R+L=J v.35

[J. Stargaryen]

SFDanny, I am not making the 'supermacho' point. I agree with you that that argument is far-fetched (to be polite about it) so please do not ascribe it to me.

I am asking a question. Ned asks why the KG are not with Viserys and Hightower does not say "he is not the king" or "normally we guard princes too even if that means dividing our forces but there are diferent circumstances that apply here." He says that the KG would not flee to Dragonstone.

It seems to me there are several ways this could be taken. One is that the KG do not flee with princes but they would flee with a king. I am asking if there are other possible explanations for Hightower's words.

I think you are suggesting he means he would not flee with a prince if that meant leaving his king behind. If so that is one possibility. But that is a little different from saying the KG does not flee.

I'm with you. To hell with subtlety and ambiguity in the interest of keeping a mystery a mystery.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm with you. To hell with subtlety and ambiguity in the interest of keeping a mystery a mystery.

I think part of it too, which has been sorely missed, is that the Kingsguard are being deliberately coy. Ned is not their friend or their ally and frankly they don't owe him shit about why they're there. Their vague, dodgy responses — which must be picked apart and the lines read in between — are exactly the sort of borderline smartass thing you'd say to someone whose head you were messing with. They're not going to give Ned (or us) easy answers; the point is, they're making him (and us) figure it out for himself.

What, people expect them to just be up front with this guy about what they're really doing there? :dunno:

[Twinslayer]

I'm with you. To hell with subtlety and ambiguity in the interest of keeping a mystery a mystery.

Cool, thanks!

The only strange thing here is that there is no reason for Hightower to play games with Ned unless this is just a macho guy thing.

[J. Stargaryen]

Cool, thanks!

The only strange thing here is that there is no reason for Hightower to play games with Ned unless this is just a macho guy thing. If Hightower wins it does not matter if Ned knows the truth. If Ned wins he is going to get his way.

Yes, because one side revealing their plans to the other before actually achieving victory has never come back to bite anyone in the ass in the history of fiction.

[SFDanny]

Twinslayer, glad to hear you do not subscribe to the "supermacho" interpretation of the "Kingsguard do not flee" remark. My point was more to how this is abused than to you in particular, but glad to hear it nonetheless.

The obvious answer to your question is that would give away the whole mystery if Martin had Hightower answer in that way. But to your "several ways" this could be taken, let me say that the difference you draw between a prince and a king is not significant in this instance. We learn from Ser Barristan that it is a king's prerogative to keep the Kingsguard as his own personal bodyguards or extend their use to protect his family or even others beyond this. We know that in some instances, at least, the Kingsguard take orders from members of the royal family. You recently cited the one example in The Hedge Knight with Baelor Breakspear (he is not only the King's heir, but also the King's Hand, so this could be a special case except we see Prince Maekar order the Kingsguard to fight with him as well.) We know Aerys has extended this right to Rhaegar (Martin tells us so.) So, the kingsguard goes with, or flees with if you want, the king, anyone the king tells them to protect, or anyone someone designated by the king to command them (Hand or royal family in all known instances.) There is no dispute about any of this. The only problem comes when there is a contradiction in the vows of the Kingsguard regarding their first duty and other orders. We are almost certain that the trio are originally ordered to the Tower of Joy by Rhaegar (when each arrives is an open question.) The same SSM that tells us they would follow Rhaegar's orders strongly suggests this when Martin responds with Rhaegar's name instead of Aerys or anyone else who could possibly order the Kingsguard there. So, the most likely scenario tells us that if these men are still loyal to their vows, as their words with Ned suggests and as Ned's view of them suggests, is that the trio are there on orders from Rhaegar but there is no contradiction between those orders and their first duty.

Can other explanations be brought forth to try and explain all of this? Of course. These men may not be loyal to their vows, despite their words to the contrary. The may have made the same choice that Ser Barristan makes, which he later comes to believe was treason. We then have to explain why Ned views them with the respect he does. There are a whole host of less and less likely explanations that one can make up, but by far the most likely explanation is that these three men are loyal to their vows and fulfill them by defending their new king who is at the tower with them.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Can other explanations be brought forth to try and explain all of this? Of course. These men may not be loyal to their vows, despite their words to the contrary. The may have made the same choice that Ser Barristan makes, which he later comes to believe was treason. We then have to explain why Ned views them with the respect he does. There are a whole host of less and less likely explanations that one can make up, but by far the most likely explanation is that these three men are loyal to their vows and fulfill them by defending their new king who is at the tower with them.

Obviously agreed and I just want to hammer home the point that the Tower of Joy situation is far, far less complicated than a lot of people are making it out as. If anything, people are making it way too hard on themselves by bringing in double and triple baby swaps, random Kingsguard motivations that don't have textual evidence, timeline jumps or whatever else. The actual prevailing narrative, when you piece it all together, is fairly simple:

1. Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off together and in all likelihood got married. They holed up in Dorne to avoid being discovered and Lyanna became pregnant.

2. The Kingsguard found Rhaegar, probably on Aerys' orders. Rhaegar went back to the capital and left the three guys there to guard Lyanna and her unborn legitimate child.

3. Rhaegar dies on the Trident and Aerys and Aegon die in the Sack. Lyanna's newborn son is now the Targaryen claimant to the throne; the Kingsguard remain at the Tower with their new king rather than go to Dragonstone to be with Viserys.

4. Ned arrives after, in all likelihood, being tipped off about Lyanna's whereabouts (my bet is Ashara). The Kingsguard can't let him have access to Jon. They fight, Ned and Howland survive. Lyanna dies. Ned brings Jon back up north and claims him as his own bastard son.

None of that is outlandish or nonsensical or overcomplicated; just about all of it can be inferred from the text; there's a fine line between picking up subtext (the Kingsguard are there guarding the king) and ascribing motivations that aren't there (the Kingsguard are breaking their vow even though they say they aren't).

[SFDanny]

Obviously agreed and I just want to hammer home the point that the Tower of Joy situation is far, far less complicated than a lot of people are making it out as. If anything, people are making it way too hard on themselves by bringing in double and triple baby swaps, random Kingsguard motivations that don't have textual evidence, timeline jumps or whatever else. The actual prevailing narrative, when you piece it all together, is fairly simple:

1. Rhaegar and Lyanna ran off together and in all likelihood got married. They holed up in Dorne to avoid being discovered and Lyanna became pregnant.

2. The Kingsguard found Rhaegar, probably on Aerys' orders. Rhaegar went back to the capital and left the three guys there to guard Lyanna and her unborn legitimate child.

3. Rhaegar dies on the Trident and Aerys and Aegon die in the Sack. Lyanna's newborn son is now the Targaryen claimant to the throne; the Kingsguard remain at the Tower with their new king rather than go to Dragonstone to be with Viserys.

4. Ned arrives after, in all likelihood, being tipped off about Lyanna's whereabouts (my bet is Ashara). The Kingsguard can't let him have access to Jon. They fight, Ned and Howland survive. Lyanna dies. Ned brings Jon back up north and claims him as his own bastard son.

None of that is outlandish or nonsensical or overcomplicated; just about all of it can be inferred from the text; there's a fine line between picking up subtext (the Kingsguard are there guarding the king) and ascribing motivations that aren't there (the Kingsguard are breaking their vow even though they say they aren't).

I agree with most of this. But I'd change a few minor things, and I'll tell you why. I'm not sure we can say the Kingsguard found Rhaegar at the Tower of Joy. In all likelihood at least Ser Arthur is already there with him and Lyanna. My guess is Whent is there with them as well. Rhaegar doesn't travel without a Kingsguard escort, with the exception of when he stays in the ruins of Summerhall, at least from Ser Barristan's account. So, I think Ser Arthur is with him when he takes Lyanna away from her escort at "sword point." I think we know Aerys sends out a call for Rhaegar to return and take up command of the military response to the rebellion after the defeat at the Battle of the Bells. Knowing that it seems likely the people at the Tower of Joy are getting news from the outside world (Ned's account of his meeting with them before the fight point to this) I think it likely they hear of Aerys's call from this source. Most likely Ashara through Starfall. It is probably Rhaegar that sets out with either Whent or Ser Arthur on his return journey to King's Landing. Not that one of the Kingsguard discovers the hideaway.Rhaegar travels north leaving one member of the Kingsguard, most likely Ser Arthur, with the newly pregnant Lyanna. I think Hightower and Whent are sent there later on by Rhaegar. We know Hightower is in King's Landing long after the initial disappearance of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and no one seems to know where they are.

As to Jon being the new Targaryen heir, I think this is by far the most likely explanation, but I can't rule out that it could be Aegon who is the heir the Kingsguard are guarding, along with Lyanna and her newborn child. Not yet, at least. In that regard, let me just say, for the record, that even if Aegon was at the Tower of Joy, I don't think Young Griff is that Aegon. I think Aegon is dead. Nor do I think it means Jon is then a bastard. Other clues point to Jon being the legitimate child of Lyanna and Rhaegar than just the actions of the Kingsguard trio.

[dragontamer]

New to the R+L=J board just wondering if anyone has a link to get back to the original threads? I can only seem to find as far back as R+L=J v.20

If I'm not mistaken this is the first thread back in 2006. The former threads were titled The Lyanna+Rhaegar=Jon thread.... part i, part ii etc. After a few the threads were renamed R+L=J v.2, 3...etc.

I hope this will prove helpful with your search.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

I am curious whether there is a good theory to explain the answer Hightower gave Ned when Ned asked him directly why the KG were not with Viserys. Hightower basically says that they are not with Viserys because Viserys is fleeing and the KG do not flee.

Is the reason Hightower gives to Ned convincing on its own or is there more going on here?

SFDanny, I am not making the 'supermacho' point. I agree with you that that argument is far-fetched (to be polite about it) so please do not ascribe it to me.

I am asking a question. Ned asks why the KG are not with Viserys and Hightower does not say "he is not the king" or "normally we guard princes too even if that means dividing our forces but there are diferent circumstances that apply here." He says that the KG would not flee to Dragonstone.

It seems to me there are several ways this could be taken. One is that the KG do not flee with princes but they would flee with a king. I am asking if there are other possible explanations for Hightower's words.

I think you are suggesting he means he would not flee with a prince if that meant leaving his king behind. If so that is one possibility. But that is a little different from saying the KG does not flee.

Cool, thanks!

The only strange thing here is that there is no reason for Hightower to play games with Ned unless this is just a macho guy thing.

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

Where were you guys when your prince was being killed?

"We were not there," Ser Gerold answered.

We had been given another command.

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

You had better be glad we weren't there, because Robert would never have killed our prince.

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

Why weren't you there with the king when your fellow Kingsguard member killed him for his father?

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

We were here and did not know what was happening in Kings Landing. Otherwise Aerys would still be alive and we would have killed Jaime for breaking his vows.

"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."

I figured that Rhaegar or Aerys may have sent you elsewhere, but I thought it must be Storm's End to bring down Stannis, yet you were not there. Why?

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

We are more than mere knights. We are members of the Kingsguard None of that will be happening here.

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

Now that Rhaegar and Aerys are dead, Viserys is your king. Why are you here?

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

Ser Williem is a good knight to guard the young prince.

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

Yes, but he is not one of us. We are members of the Kingsguard. We would not have fled with him to Dragonstone while our king still lives.

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

As members of the Kingsguard we will still protect our king.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

We will uphold our vow to protect our king with our lives.

GRRM has stated that Ned's account was in the context of a dream, and dreams are not always literal (http://www.westeros....e_Tower_of_Joy/), so I believe Ned's recollection is a summary of the conversation. It is obvious from the conversation that the Kingsguard members were referring to fulfilling their vows to the Kingsguard. If you want to say the king they were protecting is Aegon, fine. Still, I believe it was Jon.

So, if the Kingsguard members at the ToJ were upholding their vows Lyanna and Jon were members of the royal family, and Jon was the current Targaryren king, not Viserys. In my opinion, the Kingsguard did not discover the truth about Rhaegar, Aerys, and Viserys until after Jon was born, so they were never in violation of their vows. Even if Lyanna was found in a literal bed of blood, although I doubt it, it could still be reasonable to assume that Jon was born a month earlier. Periods of severe bleeding can last for months after childbirth, especially if complications arise.

Also, I believe the Kingsguard felt they could defeat Ned and his men, since according to Jaime, "I learned from Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. who could have slain all five of you with his left hand while he was taking a piss with the right." The Kingsguard almost won according to Ned, so I see no fault with this reasoning.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

As a matter of interest, at what point in the Westerosi world does someone become the king? Would the official title be conferred once someone is crowned or would it be conferred upont he death of the previous king? I ask as obviously it's relevant to our dicussion here and I genuinely don't know.

My feeling would be it's at coronation. After all when Robert died Ned looked to have Stannis crowned and declared king.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

Also, I believe the Kingsguard felt they could defeat Ned and his men, since according to Jaime, "I learned from Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning. who could have slain all five of you with his left hand while he was taking a piss with the right." The Kingsguard almost won according to Ned, so I see no fault with this reasoning.

Very true. We know Ned only survived thanks to Howland Reed, though we don't know if Ned or Howland were injured. Either way it was awfully close.

[The guy from the Vale]

As a matter of interest, at what point in the Westerosi world does someone become the king? Would the official title be conferred once someone is crowned or would it be conferred upont he death of the previous king? I ask as obviously it's relevant to our dicussion here and I genuinely don't know.

My feeling would be it's at coronation. After all when Robert died Ned looked to have Stannis crowned and declared king.

But Barristan considered Joffery his king immediately after Robert's death, even before Joff's coronation. And I think Barristan, as KG member, should be the one example to consider when contemplating the KG at the ToJ.

[Bear Island Bruiser]

But Barristan considered Joffery his king immediately after Robert's death, even before Joff's coronation. And I think Barristan, as KG member, should be the one example to consider when contemplating the KG at the ToJ.

Fair enough. That would make more sense. I suppose it's an attitude they become the king straight away....unless there is a good reason not to e.g. they're the bastard product of incestuous union.

[Twinslayer]

Fair enough. That would make more sense. I suppose it's an attitude they become the king straight away....unless there is a good reason not to e.g. they're the bastard product of incestuous union.

This is a complicated question that led to difficulties at various stages along the way. For example, the original Dance of the Dragons came about because the rules on whether the old king's daughter inherited before her brother (if my recall is correct). In that case, the KG split with some supporting one claimant and some the other. More recently, when Egg became king, a great council was convened that passed over claimants whose claims were stronger than Egg's (he was the fourth son of a fourth son, etc.). I have always wondered who the KG were guarding while that great council was assembling and taking place. I don't think we have been told, but my guess would be that the KG took the position that the identity of the king was not known yet so they had to guard all of the claimants.

Even more recently, when Robert died, Ned avoids asking for Barristan's support because he thinks Barristan will defend Joffrey on the grounds that Barristan thinks Joffrey is king. Ned's goal appears to be to call a great council to resolve the issue, but only after Stannis arrives with his troops.

So I think you are right to focus on what Barristan would do, and I think it is correct that if Barristan thought Aegon was dead and that Jon was Rhaegar's legitimate son then he would feel an obligation to defend Jon.

This is why it matters (1) whether Rhaegar and Lyanna bothered with a marriage ceremony, and (2) whether the KG would regard that marriage as valid notwithstanding that it was polygamous and that neither Rhaegar nor Lyanna had permission (from Aerys and Rickard).

I think there are good reasons to believe that there was no marriage. Even if there was, the issue of the validity of that marriage is not a simple one and I think the KG would have hedged their bets by sending one of their number to Viserys. I also think they would have wanted confirmation that Aegon was actually dead.

But none of this is a problem, of course, if Aegon was in that tower.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

This is a complicated question that led to difficulties at various stages along the way. For example, the original Dance of the Dragons came about because the rules on whether the old king's daughter inherited before her brother (if my recall is correct). In that case, the KG split with some supporting one claimant and some the other. More recently, when Egg became king, a great council was convened that passed over claimants whose claims were stronger than Egg's (he was the fourth son of a fourth son, etc.). I have always wondered who the KG were guarding while that great council was assembling and taking place. I don't think we have been told, but my guess would be that the KG took the position that the identity of the king was not known yet so they had to guard all of the claimants.

I feel that it's only complicated in situations where the line of succession is not clear. This is shown by the examples you provided So in the case of Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Jon (if), and Viserys the line of succession is quite apparent.

I think there are good reasons to believe that there was no marriage. Even if there was, the issue of the validity of that marriage is not a simple one and I think the KG would have hedged their bets by sending one of their number to Viserys. I also think they would have wanted confirmation that Aegon was actually dead.

But none of this is a problem, of course, if Aegon was in that tower.

True, if there was an issue with the validity of the marriage. Yet, they all remained at the ToJ. Also, if they were told that baby Aegon had his head bashed in what proof could they ask for? His body? They were in the middle of no where and had no reason to believe that the boy could have survived.

The Sack of King's Landing is such a sad story. :crying:

[Twinslayer]

<snip>

The obvious answer to your question is that would give away the whole mystery if Martin had Hightower answer in that way. But to your "several ways" this could be taken, let me say that the difference you draw between a prince and a king is not significant in this instance. We learn from Ser Barristan that it is a king's prerogative to keep the Kingsguard as his own personal bodyguards or extend their use to protect his family or even others beyond this. We know that in some instances, at least, the Kingsguard take orders from members of the royal family. You recently cited the one example in The Hedge Knight with Baelor Breakspear (he is not only the King's heir, but also the King's Hand, so this could be a special case except we see Prince Maekar order the Kingsguard to fight with him as well.) We know Aerys has extended this right to Rhaegar (Martin tells us so.) So, the kingsguard goes with, or flees with if you want, the king, anyone the king tells them to protect, or anyone someone designated by the king to command them (Hand or royal family in all known instances.) There is no dispute about any of this. The only problem comes when there is a contradiction in the vows of the Kingsguard regarding their first duty and other orders.

<snip>

All good points. This is the part I am particularly interested in (not because I think I know the answer but because I am confused by it): you are saying that the KG had an obligation to protect the king and other members of the royal family (and we know from Jaime that the KG were sworn to protect Rhaella and we know that she is off to Dragonstone with Darry and Viserys). But if the obligation to protect the king comes into conflict with the obligation to protect other royals the obligation to protect the king comes first. This is consistent with what we learn from the Hedge Knight -- one prince cannot order a KG to harm another prince.

But this is not the reason Hightower gives Ned for why the KG is not with the queen and Viserys. He says: the KG does not flee. If you are suggesting that the KG would have fled with the queen and Viserys had there not been an overriding need to go to (or stay with) the new king, that may be the best available answer to my question but I still find it messy.

It does, however, solve one problem I have been thinking about. It is possible that Hightower (possibly with the assistance of Whent) was the one who transported Aegon from KL to the ToJ. But that would be "fleeing" in the same way that going with the queen and Viserys to Dragonstone would have been fleeing. But if your explanation is correct then this is not an issue.

[Twinslayer]

All good points. This is the part I am particularly interested in (not because I think I know the answer but because I am confused by it): you are saying that the KG had an obligation to protect the king and other members of the royal family (and we know from Jaime that the KG were sworn to protect Rhaella and we know that she is off to Dragonstone with Darry and Viserys). But if the obligation to protect the king comes into conflict with the obligation to protect other royals the obligation to protect the king comes first. This is consistent with what we learn from the Hedge Knight -- one prince cannot order a KG to harm another prince.

But this is not the reason Hightower gives Ned for why the KG is not with the queen and Viserys. He says: the KG does not flee. If you are suggesting that the KG would have fled with the queen and Viserys had there not been an overriding need to go to (or stay with) the new king, that may be the best available answer to my question but I still find it messy.

It does, however, solve one problem I have been thinking about. It is possible that Hightower (possibly with the assistance of Whent) was the one who transported Aegon from KL to the ToJ. But that would be "fleeing" in the same way that going with the queen and Viserys to Dragonstone would have been fleeing. But if your explanation is correct then this is not an issue.

ETA: As a side note, what do you think of Prince Daeron's suggestion that Baelor Breakspear could have brought all 7 of the KG to the tournament at Ashford (where there were several Targ princes) but that instead he left four of them behind to guard the king? He seems to be suggesting that the Crown Prince/Hand could take all the KG and leave the king with none. Which is interesting to me because the only other person I can recall who served simultaneously as Crown Prince and Hand was Rhaegar, right before the events of the ToJ. Curious what you think -- I just noticed this statement and I'm thinking about whether it has any interesting implications.

[Twinslayer]

I feel that it's only complicated in situations where the line of succession is not clear. This is shown by the examples you provided So in the case of Aerys, Rhaegar, Aegon, Jon (if), and Viserys the line of succession is quite apparent.

True, if there was an issue with the validity of the marriage. Yet, they all remained at the ToJ. Also, if they were told that baby Aegon had his head bashed in what proof could they ask for? His body? They were in the middle of no where and had no reason to believe that the boy could have survived.

The Sack of King's Landing is such a sad story. :crying:

On reflection, you are probably right about not seeking proof that Aegon was dead, at least if they got the report about that from someone reliable.

And I definitely agree with the last part of your post!

[MtnLion]

ETA: As a side note, what do you think of Prince Daeron's suggestion that Baelor Breakspear could have brought all 7 of the KG to the tournament at Ashford (where there were several Targ princes) but that instead he left four of them behind to guard the king? He seems to be suggesting that the Crown Prince/Hand could take all the KG and leave the king with none. Which is interesting to me because the only other person I can recall who served simultaneously as Crown Prince and Hand was Rhaegar, right before the events of the ToJ. Curious what you think -- I just noticed this statement and I'm thinking about whether it has any interesting implications.

I don't recall Rhaegar ever being Hand. We have Tywin, Owen Merryweather, Jon Connington, Carlton Chelsted, and Rossart the Pyrmancer during Aerys' reign.

[Twinslayer]

I don't recall Rhaegar ever being Hand. We have Tywin, Owen Merryweather, Jon Connington, Carlton Chelsted, and Rossart the Pyrmancer during Aerys' reign.

Hmm. I could be wrong about that.