Maxpey Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the Kingsguard specifically state they are staying there to uphold their vow? Seriously, I'm fine with people disagreeing, but it'd be nice if they actually payed attention to what their opponents actually say.The answer is not that Jaime was there. The answer is that the Kingsguard did not find out about what happened on the Trident until after the Sack, at which point Aerys and Aegon were dead, making Jon their new king.Playing Devil's Advocate here (again) but it is possible that "vow" the KG swore was not necessarily the vow to protect the King. Rather, it could refer to a personal vow the 3 swore to Rhaegar to stay and protect Lyanna and Jon no matter what else happens. Obviously, upholding a personal vow to Rhaegar would mean that the KG violated their primary vow of protecting the King by not being with Viserys on Dragonstone. Personally, I don't believe that the KG would have violated their main vow to protect the King. However, I don't think it's impossible to believe that they would have chosen to honor a personal vow to Rhaegar instead of honoring their vow to protect the King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 a. Criston Cole was at his king's side. He just deided for another candidate than the last king had planned for.b. If it was only Dayne and Whent, you might have a point. But we know Hightower was a stickler when it cames to the King's Guard's duties. He would never put another duty in front of his primary vow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Personally, I don't believe that the KG would have violated their main vow to protect the King. However, I don't think it's impossible to believe that they would have chosen to honor a personal vow to Rhaegar instead of honoring their vow to protect the King.But that's the thing — they maintain that they are at the Tower in the capacity of being Kingsguard. They don't say, "Rhaegar told us to stay here and we're choosing him over the king" or anything of that sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Playing Devil's Advocate here (again) but it is possible that "vow" the KG swore was not necessarily the vow to protect the King. Rather, it could refer to a personal vow the 3 swore to Rhaegar to stay and protect Lyanna and Jon no matter what else happens. Obviously, upholding a personal vow to Rhaegar would mean that the KG violated their primary vow of protecting the King by not being with Viserys on Dragonstone.It wasn't a personal vow. They indicate that it was their vow as Kingsguard. The conversation goes, and I'm paraphrasing here, "we are of the Kingsguard", "the Kingsguard do not flee", "we swore a vow." They are clearly referring to their vow as Kingsguard in this passage, and not to some personal vow to Rhaegar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragontamer Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 No, it makes your argument illogical. Why would the Kingsguard choose to honor their vow to follow orders over their vow to protect the king, especially when the latter vow is explicitly said to be their first duty? Your argument just doesn't make any sense.I don't know. Why did Cole defied the king and crowned Aegon? Why Selmy bent the knee and then changed his mind again? Why did Jaime murdered the king?It's only about as convenient as Tyrion and Catelyn happening upon each other in the exact same inn in the Riverlands, or Tyrion happening upon Ser Jorah in the exact same brothel in all of Essos. In fact, the Kingsguard finding out about the Trident after the Sack is actually less contrived than those events, because it absolutely makes sense based on the amount of time it typically takes for information to travel in this world.One difference though. The convenient timing of the above is in the books. The convenient timing of the news reaching the KG at the TOJ is only speculated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha Steelsong Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 What if he's not? then Jon > Dany 's claim. still, legitimacy. What I'm saying is Daenery's mindset might change if she finds out about Jon being a Targ / Targ bastard,I agree this is a possibility simply because the reason she's started this whole drive to conquer is largely to do with the fact that she believes herself to be the last dragon and that the entire family history and legacy is riding on her sholders. A large part of her still wants the house with the red door, she just believes it isn't an option since she's thinks she's the only Targ left. While I don't think for a second she will tollerate anyone pretending to be a Targ (and will likely think Aegon is fake at first because of the mystic warnings she's been getting), I am not so sure about her reaction to someone she believes to be a genuine son of Rhaegar (the brother's she's idolized her whole life) would be the same. If there was another Targ to share what she sees as her burden, she might not be as unwelcoming to that individual as one might thing. Again this is something entirely different than her thinking someone is pretending to be a Targ to usurp her claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I agree this is a possibility simply because the reason she's started this whole drive to conquer is largely to do with the fact that she believes herself to be the last dragon and that the entire family history and legacy is riding on her sholders. A large part of her still wants the house with the red door, she just believes it isn't an option since she's thinks she's the only Targ left. While I don't think for a second she will tollerate anyone pretending to be a Targ (and will likely think Aegon is fake at first because of the mystic warnings she's been getting), I am not so sure about her reaction to someone she believes to be a genuine son of Rhaegar (the brother's she's idolized her whole life) would be the same. If there was another Targ to share what she sees as her burden, she might not be as unwelcoming to that individual as one might thing. Again this is something entirely different than her thinking someone is pretending to be a Targ to usurp her claim.Yes, but Dany might not know who of the two is the mummer's dragon, and who is the real deal, and she might well get it terribly, terribly wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I don't know. Why did Cole defied the king and crowned Aegon? Why Selmy bent the knee and then changed his mind again? Why did Jaime murdered the king?Cole believed he was crowning the true king. Selmy feels shame for what he did. Jaime is breaking his vow as Kingsguard when he kills Aerys, and he knows this. Your examples would be more persuasive if the remaining Kingsguard did not explicitly state they were following their oath as Kingsguard.One difference though. The convenient timing of the above is in the books. The convenient timing of the news reaching the KG at the TOJ is only speculated.Yes, it's speculation, but I'm not using the speculation to prove that Jon is legitimate, I'm using it to debunk your argument that he can't be legitimate. If someone says that A cannot be true because B, then it suffices for me to say that A could be true because C is also a possibility. To apply this to our conversation, you were saying that it's unlikely that the Kingsguard were staying to protect their true king, because once Rhaegar died they ought to have gone to Aerys. All I'm doing is pointing out that this argument is faulty, because it assumes that the Kingsguard found out about the Trident before the Sack occurred. If, however, they found out about it after the Sack, then it would be too late for them to protect Aerys. Since there is nothing to preclude this possibility, your argument that the Kingsguard could not have been guarding the king fails. I don't need to show that the possibility is necessarily true, only that it could be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxpey Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 It wasn't a personal vow. They indicate that it was their vow as Kingsguard. The conversation goes, and I'm paraphrasing here, "we are of the Kingsguard", "the Kingsguard do not flee", "we swore a vow." They are clearly referring to their vow as Kingsguard in this passage, and not to some personal vow to Rhaegar.Again, I agree with your interpretation. What I am trying to say is that it is possible that the KG swore a personal vow to Rhaegar that they felt honor bound to uphold, even though it conflicted with their primary vow to protect their King, specifically because they are members of the KG. In other words, Rhaegar was relying that their honor as KG would prevent them from breaking their personal vow to him to protect Lyanna and Jon, even at the cost of violating their primary duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragontamer Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Then why do they confirm to Ned that they're holding to their vows by staying there? Yes, there have been Kingsguard who went rotten, but what evidence do you have that these three men did such?I explained this already. I believe they speak of a different vow the gave Rhaegar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 In other words, Rhaegar was relying that their honor as KG would prevent them from breaking their personal vow to him to protect Lyanna and Jon, even at the cost of violating their primary duty.This doesn't make any sense. Their honor as KG would keep them from KEEPING their personal vow to him, because the vow to protect the king would override a personal vow to Rhaegar, especially now that he was dead.I explained this already. I believe they speak of a different vow the gave Rhaegar.Based on what? EVERYTHING they say to Ned is in the context of them keeping the KINGSGUARD vow. There is absolutely nothing — nada, zilch, nothing at all — suggesting, saying or even hinting that they're there because of an off-the-books vow to Rhaegar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Again, I agree with your interpretation. What I am trying to say is that it is possible that the KG swore a personal vow to Rhaegar that they felt honor bound to uphold, even though it conflicted with their primary vow to protect their King, specifically because they are members of the KG.In other words, Rhaegar was relying that their honor as KG would prevent them from breaking their personal vow to him to protect Lyanna and Jon, even at the cost of violating their primary duty.I'm afraid I'm not getting it. Their honor does not derive from being Kingsguard, it derives from their own personal beliefs and character. It makes little sense to explain they are upholding their oath to Rhaegar because they are members of the Kingsguard, especially when they are breaking one of their oaths as Kingsguard in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I explained this already. I believe they speak of a different vow the gave Rhaegar.And we have already explained that the passage shows they are referring to their vow as Kingsguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naathi Prince Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 If they belong at the king's side and this is so indisputable then tell this to Ser Criston Cole, Ser Arryk, Ser Erryk and the rest.Criston Cole stayed at the King's side, he just chose who the King was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragontamer Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Cole believed he was crowning the true king. Selmy feels shame for what he did. Jaime is breaking his vow as Kingsguard when he kills Aerys, and he knows this. Your examples would be more persuasive if the remaining Kingsguard did not explicitly state they were following their oath as Kingsguard.This is my point exactly. The KG can think for themselves! They are not puppets with swords. They can act even if their actions conflict with their vows..Yes, it's speculation, but I'm not using the speculation to prove that Jon is legitimate, I'm using it to debunk your argument that he can't be legitimate. If someone says that A cannot be true because B, then it suffices for me to say that A could be true because C is also a possibility. To apply this to our conversation, you were saying that it's unlikely that the Kingsguard were staying to protect their true king, because once Rhaegar died they ought to have gone to Aerys. All I'm doing is pointing out that this argument is faulty, because it assumes that the Kingsguard found out about the Trident before the Sack occurred. If, however, they found out about it after the Sack, then it would be too late for them to protect Aerys. Since there is nothing to preclude this possibility, your argument that the Kingsguard could not have been guarding the king fails. I don't need to show that the possibility is necessarily true, only that it could be true.I will agree with this. I guess if we really want to be honest and true to the text only so much can be hypothesized. Neither assumption can be 100% verified on denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha Steelsong Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Yes, but Dany might not know who of the two is the mummer's dragon, and who is the real deal, and she might well get it terribly, terribly wrong...True but I tend to think she will have less questions/doubts about Jon and that she will either encounter him after Aegon (cause I sort of feel like Aegon is making enough noise proclaiming himself to be a Targ that he's going to catch Dany's attention when word reaches her) in which case she'll work through her issues or that she will be on the look out for Jon because she gets some sort of mystical dream/message a la HOTU. Granted this is more of a gut feeling but given that she's only had the vaguest of hints about Jon and Jon has no clue whatsoever...I feel like Aegon is being set up to be the one to bare any "You're a fake Targ and will burn!" impulses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 This is my point exactly. The KG can think for themselves! They are not puppets with swords. They can act even if their actions conflict with their vows.The bolded portion is simply wrong with regard to these three specific Kingsguard members, because they explicitly state they are upholding their vows. How many damn times does this need to be repeated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 This is my point exactly. The KG can think for themselves! They are not puppets with swords. They can act even if their actions conflict with their vows.I will agree with this. I guess if we really want to be honest and true to the text only so much can be hypothesized. Neither assumption can be 100% verified on denied.They may not be puppets, but if they refer to their duties when pressed to explain why they are seemingly not attending their duties, it's pretty clear that their duty is not what it seems to be at the surface. An, as many have mentioned, they speak of their vow in the same breath as they speak of being members of the King's Guard. They are not saying "we promised Rhaegar, so we have duties here". They are saying "We are the King's Guard, so we have duties here."Cole's situation was at least ambiguous, and he could cite Andal law as a precedent. We have no indication that the KG at the ToJ wanted anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 True but I tend to think she will have less questions/doubts about Jon and that she will either encounter him after Aegon (cause I sort of feel like Aegon is making enough noise proclaiming himself to be a Targ that he's going to catch Dany's attention when word reaches her) in which case she'll work through her issues or that she will be on the look out for Jon because she gets some sort of mystical dream/message a la HOTU. Granted this is more of a gut feeling but given that she's only had the vaguest of hints about Jon and Jon has no clue whatsoever...I feel like Aegon is being set up to be the one to bare any "You're a fake Targ and will burn!" impulses.She might make the same mistake many others make about Targs and fireproofness/Valyrian looks, which might mean she'll take Jon's burned hand and dark hair as proof that he can't be a Targ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha Steelsong Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 She might make the same mistake many others make about Targs and fireproofness/Valyrian looks, which might mean she'll take Jon's burned hand and dark hair as proof that he can't be a Targ.Given that she knows she was burned herself (see her final chapters in ADWD where she acknowledges that her burns are healing) I don't see her making that assumption. In fact it is one of the few Targ assumptions that Dany doesn't espouse because I don't think it actually exists in Westeros/Essos as an idea. There isn't a question of the Targs being fireproof by the Westerosi because they know several true targs burned to death at Summerhall.I think "Targs are fireproof" is a reader/watcher/forum targ trait and one the characters never really put forth within the context of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.