R+L=J v.31

[rmholt]

This is not about reading fantasy, and I hope that you're not implying what it might seem you are. This is about an analysis of story elements and characterisation, which runs the same regardless of the genre.

If you would just read what I write and not put anything else in, these conversations might be easier to have. There do seem to be some rules implicit in some of these arguments that arent even mentioned in the books, to my knowledge.

[SFDanny]

It was a DREAM

It's a dream that includes this quote: "They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life." (AGoT 354) emphasis added. It has obvious fantastical elements such as the fact Ned sees his friends as "only shadows, grey wraiths on horses made of mist" and many parts of it that are verified by other non-dream sections of the series (e.g. Ned thinking of the eight cairns he raised to bury the dead from the battle AGoT 356.) The battle before the tower in the dream is real, the name and number of the participants in the fight and their fates are true, and the general timing of the event is set in a relative timeline consistent with the rest of the story.

So, what are we talking about? That in life the conversation Ned recalls may or may not reflect exactly what transpired between the two sides? If you doubt it does, then you need, I think, to answer the question "Why does Ned's dream reality reflect the words and actions of the Kingsguard in this way?" Obviously, Ned has a view of at least Dayne in a very positive light as his remarks to Bran and his action in returning Dawn to Starfall would show. Ned has a trauma from being forced to fight these men and has dreamed of the encounter many times over the years. If the dream Kingsguard say they are following their vows, it shows, imo, Ned's conflict with killing honorable men. He thinks they are following their vows, whether or not they said so in the real encounter. He has all the questions we would have about why these three men are doing what they are doing. He doesn't understand why they weren't at the Trident, or at King's Landing, or at Storm's End, or at Dragonstone. He understands what they do in fighting him as tragic, but honorable. He thinks they kept their vows. If Ned is wrong, why and how is he wrong?

To the main point, I am Allowed to present my view of things just as you all are.

Of course you do. Who is arguing you don't? Of course anyone has the equal right to say your view is dead wrong. Right?

[rmholt]

It's a dream that includes this quote: "They were seven, facing three. In the dream as it had been in life." (AGoT 354) emphasis added. It has obvious fantastical elements such as the fact Ned sees his friends as "only shadows, grey wraiths on horses made of mist" and many parts of it that are verified by other non-dream sections of the series (e.g. Ned thinking of the eight cairns he raised to bury the dead from the battle AGoT 356.) The battle before the tower in the dream is real, the name and number of the participants in the fight and their fates are true, and the general timing of the event is set in a relative timeline consistent with the rest of the story.

No argument there. I had one issue with one conclusion taken from one detail in the dream - and it wasnt something stated "as it had been in life" - I have never questioned the 7 on 3 for instance or the cast of characters or the major events. I am just putting it out there that details in a dream arent necessarily solid facts.

So, what are we talking about? That in life the conversation Ned recalls may or may not reflect exactly what transpired between the two sides? If you doubt it does, then you need, I think, to answer the question "Why does Ned's dream reality reflect the words and actions of the Kingsguard in this way?" Obviously, Ned has a view of at least Dayne in a very positive light as his remarks to Bran and his action in returning Dawn to Starfall would show. Ned has a trauma from being forced to fight these men and has dreamed of the encounter many times over the years. If the dream Kingsguard say they are following their vows, it shows, imo, Ned's conflict with killing honorable men. He thinks they are following their vows, whether or not they said so in the real encounter. He has all the questions we would have about why these three men are doing what they are doing. He doesn't understand why they weren't at the Trident, or at King's Landing, or at Storm's End, or at Dragonstone. He understands what they do in fighting him as tragic, but honorable. He thinks they kept their vows.

It could have been a conversation he had in his own head. The answer to all his questions is the fact that they are there. But they could have had the conversation. I dont think it matters except to tell US what the debate was, internal or explicit.

He can think they kept their vows if honorable action can trump the conventional interpretation of the vows. Jaime himself bemoans the difficulties of ethics vs vows. He begins to figure out that honorable action is reflected IN vows, not that following vows makes you honorable.

The real purpose of the KG is known. If Rhaegar wanted Lyanna and her baby safe and the KG thought that was the way to go, his death would not negate that no matter what the actual vow actually said. The purposes behind the words of a vow are what matter, not the actual words. And Ned, being a man of great honor, would do the honorable thing no matter what was written. So he would understand the KG being there under the right conditions.

I guess my overall point is that the KG are not acting dishonorably by staying at the T o J even if Viserys is technically the heir no matter what the conventional wisdom is, they are honoring the man they think of as their true king, and while I am at it, questions of legitimacy are irrelevant as are any questions of survival and gender and even fate of Lyanna's baby. (eg they didnt have to know it was a live boy or the PWWP)

Of course you do. Who is arguing you don't? Of course anyone has the equal right to say your view is dead wrong. Right?

Of course right. But challenging my suggestions by merely repeating stuff that *must* be true (even though there is nothing in the books to suggest that) is not interesting. I try to give reasons why I think some of the objections or reasoning arent necessarily so and i hope others do the same.

[Im no Ser]

To the main point, I am Allowed to present my view of things just as you all are.

And thank God for that. If eveyone bought the theory we'd have nothing to talk about for the five years it will take for the next book to come out.

[Tattered Prince Pumpkinn]

J is still a bastard. Stark or Targ.. Jons a great character.. birth or wealth? nonsense, It's the man.

[Thendel]

The real purpose of the KG is known. If Rhaegar wanted Lyanna and her baby safe and the KG thought that was the way to go, his death would not negate that no matter what the actual vow actually said. The purposes behind the words of a vow are what matter, not the actual words. And Ned, being a man of great honor, would do the honorable thing no matter what was written. So he would understand the KG being there under the right conditions.

I guess my overall point is that the KG are not acting dishonorably by staying at the T o J even if Viserys is technically the heir no matter what the conventional wisdom is, they are honoring the man they think of as their true king, and while I am at it, questions of legitimacy are irrelevant as are any questions of survival and gender and even fate of Lyanna's baby. (eg they didnt have to know it was a live boy or the PWWP)

I'm not sure how many times this must have been repeated over the last few pages, but let's try again:

The Kingsguard's ultimate duty is to protect the king, e.g. ensure that he is all times protected by one of their own, save during the rare occasions they hold a meeting. That duty supersedes everything - everything - else, even direct orders by the king or the crown prince. At the ToJ, the three White Swords (who are aware that they are the only ones that live and haven't turned cloak) clearly state that they are following their sworn duty as Kingsguard.

They know that Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are dead, and they know that Viserys is alive on Dragonstone. If Viserys is their true king, at least one of them must go to him, else they are not following their vows. That is the truth of it, and whatever orders Rhaegar may have given them, they are superseded by their ultimate duty. Even if they thought of Rhaegar as their true king (to which their words give the exact opposite indication), it doesn't matter: Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are all dead, meaning Viserys is the true king, unless Rhaegar had another trueborn son. One who just so happens to be right there with them.

[Thendel]

Double post.

[rmholt]

I'm not sure how many times this must have been repeated over the last few pages, but let's try again:

The Kingsguard's ultimate duty is to protect the king, e.g. ensure that he is all times protected by one of their own, save during the rare occasions they hold a meeting.

Unless they dont.

That duty supersedes everything - everything - else, even direct orders by the king or the crown prince.

Says who

At the ToJ, the three White Swords (who are aware that they are the only ones that live and haven't turned cloak) clearly state that they are following their sworn duty as Kingsguard.

I agree.

They know that Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are dead, and they know that Viserys is alive on Dragonstone. If Viserys is their true king, at least one of them must go to him, else they are not following their vows.

Unless they decide Viserys is fine and they prefer to take their chances on an unborn illegitimate baby as they promised to Rhaegar.

That is the truth of it,

According to you.

and whatever orders Rhaegar may have given them, they are superseded by their ultimate duty.

Their ultimate duty is to Do the Right Thing, no matter what the vows say.

Even if they thought of Rhaegar as their true king (to which their words give the exact opposite indication), it doesn't matter:

It not only matters, it is EVERYthing.

Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon are all dead, meaning Viserys is the true king, unless Rhaegar had another trueborn son. One who just so happens to be right there with them.

If their purpose has a higher meaning than man's biases about legtimacy, or if their purpose is higher than protecting an heir who they think would make a lousy king and was being removed from the kingdom so cant be king vs someone they prefer to protect, then they can protect the unborn son of Rhaegar.

This is what I mean when i say people mistake their own assumptions for fact. Some key things you state as fact are actually not stated anywhere in the books.

I think this happens multiple times in this and other similar posts and makes the whole T o J scene way more complicated and problematic than it has to be. No matter what Jon is, no matter what you think their vows mean, their ultimate duty, as they see it, and they are honorable, is to stay with Lyanna. Ned gets it. This is going to be repeated in this thread nevertheless, which is why it is 31 pages long. I think we can stop repeating ourselves and either accept that we honestly disagree on the nature of the truth or stop and think about our positions on what the truth is - in our sets of assumptions vs what is actually in the books. This is an actual legitimate disagreement not a misunderstanding of the "truth". Our arguments both have merit. Your conclusions (nor mine) cannot be proved with the facts we have now. Maybe my assumption that legitimacy is not automatically necessary for PWWP is wrong. It isnt stated but maybe it is true. We dont know.

[greygnarl]

Unless they dont.

Says who

I agree.

Unless they decide Viserys is fine and they prefer to take their chances on an unborn illegitimate baby as they promised to Rhaegar.

According to you.

This. we never got that much info on the Kingsguard.

[Budj]

I can't get on board with the refuting points in this thread right now...it assumes Martin is lying to us (aka purposely misleading using a very subtle trail of "evidence") rather than leaving a bread crumb trail for us to put pieces together with that would be more obvious on a re-read...

For him to pull something out of his ass for the sake of "haha - see you can't guess it - these KG really didn't take their oaths seriously and decided to usurp the line of succession even though they spent years not judging Aerys' fucked up shit and they all decided to forego the vows that defined their entire existence and gave up their lives for" is poor writing and unnecessary.

Yea - I GUESS it's possible...but it ultimately leads to a cheap "GOTCHYA" moment which I really doubt is going to happen...

[Ygrain]

I can't get on board with the refuting points in this thread right now...it assumes Martin is lying to us (aka purposely misleading using a very subtle trail of "evidence") rather than leaving a bread crumb trail for us to put pieces together with that would be more obvious on a re-read...

For him to pull something out of his ass for the sake of "haha - see you can't guess it - these KG really didn't take their oaths seriously and decided to usurp the line of succession even though they spent years not judging Aerys' fucked up shit and they all decided to forego the vows that defined their entire existence and gave up their lives for" is poor writing and unnecessary.

Yea - I GUESS it's possible...but it ultimately leads to a cheap "GOTCHYA" moment which I really doubt is going to happen...

I might be inclined to consider Dayne, as Rhaegar's best friend, to be able to put love above duty, as we have seen a couple of times, but definitely not Hightower, who puts the vow above morality - exactly as the KG are supposed to do, and as we have been led to believe ever since book 1. The vow is paramount to everything. 'Been there myself, albeit just in a game. Not nice, and there is truly no escape, no redefinition of goals.

[nekrohsis]

Okay, what I've never gotten is this . . . why does Ned have to kill the three KG again? They both want the same thing, right? To keep baby Jon safe. Why doesn't Ned just say, "look, let me talk to my sister". One of the KG could have escorted him upstairs to see Lyanna, or all of them could have gone. Why did they think Ned posed a threat? Why didn't Ned try to convince them he wasn't? Sure, he was Robert's friend, but this is his family we're talking about.

[Dragonfish]

Okay, what I've never gotten is this . . . why does Ned have to kill the three KG again? They both want the same thing, right? To keep baby Jon safe.

The Kingsguard probably want a little more than to keep Jon safe. They also would want to make him king, something which Ned would not allow. Also note that they couldn't be sure that Ned wouldn't harm the child, or at least turn him over to Robert. Even Lyanna seemed to be unsure what Ned would do, hence why she had to make him promise to take care of Jon before she could cease to be afraid for him.

[Ygrain]

Okay, what I've never gotten is this . . . why does Ned have to kill the three KG again? They both want the same thing, right? To keep baby Jon safe. Why doesn't Ned just say, "look, let me talk to my sister". One of the KG could have escorted him upstairs to see Lyanna, or all of them could have gone. Why did they think Ned posed a threat? Why didn't Ned try to convince them he wasn't? Sure, he was Robert's friend, but this is his family we're talking about.

This has never been stated anywhere, so, just IMHO: they do not know if Ned would be willing to keep Jon's existence secret from Robert. Even though the KG seemed to be informed about what happened at KL, it is unknown if they were aware of Ned's reaction to the slaughter of Rhaegar's children and his break-up with Robert over that. Revealing to Robert that another offspring of Rhaegar's lives would be basically a death warrant - on the other hand, asking Ned to keep the secret amounts to treason against Robert as a new king. At this stage, secrecy was essential to keep Jon alive, so they couldn't even allow Ned to see Lyanna, since he might realize that she had given birth.

[Silent Sparrow]

Under that situation, it puts honorable Ned in a really bad position if he had to make a choice. If the KG had just allowed Ned to see Lyanna and make the decision, then he has to choose whether to reveal to Robert that not only did Rhaegar take Lyanna from him, but she has also born his child or whether to hide it. It makes more sense for the KG to try and deny him entry because that way, they ensure Jon and Lyanna's safety. We can see that Ned and the KG both had the same intentions, but they couldn't.

[Knight ofthe Laughing Tree]

Did that actually happen in the books? I only recall that line from the show.

In Meera's story she says, "The wild wolf who led them"

Don't know if that's helpful or not but I just re-read the story last night. So awesome.... love that story

[Buried Treasure]

Okay, what I've never gotten is this . . . why does Ned have to kill the three KG again? They both want the same thing, right? To keep baby Jon safe. Why doesn't Ned just say, "look, let me talk to my sister". One of the KG could have escorted him upstairs to see Lyanna, or all of them could have gone. Why did they think Ned posed a threat? Why didn't Ned try to convince them he wasn't? Sure, he was Robert's friend, but this is his family we're talking about.

They are on opposite sides of the war, and they are not going to surrender or swear to Robert so Ned has no choice but to kill them. You could take Lyanna and Jon out of the equation entirely and there would still have been no option but a fight to the death. The kingsguard could have chosen to let Ned visit with his sister first but that would have just delayed the inevitably fight.

If the kingsguards goal really had been to prevent Ned getting into the tower rather than honourable death in battle (what with them being on the losing side of the war and not being the fleeing type) then they might have chosen better tactics than engaging in open battle against superior numbers. Like say, using the defensive stucture behind them (Tower = Walls + Winding Staircase!) to negate the numerical disadvantage.

[dragontamer]

As I see it the whole R+L=legit J theory has one unshaken pylon and that is the presence of the 3 KG at the ToJ and especially Hightower’s presence. So people are so unyielding when it comes to this theory basically due to one man’s presence. But why? Because at a certain point Jamie reflects that when Rhaella was abused by her husband Gerold’s Hightower’s answer to Jamie was that although protecting the queen was their “job description”, protecting her from the king was not.

But what if Hightower like others had realized that disposing of Aerys was for the best? Can’t a man change his mind? Can’t a man think for himself and realize that abiding to certain vows isn’t honorable any more if the people that he vows to protect are immoral and dangerous?

But even if that’s overcome then they say that from the ToJ exchange between Eddard and the KG it’s clear that they are saying they hold their vows as KG. Well for me it’s not so clear. I believe they are speaking of a different vow. But even if I am wrong there are other explanations. Aegon could be in that tower, smuggled by Rhaegar himself. This would make more sense to the why the KG fights Eddard. I don’t think that they really believed that he would hurt his sister and nephew especially since he couldn’t know for sure that Lyanna went willingly with Rhaegar. But they had every reason to be afraid for Aegon because even if noble Eddard wouldn’t hurt the boy, others might in the future.

And why was it so important for Eddard to return Dawn before going back to Winterfell? He had a newborn son he had never met, a new wife, he was the heir and lord of Winterfell and he had been fighting for almost two years away from home. Plus, his beloved sister died in his arm which must have devastated him and he had a newly born baby with him and a long journey back before them. But he still chose to go first to Starfall. Why? Maybe because he had promised Lyanna to save Aegon and deliver him to the Daynes.

I see no false with this interpretation. Especially after Eddard saw the slaughtered children in KL he must felt that he should do anything to avoid something like that from happening again.

[LadyMary]

If he's got a Targ name, then it's one of the "successful" ones, for sure. I would be for Viserys if there already wasn't a Viserys in the family at the time of naming. Daeron, Jaehaerys, Aemon, Baelor (?), Aenar (?).

(Or maybe he has some so far unused (terrible) Valyrian name like . . . Maegagaegorion . . . or something. :drunk: :stillsick: .)

Other than that, there's a distant possibility that Lyanna enforced a Stark name, but Ned changed it because he didn't want to offend his wife (more than neccessary) by giving his bastard child a traditional Stark name. (Half serious here: how about a Rickard? Perhaps that's the reason why Ned gave his son name "Rickon" and not "Rickard?" Not wanting to steal from Lyanna, Ned? :D )

There were previous Lords of Winterfell named Jon Stark. But as a cover it was more likely that Jon was named in honor of Ned's foster father, Jon Arryn, whether he had a name given by Lyanna before her death or not.

[rmholt]

For him to pull something out of his ass for the sake of "haha - see you can't guess it - these KG really didn't take their oaths seriously and decided to usurp the line of succession even though they spent years not judging Aerys' fucked up shit and they all decided to forego the vows that defined their entire existence and gave up their lives for" is poor writing and unnecessary.

Yea - I GUESS it's possible...but it ultimately leads to a cheap "GOTCHYA" moment which I really doubt is going to happen...

Not at all what I am getting from this. If the breadcrumbs lead to an insoluble debate about how Jon can possibly be legitimate vs illegitimate those crumbs are a little stirred up.

I agree that wouldnt be GRRM. He has to stay consistent in his world. What I dont agree with is that he has to stay consistent with OUR world. If *I* think Jon has to be legitimate, that doesnt mean it's true in his world, for example.

I just accept that the KG are there for a good reason that may transcend our ideas of what "ought" to be. Even if he cant for some reason be king, if he is something superseding king, like a global PWWP, third head of the dragon, Next Hero, or AAR, the KG could protect him and remain honorable, particularly since they dont have anything else to do.

Here is a new question and maybe if the answer is out there it will put another view on the T o J - and the more perspectives the better.

OK, say Jon is Rhaegar's heir if Rhaegar is king. Which he never is. But lets just say, legitimate or not, hypothetically if Rhaegar becomes king, Jon is first heir. So the 3 KG are there. What is their purpose? Rhaegar has one heir, Viserys, who has left the 7 kingdoms rather hastily, and is a minor, and Jon, who should have priority, assuming Lyanna has a live boy. OK, but neither one of them is king. Robert won. Rhaegar and Aerys died. So ... Jon isnt king. Or is he? And if so, how? How is his claim any better than the Blackfyres? Surely Robert has the throne.

And - what are they doing there? Do the KG know someone is coming to the T o J? If so, how did they find out? I dont even know how Ned (or anyone but Rhaegar) knew where Lyanna was. So how would the KG know they were coming? If no one came, then what - raise the kid and put him up for king in 16 years? What was the plan after defeating anyone who came to get Jon? Is is just a suicide watch, or, if someone came, a suicide mission? The whole scenario has me scratching my head.

I am happy to accept that the answers are not yet revealed to that bunch of questions but if there is anything from the books (not from people's assumptions not actually in print) that answers any of these questions, I havent found them yet and if someone else has, I would appreciate a clue.

TIA

Marie