Hightower raises his eyebrows when Ned says this? exhibit no surprise? what are you talking about.

What are you talking about? There's nothing in that quote where Hightower raises his eyebrows.

the fact that Ser Gerald damns Jamie to the 7 hells shows a bit of an emotional response but either way its a book so I can't really tell what their body language was at the time.

Now you're just grasping at straws. Nothing in the quote demonstrates surprise, which you'd think would be described if Jaime's betrayal was new information to them.

[Jem]

you mean you missed the part where Hightower raises his eyebrows when Ned says this? exhibit no surprise? what are you talking about. the fact that Ser Gerald damns Jamie to the 7 hells shows a bit of an emotional response but either way its a book so I can't really tell what their body language was at the time.

I have to say that I think the KG responses are measured and matter-of-fact. There is nothing in their responses to indicate that what they are being told is news to them. Ser Gerold does curse Jaime, yet he shows no signs of curiosity or surprise or doubt about what it was that Jaime had done. It is not a sharp, passionate curse, it is more like something he has said to himself and his fellow KG repeatedly since they heard what Jaime did.

The KG show no signs of curiosity, confusion, surprise, any of the reactions you would expect from people receiving such devastating (to them) news.

[Fragile Bird]

@Dragonfish and Corbon

And others in this thread too.

I congratulate you on your infinite politeness and patience in dealing with persons who have either not carefully read the books or who are seriously trolling.

[House Martell]

What are you talking about? There's nothing in that quote where Hightower raises his eyebrows.

Now you're just grasping at straws. Nothing in the quote demonstrates surprise, which you'd think would be described if Jaime's betrayal was new information to them.

I have to say that I think the KG responses are measured and matter-of-fact. There is nothing in their responses to indicate that what they are being told is news to them. Ser Gerold does curse Jaime, yet he shows no signs of curiosity or surprise or doubt about what it was that Jaime had done. It is not a sharp, passionate curse, it is more like something he has said to himself and his fellow KG repeatedly since they heard what Jaime did.

The KG show no signs of curiosity, confusion, surprise, any of the reactions you would expect from people receiving such devastating (to them) news.

This event we are shown is in Neds dream and is intentionally vague, so I'm not sure how much we can read into the exchange as far as detailed descriptions of everyone's reactions from 14 yrs ago. Besides the comment about Jamie, I'd also say the fact they don their helms and kill 5 of the 7 guys is a pretty emotional reaction to the possible newly received news. Basically they say "it's on" and start killing people, which is how the KG roll, not "OMG, really, he's dead, oh man what awful news, Gerald give me you hankie please"

and the "Hightower eyebrows" line was clearly a joke...