The Tower of Joy Battle, not as we are led to believe?

[Dragonfish]

By your own logic, if the child turned out to be a girl the true king is now completely undefended. If the KG were protecting heirs, why did they not send even one KG member to Viserys on the very real chance that the ToJ baby wasn't a boy?

Because they may not have even found out about the Sack until after Jon was born.

Yet another argument that has been offered a thousand times before.

[Sasha Steelsong]

By your own logic, if the child turned out to be a girl the true king is now completely undefended by the Kingsguard. If the KG were protecting heirs, why did they not send even one KG member to Viserys on the very real chance that the ToJ baby wasn't a boy?

Because given communications available in a medevil world it is quite possible that Jon was born before they got news of the deaths. If Jon was born and they knew him to be in line for the throne, there would be no need to leave for Dragonstone.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Because they may not have even found out about the Sack until after Jon was born.

Yet another argument that has been offered a thousand times before.

Because given communications available in a medevil world it is quite possible that Jon was born before they got news of the deaths. If Jon was born and they knew him to be in line for the throne, there would be no need to leave for Dragonstone.

Viserys STILL takes precedent over a girl. After Rhaegar and Aegon, there was a 50/50 chance the heir was (assuming legitimacy) the ToJ baby or Viserys. If the KG are protecting heirs, they are doing so assuming that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon might die. Why then would they ignore the very real possibility that the ToJ baby might not have been an heir?

You see, you're just dismissing a valid point. Communications have nothing to do with the fact that these KG are protecting the ToJ because of the very real chance the true kings and heirs may die. But at the same time, there is a very real chance the ToJ is not a true heir and as such, given that the KG have split to protect kings and heirs, at least one KG member would go to protect Viserys too. They aren't there to protect heirs, in my opinion, they are there purely because Rhaegar ordered it, legitimate male or illegitimate female be damned.

[alienarea]

No. Rhaegar was Aerys' first son. Any legitimate sons of Rhaegar come before Aerys' second son. An example would be Baelor Breakspear and his two sons. When Baelor died, his next brother, Aerys I, did not automatically become crown prince. It wasn't until Baelor's two sons, Valarr and Matarys, died that the crown passed to Daeron II's next son.

But then a boy should have been born some time before Ned arrives at the ToJ because if Lyanna were to give birth to a girl Viserys would be king and some KG should be with him?

[Ygrain]

The whole lot

Really? Let's take a look, then.

Dayne, Whent and Hightower are at ToJ. Fact.

Jaime stays at KL with Aerys. Fact. When he says he wants to go to Trident, he asks that another KG stays back instead of him. Fact. When he, as Lord Commander, confers with all the remaining KG, the king is left without any KG for the shortest time possible. Fact.

!!!!Conclusion: the king must not be left without the protection of at least one KG unless for the shortest necessary time. Other KG may be assigned to other jobs meanwhile.

The line of succession goes the firstborn son - his legit children - his legit siblings. Fact (confirmed by the succession of the Freys).

The Targ succession differs only in leaving out females. Fact. The succession line goes Rhaegar - Aegon - Viserys - Rhaenys. Fact.

A legit heir is one born in marriage. Fact.

A bastard can be legitimized by the king's decree. Fact (see Robb's will and the legitimization of Ramsay).

The KG at ToJ claim that they uphold their vows. Fact.

Viserys is at Dragonstone with no KG. Fact.

Viserys is the next in the succession line. Not a fact, an assumption.

!!!!Conclusion 1: Viserys should have at least one KG with him but he doesn't. Fact

!!!!Conclusion 2: facts do not fit. The only fact that can be wrong is Viserys' place in the succession line if Rhaegar's child by Lyanna was legit.

So, which of these facts are unbased?

[Dr. Pepper]

But then a boy should have been born some time before Ned arrives at the ToJ because if Lyanna were to give birth to a girl Viserys would be king and some KG should be with him?

As far as we know, Jon is male.

[Ygrain]

Viserys STILL takes precedent over a girl. After Rhaegar and Aegon, there was a 50/50 chance the heir was (assuming legitimacy) the ToJ baby or Viserys. If the KG are protecting heirs, they are doing so assuming that Rhaegar and Aegon might die. Why then would they ignore the very real possibility that the ToJ baby might not have been an heir?

It is not the primary task of the KG to guard the heirs, they guard the king who may, and may not, extend the protection to the family members. The king is to be protected atumatically, not his potential heirs.

But then a boy should have been born some time before Ned arrives at the ToJ because if Lyanna were to give birth to a girl Viserys would be king and some KG should be with him?

He was definitely born some time before, childbed fever develops within several days.

[Dragonfish]

Viserys STILL takes precedent over a girl. After Rhaegar and Aegon, there was a 50/50 chance the heir was (assuming legitimacy) the ToJ baby or Viserys. If the KG are protecting heirs, they are doing so assuming that Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon might die. Why then would they ignore the very real possibility that the ToJ baby might not have been an heir?

No one said that the Kingsguard were at the ToJ initially in order to protect an heir. The only reason they stayed at that point was because Rhaegar ordered them to. The argument we are making is that they continued to stay there after the Sack because that is where the new king was.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Really? Let's take a look, then.

The KG at ToJ claim that they uphold their vows. Fact.

Viserys is at Dragonstone with no KG. Fact.

!!!!Conclusion 2: facts do not fit. The only fact that can be wrong is Viserys' place in the succession line if Rhaegar's child by Lyanna was legit.

So, which of these facts are unbased?

This conclusion, because it assumes an unborn child is preemptively known to be a male without consideration of a potential female and thus placing Viserys back on top of the succession line, and ergo warranting at least one KG. The difference is, my conclusion here is that the KG can't have been protecting heirs because they ignored Viserys very real possibility of outranking the ToJ baby. Instead, the KG were just following Rhaegars orders to protect Lyanna and the child because of Rhaegars beliefs in prophecies, heirs being irrelevant. The only way I can see the KG ignoring the possibility of a girl is if they don't give a damn about the child being an heir, and only care about Rhaegars wishes to protect the three heads of the dragon. Woooo.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

It is not the primary task of the KG to guard the heirs, they guard the king who may, and may not, extend the protection to the family members. The king is to be protected atumatically, not his potential heirs.

You're just proving my point; the KG are not there to protect the potential heir to the throne (like it has been said, they couldn't have known that Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead until Ned approached and therefore known he was king) and as such they are there for another reason, read my other post for that reason.

[Lord Reaver]

I think this is all getting a bit out of hand.

The issue at hand would be the fact that there seems to me to be no reason to doubt that 10 men fought outside the TOJ (why the KGs were there could be explained either by them protecting a legitimate heir, or by them acting solely on Rhaegar's orders).

There is also no reason to doubt that of these 10 men, 8 died, as we have seen no reference to thes men anywhere after this incident, nor have we heard anyone think that their apparent demise was strange in any way, suggesting that the 3 KGs weren't so super-awesome that most people would think 7 other trained swordsmen couldn't feasibly defeat them.

For the 8 not to die, there would have to have been some kind of strange conspiracy where the KGs AND most of the rebels decided they'd somehow disappear for no reason I can think of at the moment.

It's simply too much that I have to put entirely up to some bizarre turn of events to consider an alternative to the established story as recalled by Ned.

[Dragonfish]

This conclusion, because it assumes an unborn child is preemptively known to be a male without consideration of a potential female and thus placing Viserys back on top of the succession line, and ergo warranting at least one KG.

No, we told you, the Kingsguard didn't necessarily know about the Sack until after Jon was born.

You're just proving my point; the KG are not there to protect the potential heir to the throne (like it has been said, they couldn't have known that Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead until Ned approached and therefore known he was king) and as such they are there for another reason, read my other post for that reason.

They certainly were there for another reason to begin with. The point we're making is that whatever reason they were there for in the beginning would've been overridden by the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon. At that point, there primary duty to protect the new king, Viserys, ought to have trumped whatever their original reason for staying was. The fact that they do not go to Viserys immediately suggests that they are in fact fulfilling their vow to protect the new king, for the new king is already in the tower with them.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

No one said that the Kingsguard were at the ToJ initially in order to protect an heir. The only reason they stayed at that point was because Rhaegar ordered them to. The argument we are making is that they continued to stay there after the Sack because that is where the new king was.

I thought the argument you made was that they didn't send someone to Viserys because they couldn't know of the Sack. They didn't know the baby was the new king until Ned showed up. Like I said, Rhaegar definitely ordered them there, and they weren't there to protect an heir or a king, they were just following orders.

To then say that their presence is proof of a marriage is absurd; you've just admitted they weren't there to protect an heir and couldn't possibly know if the child was the current king anyway. That's why I reject the notion that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married; your evidence is that the KG were present after the Sack.

1) Their presence was ordered

2) They are not there to protect an heir, or else they'd have a KG protecting Viserys as well

3) They had no way of knowing the Sack occured

Because they may not have even found out about the Sack until after Jon was born.

It's contradictory evidence. Rhaegar and Lyanna weren't married, imo.

And before it's said, tell me who could possibly alert them that the Sack had occurred? Is there textual evidence for this or is it assumed once more?

[alienarea]

This conclusion, because it assumes an unborn child is preemptively known to be a male without consideration of a potential female and thus placing Viserys back on top of the succession line, and ergo warranting at least one KG. The difference is, my conclusion here is that the KG can't have been protecting heirs because they ignored Viserys very real possibility of outranking the ToJ baby. Instead, the KG were just following Rhaegars orders to protect Lyanna and the child because of Rhaegars beliefs in prophecies, heirs being irrelevant. The only way I can see the KG ignoring the possibility of a girl is if they don't give a damn about the child being an heir, and only care about Rhaegars wishes to protect the three heads of the dragon. Woooo.

Yes.

[Dragonfish]

I thought the argument you made was that they didn't send someone to Viserys because they couldn't know of the Sack.

No, I said they may not have found out about the Sack until after Jon was born.

They didn't know the baby was the new king until Ned showed up.

Never said that either. Their reaction to the news Ned offers suggests they already knew what had happened. And even if they didn't find out until Ned arrived, they still insist that their place is at that tower.

To then say that their presence is proof of a marriage is absurd; you've just admitted they weren't there to protect an heir and couldn't possibly know if the child was the current king anyway.

Again, never said they couldn't possibly know if the child was the current king. I said they may not have found out about the Sack until after Jon was born, at which point they would've known that they were guarding the new king.

And before it's said, tell me who could possibly alert them that the Sack had occurred? Is there textual evidence for this or is it assumed once more?

It's possible they somehow received messages, but any such messages would've taken time to travel. In any event, as I said above, it's irrelevant. Once they find out the news from Ned, they still insist their place is at that tower.

[Sasha Steelsong]

Isn't that called foreshadowing? :cheers: I'm just saying to me it comes across as those 3 KG were in on Rhaegars apparent plan to depose Aerys. Now that has as much textual evidence as your point does; I drew the conclusion from points in the text. It seems to me like those 3 KG were just doing what Rhaegar said, not because the unborn child was a legitimate potential heir, but just because the crown prince and king to be said so.

Funny I thought foreshaddowing was an allusion to something that will happen in the future, not an actual spelling out of what was going to happen. In fact here is a definition (with links to several sources) since you seem to be unclear with the term.

Foreshadowing is an advance sign or warning of what is to come in the future. The author of a mystery novel might use foreshadowing in the early chapter of his book to give readers an inkling of an impending murder. When you want to let people know about an event that is yet to occur, you can use foreshadowing. Foreshadowing is used as a literary device to tease readers about plot turns that will occur later in the story. A fortune teller might use foreshadowing, warning that a short life line is a sign of some impending disaster. - http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/foreshadowing

See also: http://udleditions.cast.org/craft_elm_foreshadowing.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreshadowing; and for good measure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreshadowing

The KG staying at the tower while they know the King to be alive and protected does not explain why they continued to stay there when they knew that the first three in line were dead, including the individual you believe they were plotting with. I mean certainly the plot to overthrow Aerys would be moot at that point. Why would the KG follow the orders of a dead prince when they know they are the only KG left and the child you seem to think is king is totally undefended? Especially since any plots they had with Rheagar died with him. Again it makes no sense, especially when these three KG are known for their upright characters. They would be in violation of the vow they insist they are upholding if what you said was true. How are the KG upholding their vow if Viserys is king and one of them isn't with him? How can they claim that?

I'm not the one insulting people for not believing in my theory :dunno: In successive posts you've attacked me personally now just because I don't agree with you. I'm not really bothering with much 'evidence' because it's not factual proof; it's conclusions drawn from what we have and I don't think that is actually proof of anything. I don't take issue with people giving theories, just with people giving theories as fact and acting the way many in this thread are (personal insults, for example) because of a differing opinion.

Actually I have not attacked you personally. I've attacked the responses because they don't actually read as if you've read the posts but are dismissing textual evidence when presented to you out of hand because you don't like the theory. Yes R+l=J is a theory but it is thus far the only theory that doesn't leave hanging questions as to why the KG stayed when they should have been with Viserys (something you yourself have repeated several times), why Ned only brought 6 people with him to the TOJ when he had an army, why Ned felt he'd been lying thanks to the promise made to Lyanna for 14 years. Your theory that they were just there on Rhaegar's orders still leaves the question of why they stayed when the real king in that scenerio was completely undefended totally unanswered. To draw a comparison you would need to find another time when the KG ignored the King's protection in lieu of an order, when they knew the king was undefended. There isn't one, and it certainly didn't exist when Rheagar left for KL, since the first three people in line for the throne were alive at the time.

No argument I give is going to be seen as reasoned by you though. You've made up your mind, and anything I say is "rebutted a thousand times before". And I'm not trying to be disparaging, just trying to point out that without solid evidence this theory shouldn't be shoved down others throats with antagonistic attacks on peoples ability to "read clues".

How do you know that no argument you give would be considered reasoned by me if you never try? I'll accept a reasoned, textually based alternative if it can answer the all the questions the way R+L=J can. I would be very open to hearing an argument that can explain why the KG stayed when they should have gone to Dragonstone after learning that everyone in KL was dead, what Ned promised to Lyanna that has haunted him for so long and caused him to live a lie for 14 years, why Ned is SO adamant that no one speak of Jon's mother, and why it had to be a secret all these years. Thus far however those who are against the theory have been unable to answer those questions. And frankly your response about how you're not going to try because it won't be believed anyway is a cop out.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

No, I said they may not have found out about the Sack until after Jon was born.

And the child was born only shortly before Ned arrived, correct?

Never said that either. Their reaction to the news Ned offers suggests they already knew what had happened. And even if they didn't find out until Ned arrived, they still insist that their place is at that tower.

Yep, because Rhaegar ordered it. If they were gonna listen to Rhaegar before he was king, why would his death change that? "We swore vows". Ned already knows the KG swear vows, and they know he knows. Why reiterate? Maybe because Rhaegar had them swear something else.

Again, never said they couldn't possibly know if the child was the current king. I said they may not have found out about the Sack until after Jon was born, at which point they would've known that they were guarding the new king.

And the child was born only shortly before Ned arrived, lest Lyanna bleed to death after a bad pregnancy in what should take at most mere hours.

It's possible they somehow received messages, but any such messages would've taken time to travel. In any event, as I said above, it's irrelevant. Once they find out the news from Ned, they still insist their place is at that tower.

That's because they were following orders to protect the child regardless, and Kingsguards do not flee. Not because the child is a legitimate heir and true king, but because Rhaegar made them do so.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

<snip>

I'm not going to bother reiterating what I've already said, you can read the last page or so of posts for that.

[Ygrain]

I thought the argument you made was that they didn't send someone to Viserys because they couldn't know of the Sack. They didn't know the baby was the new king until Ned showed up. Like I said, Rhaegar definitely ordered them there, and they weren't there to protect an heir or a king, they were just following orders.

To then say that their presence is proof of a marriage is absurd; you've just admitted they weren't there to protect an heir and couldn't possibly know if the child was the current king anyway. That's why I reject the notion that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married; your evidence is that the KG were present after the Sack.

1) Their presence was ordered

2) They are not there to protect an heir, or else they'd have a KG protecting Viserys as well

3) They had no way of knowing the Sack occured

It's contradictory evidence. Rhaegar and Lyanna weren't married, imo.

And before it's said, tell me who could possibly alert them that the Sack had occurred? Is there textual evidence for this or is it assumed once more?

You're just proving my point; the KG are not there to protect the potential heir to the throne (like it has been said, they couldn't have known that Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead until Ned approached and therefore known he was king) and as such they are there for another reason, read my other post for that reason.

Read the whole ToJ scene again. They are outside the tower, apparently waiting for Ned, who was, again very apparently, tipped off where to go. In their conversation, the KG show no surprise or shock over the news, or any other reaction except firm resolution. They knew.

This conclusion, because it assumes an unborn child is preemptively known to be a male without consideration of a potential female and thus placing Viserys back on top of the succession line, and ergo warranting at least one KG. The difference is, my conclusion here is that the KG can't have been protecting heirs because they ignored Viserys very real possibility of outranking the ToJ baby. Instead, the KG were just following Rhaegars orders to protect Lyanna and the child because of Rhaegars beliefs in prophecies, heirs being irrelevant. The only way I can see the KG ignoring the possibility of a girl is if they don't give a damn about the child being an heir, and only care about Rhaegars wishes to protect the three heads of the dragon. Woooo.

Jon's birth is stated by GRRM as within a month since the Sack. Even with instant messaging, that would give them a maximum of four-week period of interregnum when the succession is unclear and has to be waited out. Given the distances, the child would have been born before the KG would reach Dragonstone, and what what would they do then if it was male, turn back?

[Dragonfish]

And the child was born only shortly before Ned arrived, correct?

Not necessarily. Lyanna could have been suffering from complications due to child birth for a couple weeks before Ned arrived.

Yep, because Rhaegar ordered it. If they were gonna listen to Rhaegar before he was king, why would his death change that?

Because when Rhaegar was alive, the King had other Kingsguard knights protecting him. When Rhaegar was dead, the new king had no Kingsguard knights protecting him. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

"We swore vows". Ned already knows the KG swear vows, and they know he knows. Why reiterate? Maybe because Rhaegar had them swear something else.

Yet another argument that has been addressed a thousand times before.

If the Kingsguard had sworn a new oath to Rhaegar, then why would they highlight their honor and duties as Kingsguard? Their duty is to protect the king. It makes no sense for them to shirk that responsibility and then claim they are honorable Kingsguard knights.