Tower of Joy: something I've never quite understood (possible spoilers)

[anon76returns]

To me, they also imply that they know of Rhaegar's death on the Trident. if thats indeed the case then the only logical reason for them to be at the TOJ is if they were protecting an heir to the throne.

Slight quibble- if our speculation is correct then he is no longer "heir to the throne", he is in fact King.

Also, Jaime was the youngest of the KG back then (?) and I think they gave him the easiest task - to stay in the well fortified and defended keep.

He was kept so that the Lannisters wouldn't ally with the rebels. Aerys had robbed Tywin of his heir and refused Cersei's hand for Rhaegar. His paranoia insured that he wouldn't trust them any further than he could drop-kick Jaimie.

We can assume the "We swore a vow" could refer to something other than the KG duty if the KG at the scene were not specifically citing their duties as KG.

Except that they bring up their status as Kingsguard repeatedly at the same time that they speak of their vow. The only way around this is if Martin was doing a literary 'cheat'. Possible, but underhanded and IMO quite unlikely.

[FittleLinger]

Except that they bring up their status as Kingsguard repeatedly at the same time that they speak of their vow. The only way around this is if Martin was doing a literary 'cheat'. Possible, but underhanded and IMO quite unlikely.

We are the King's guard. We swore a vow.

How is it cheating and contradicting? It's exactly like, "I am the cook, I keep the people fed" or "I am the security officer, I need to protect the people"

[Sasha Steelsong]

This was something I saw argued a while ago (sorry if It was resolved). But unless I am mistaken, the Seven Kingdoms follow a Male-preference primogeniture form of succession. So a daughter will inherit only if she has no surviving brothers or surviving decedents of brothers. So in a hypothetical world where Jon is the legitimate offspring of Rhegar and Lyanna and was born a girl, the line of succession should be Ares, Rhaegar, Aegon, Rhaenys, Female Jon, Viserys, Daney. Of course if this was the case there would probably be just more war anyway as there would likely be other factions putting their weight behind either Robert, Female Jon or Viserys (who cares about custom if there is more power to be gained by placing Viserys on the throne?)

While this is generally accurate for most houses in Westeros, the Targaryens and Dorne followed different rules of succession. Dorne is straight primogeniture so first born takes it, male or female. Targaryan succession was males only, and women could only inherit if all the other male contenders were dead. Thus the actual Targaryen line of succession was Aerys - Rhaegar - (Any legitimate male heir of Rheagar's) - Viserys - here it gets a bit fuzzy becuase Stannis would be the next male but if they don't go off main branch then it would be Rhaenys - Dany. Thus it would matter greatly if Jon was a boy or a girl because if he'd been a girl, Viserys would have been the next king.

That said given the time it would take for a message to get to the TOJ regarding the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon, it is quite possible Jon was already born when they got the news, thus they knew that Jon was a boy and it wasn't an issue. Either that or Lyanna was so close to giving birth that waiting a day or two so as not to have to double back wouldn't have been a poor decision.

[anon76returns]

We are the King's guard. We swore a vow.

How is it cheating and contradicting? It's exactly like, "I am the cook, I keep the people fed" or "I am the security officer, I need to protect the people"

Are we disagreeing on this? It would be a cheat if someone said "I am the cook, I keep the people fed", but really meant that they keep the people fed for some reason other than being the cook. That's what Dr. Pepper was suggesting in the post to which I replied ("

We can assume the "We swore a vow" could refer to something other than the KG duty if the KG at the scene were not specifically citing their duties as KG.

"). Keeping the people fed better refer to being the cook, and "we swore a vow" better refer to their vows as Kingsguard, since that is what they keep bringing up.

I think we're on the same page here.

[Dr. Pepper]

Are we disagreeing on this? It would be a cheat if someone said "I am the cook, I keep the people fed", but really meant that they keep the people fed for some reason other than being the cook. That's what Dr. Pepper was suggesting in the post to which I replied ("

We can assume the "We swore a vow" could refer to something other than the KG duty if the KG at the scene were not specifically citing their duties as KG.

"). Keeping the people fed better refer to being the cook, and "we swore a vow" better refer to their vows as Kingsguard, since that is what they keep bringing up.

I think we're on the same page here.

You're misunderstanding what I was saying. Fallen said that the vow could refer to something else, I was merely pointing out that the vow could only refer to something else if and only if the three knights were not referring to themselves as KG. We're in agreement on this.

[FittleLinger]

Are we disagreeing on this? It would be a cheat if someone said "I am the cook, I keep the people fed", but really meant that they keep the people fed for some reason other than being the cook. That's what Dr. Pepper was suggesting in the post to which I replied ("

We can assume the "We swore a vow" could refer to something other than the KG duty if the KG at the scene were not specifically citing their duties as KG.

"). Keeping the people fed better refer to being the cook, and "we swore a vow" better refer to their vows as Kingsguard, since that is what they keep bringing up.

I think we're on the same page here.

You're misunderstanding what I was saying. Fallen said that the vow could refer to something else, I was merely pointing out that the vow could only refer to something else if and only if the three knights were not referring to themselves as KG. We're in agreement on this.

Yes, I misunderstood what you said, anon76returns. I thought you were saying that they would not need to say they swore a vow, because they already said they were KG, so therefore the vow must refer to something else but the KG duty. Apparently you were saying the exact opposite, all three of us are indeed on the same page.

[Amedw]

While this is generally accurate for most houses in Westeros, the Targaryens and Dorne followed different rules of succession. Dorne is straight primogeniture so first born takes it, male or female. Targaryan succession was males only, and women could only inherit if all the other male contenders were dead. Thus the actual Targaryen line of succession was Aerys - Rhaegar - (Any legitimate male heir of Rheagar's) - Viserys - here it gets a bit fuzzy becuase Stannis would be the next male but if they don't go off main branch then it would be Rhaenys - Dany. Thus it would matter greatly if Jon was a boy or a girl because if he'd been a girl, Viserys would have been the next king.

That said given the time it would take for a message to get to the TOJ regarding the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon, it is quite possible Jon was already born when they got the news, thus they knew that Jon was a boy and it wasn't an issue. Either that or Lyanna was so close to giving birth that waiting a day or two so as not to have to double back wouldn't have been a poor decision.

Yes I do realise Dorne is different, this point is made very clear in the novels. You may even be able to make a case that the laws of succession for the Iron Islands are also different (The whole King's Moot). But is there any textual evidence the the Targaryen dynisty followed Agnatic succession (Only inherit through the male line of decent unless all branches are exhausted)?

If this was the case, the Barratheon brothers should be the next in line as you suggested becuase females can't inherit (This in itself would probably cause more power struggles though). But if this was the case, then Daney has zero right to the throne anyway. The moment Viserys was "crowed" Robert should have been the next in line and the rightful King (unless a daughter comes before a distant male cousin from a female branch)

Back to the point of the TOJ, yes it is possible that Jon was already born before they got news of the deaths making this all a moot point. But if Lyanna was just close to birth, shouldn't their vows dictate that someone should go to the new king (which would be Viserys) even though a new king may be born soon with a better claim?

[The Fallen]

` Thanks for the lively debate guys. It's nice to have a discussion where no one takes it personal/and doesn't get out of hand. Good points were made on all sides. And I think we can all agree that WoW can't come out soon enough.

[House Banquero]

I have an issue with the "we swore a vow"/oathbreaker/honor bound arguments. people break oaths vows and screw up their honor all the time. I think Aemon said something along the lines of what is honor compared to a brothers love etc etc. Ol Honorable Ned Stark lied and claimed to be a traitor to save his daughters. Not only that where is the honor in rebelling against your king and liege lord? Honorable Jon Arryn is guilty there as well, he was warden of the east, yet he rose against his king in war. It wasn't his daughter that was "kidnapped". What happens when one oath contradicts the other? All knights swear to protect the innocent. What happens when the king butchers the innocent? What happens when the royal family give contradicting commands? Doesn't matter what their oaths were, they are human beings and thus flawed and capable of breaking oaths. Personally i think Oswell Whent conspired to put Rheagar on the throne so I think he was an oathbreaker anyway (Lord whent held tourney after KG Whent visited, varys says they were conspiring).

Also i think we are all ignoring the fact that the one of the only ToJ info we have is from the point of view of a drugged up hallucinating Ned Stark. We Know.that GRRM writes in POV style, and the characters have been known to remember things differently than they occured. Sansa remembers the hound kissing her, yet that never happened. You have to consider that Ned under the influence of the milk of the poppy dreamed up a more romanticized version of events. He dreamed that the KG were finishing each others sentences. This is war, did they really just casually stroll up and have a calm conversation before slaughtering each other? I just don't buy that quick passage as "gospel" until GRRM gives us more info. To cite their lack of surprise based on a drug induced dream as evidence of anything just doesn't seem right to me

[Dr. Pepper]

I have an issue with the "we swore a vow"/oathbreaker/honor bound arguments. people break oaths vows and screw up their honor all the time.

Yes, people break oaths all the time. But in the story, the acknowledge they are breaking or have broken an oath. They do not repeat their duty as a KG and cite their vow if they are actually breaking and oath.

Also i think we are all ignoring the fact that the one of the only ToJ info we have is from the point of view of a drugged up hallucinating Ned Stark.

No one is ignoring this. Obviously Ned wasn't fighting alongside wraiths and black rose petals didn't litter the sky. There are parts of the dream that is clearly dream. However, Ned continues to think about it all when he wakes up.

[House Banquero]

Something has been on my mind lately. We know that Rhaegar, Lyanna and the Kingsguard ended up at the TOJ, but did they start there? I mean there is this whole space of time unaccounted for after the kidnapping(running away) and before Rhaegar came back for the war.

I mean did they go to the TOJ immediately?

Because when you really think about it they were gone for a long time. You have the "kidnapping", then Brandon getting the news racing to King's Landing, then Rickard getting the news and coming from the North, which in itself is a long way and who knows how many weeks travel it is. So by this time Rhaegar, Lyanna and the KG should have already been at the TOJ, then you have the time between the executions and Jon Arryn getting the message for Robert and Ned to be presented to Aerys. After Jon Arryn refuses both Ned and Robert have to travel home to rally their bannermen. I think Ned traveled by sea but still I think he was shipwrecked for a little while. Then Ned has to bring all his men from the North. There then had been a good many battles before Gerold Hightower went looking for Rhaegar.

All and all. This seems like a really long time for them to be out of commission. Were they couped up in the TOJ all day? What were they doing that whole time? Playing cards with the members of the KG and having sex?

Any thoughts?

I wonder about this too. When did she disappear? at the Tourney? because her whole family was there and Brandon didn't find out until he was on his way to Riverrun. Seems odd that they didnt notice she was gone at the tourney. After the tourney makes more sense, i'd assume Ned and robert went back to Vale, other Starks went back north and Lyanna rode off to meet Rhaegar. I'm sure Rhaegar following them to Winterfell with 2 KG wouldve attracted alot of attention. Also seems strange to me that Lyanna rides off with this dude she hardly knows without even telling her brothers? The how does lyanna respond to her Dad and brother getting murdered by her alleged father in law? You would think she would try to persuade both side to chill out, if she did she wasn't successful. I'm just rambling at this point. Now that i think about Lyanna was pretty irresponsible... send a raven let your family know your not getting royally raped, shoudnt be that hard. A highborn girl just can't go missing without her family raising hell, surely she knew that

[lady m]

When you assume that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and that Jon is the legal King, then this puts Ned in the exact same position as Tyrion. He is uncle to the king and therefore member of the Royal Family!

Actually, he's not, and neither was Tyrion. Tyrion was merely a member of the extended royal party. We see Tyrion through most of AGOT traveling not in conjunction with most of his family, when he leaves Winterfell for the Wall onward. That entire time he doesn't have a member of the KG with him, he has two Lannister family crimson cloaked guards. Why? Because he is not the king, the queen consort - who makes future kings - nor one of the potential heirs to the throne.

[corbon]

GRRM clearly wants us to think that Jon has been killed. You can't deny that.

Only the simpler readers. He's done this more than enough before for even average people to figure out that Jon is not likely dead yet. Arya is an almost identical scenario, plus you have Bran and Rickon, Davos and Brienne, just off the top of my head.

Arya's death may have fooled me, I don't remember, but none of the others did.

What GRRM does is present a scenario, then say "look with your eyes" (literary eyes that is).

He doesn't want us to think Jon is dead IMO, he wants us to look with our eyes and conclude that he may be dead but is probably not (read on and find out!) But he's also smart enough to realise that a fairly hefty section of the reading populace isn't capable of that and will think Jon is dead.

And everyone, including us, thought that Aegon was dead, then five books later he appears out of the blue (no pun intended).

Not everyone. Not every character, and not every reader.

Kevan Lannister alludes to the suspicion he had in his final conversation IIRC, but Aegon being dead worked for people and questioning it was both pointless and dangerous, so no one did, at least publically, and in time not even privately probably. Thats how these things work.

And certainly Aegon's reappearance was mooted over a decade ago (15yrs +?) by attentive fans.

That fact that its 4 books later can be attributed to the series spreading out in the middle from a trilogy (which means we'd be through the second book by now, waiting for the third) into a seven book series.

So its not really out of the blue, for the more discerning reader.

I'm not asking. I'm proposing that the three Kingsguards that have been praised to the Sevens could be used by GRRM to throw us off the trail of possibly the biggest and most important revelation down the line. That Jon is indeed the PtwP, Azor Ahai reborn.

And there has been foreshadowing and hints.

There has been no foreshadowing or hints that these three KG would fail the Oath that has been their life's meaning, in favour of something else, no matter how important.

Besides, Jon could be PtwP or AA without the KG failing their oath. So thats not even a relevant argument.

I wonder about this too. When did she disappear? at the Tourney? because her whole family was there and Brandon didn't find out until he was on his way to Riverrun. Seems odd that they didnt notice she was gone at the tourney. After the tourney makes more sense, i'd assume Ned and robert went back to Vale, other Starks went back north and Lyanna rode off to meet Rhaegar. I'm sure Rhaegar following them to Winterfell with 2 KG wouldve attracted alot of attention.

Almost a year after the tourney, and more likely around Harrenhal or Riverrun than Winterfell.

Elia got pregnant with Aegon around the time of the tourney (just before or after, at KL) and Rhaegar had no need for Lyanna until after Aegon was born, so nine months later. At that time Elia is pronounced unable to have more kids, but Rhaegar still only has 2 heads of the dragon, so he needs another wife to make the third head. Most likely he then recalls that beautiful, brave and honourable young northern girl he crowned QoLaB at Harrenhal to honour her secret behaviour as KotLT. Possibly also her Stark=Ice symbology hits him in his quest for the Song of Ice and Fire.

She was likely around Riverrun or Harrenhal still preparing for Brandons upcomng wedding and probably never went back to Winterfell in the intervening year - why spend all that time (months and months) travelling both ways when she needs time in the south anyway to learn the relationships and codes and courtesies that she will need as the Lady of Storms End, and will need to be Riverrun for Brandon's wedding?

Also seems strange to me that Lyanna rides off with this dude she hardly knows without even telling her brothers? The how does lyanna respond to her Dad and brother getting murdered by her alleged father in law? You would think she would try to persuade both side to chill out, if she did she wasn't successful. I'm just rambling at this point. Now that i think about Lyanna was pretty irresponsible... send a raven let your family know your not getting royally raped, shoudnt be that hard. A highborn girl just can't go missing without her family raising hell, surely she knew that

They almost certainly spent some time together (not much) at Harrenhal when Rhaegar was tasked to find the KotLT and found only the shield - thats almost certainly why he crowned her.

She also clearly had something of a crush on him even before that, snifffling at Rhaegar's singing and dumping her drink over kid brother Benjen's head for teasing her about it - thats the perfect picture of a teenage girl crush and little brother interaction in just a line or two. And then he named her QoLaB.

After that, there is a few months window between Aegon's birth and the kidnapping where they may have spent more time together, licitly or illicitly. Somehow Brandon knew who to blame for the kidnapping...

As to not telling anyone - well, there is no evidence they did not. The person she would tell is Rickard, (by raven) and not only would we have no way of knowing if she did, but Rickard mysteriously has no reaction to her abduction and never mentions it once in all the furore. Curious that...

As to responding to events, its unlikely she even heard until they were all over, and at that point there is nothing she can do. Its not Rhaegar's fault her brother committed an unnecessary and pointless treason and was sentenced to death for it (rightfully), nor that her father elected to defend him in trial by battle (which he had the right). Nor that Aerys went up a huge step in his insanity with naming fire his champion and judicially murdering them, in effect.

Its especially not Rhaegar's fault if the one reason that they disappeared is to prevent this sort of idiocy happening, which it should have if Brandon was not such an incompetent moron.

And of course, by the time she finds out and its all happened, its not about her in the slightest any more anyway. She's basically been forgotten. The rebellion is all about Aerys' behavior and demands to kill Robert and Ned, nothing to do with her and Rhaegar (despite Roberts false recollections).

"Chill" got left behind a long time ago.

[Little and Less]

Amen Corbon! I agree! :cool4:

[Ser Kneeler]

No matter what they wish, or what they think the priority should be, guarding PTWP, or favouriting a child of their beloved Rhaegar over Viserys, is not defending and protecting the king, and there is no way they wouldn't be aware of that. Anyone else might be tempted to bend the oath to something that would fit them more but not these three.

But if Jon were legitimate, i.e. Rhaegar and Lyanna had been married, then Jon would have been next in line, and not Viserys.

[Khal Rhaggat - Cart King]

They had one KG versus the potentially female fetus who had 3. If that doesn't scream vows to obey Rhaegar over vows to protect the king, I don't know what does and you'll never admit the possibility of what I'm suggesting.

By that logic, the entire KG broke their vows when they left King's Landing when the followed orders to go fight against the rebellion instead of staying with Aerys.

[Ygrain]

But if Jon were legitimate, i.e. Rhaegar and Lyanna had been married, then Jon would have been next in line, and not Viserys.

Well, that's the point I'm pushing - that Jon was legitimate and therefore before Viserys, and the KG were staying due to their KG vows and not because of some special oaths to Rhaegar, which would have been dereliction of their KG duty.

[InzaghI]

But is there any textual evidence that the Targaryen dynisty followed Agnatic succession (Only inherit through the male line of decent unless all branches are exhausted)?

The Dance of Dragons established that female Targaryens couldn't rule so long as there were any male Targaryens alive. Their sons could be king even if the father wasn't a Targaryen, as long as they were raised as Targaryens. Aegon III and his brother Viserys II were sons of Rhaenyra and an unknown father.

If this was the case, the Barratheon brothers should be the next in line as you suggested becuase females can't inherit (This in itself would probably cause more power struggles though). But if this was the case, then Daney has zero right to the throne anyway. The moment Viserys was "crowed" Robert should have been the next in line and the rightful King (unless a daughter comes before a distant male cousin from a female branch)

If Steffon would have been raised as a Targaryen, rather than the heir of Storm's End, and if his sons would have been raised as Targaryens. Then yes, Robert would have been ahead of Daney in the Targaryen line of succession. There are no examples of a child/grandchild of a Targaryen who was raised as a member of another house becoming king before Robert did his best to kill all the Targaryens.

[FittleLinger]

Well, that's the point I'm pushing - that Jon was legitimate and therefore before Viserys, and the KG were staying due to their KG vows and not because of some special oaths to Rhaegar, which would have been dereliction of their KG duty.

Exactly. I'm honestly baffled by people who read the [paraphrasing] "We're king's guard. We swore a vow." as "We're king's guard. And by the way, not that it's any of your concern, on a totally different point, just throwing it out there, we had an arrangement with Rhaegar".

Wishful thinking's what it is, and I don't even know to what end...

[The Fallen]

Only the simpler readers. He's done this more than enough before for even average people to figure out that Jon is not likely dead yet. Arya is an almost identical scenario, plus you have Bran and Rickon, Davos and Brienne, just off the top of my head.

Arya's death may have fooled me, I don't remember, but none of the others did.

What GRRM does is present a scenario, then say "look with your eyes" (literary eyes that is).

He doesn't want us to think Jon is dead IMO, he wants us to look with our eyes and conclude that he may be dead but is probably not (read on and find out!) But he's also smart enough to realise that a fairly hefty section of the reading populace isn't capable of that and will think Jon is dead.

Not everyone. Not every character, and not every reader.

Kevan Lannister alludes to the suspicion he had in his final conversation IIRC, but Aegon being dead worked for people and questioning it was both pointless and dangerous, so no one did, at least publically, and in time not even privately probably. Thats how these things work.

And certainly Aegon's reappearance was mooted over a decade ago (15yrs +?) by attentive fans.

That fact that its 4 books later can be attributed to the series spreading out in the middle from a trilogy (which means we'd be through the second book by now, waiting for the third) into a seven book series.

So its not really out of the blue, for the more discerning reader.

I keep getting dragged back in. Here we go again.

First, whether readers are simple or not is irrelevant. We don't get awards for being super-sleuths. GRRM leaves us with a cliffhanger and I'm sure he would love for everyone to think Jon might be dead so that he can surprise us in the next book, similar to Davos. Not everyone will believe he's dead and that's fine. The larger point I'm making, over and over again, is that GRRM doesn't want to give away the crux of the story. So if Jon is the hero GRRM would want to throw us off the scent. All the deaths and reappearances I cited were merely examples of how he goes about it.

Which leads me to...

There has been no foreshadowing or hints that these three KG would fail the Oath that has been their life's meaning, in favour of something else, no matter how important.

Besides, Jon could be PtwP or AA without the KG failing their oath. So thats not even a relevant argument.

If you read my quote corrected you'll see that the foreshadowing I'm referring to is that Jon is the PtwP, not that there's foreshadowing that the Kingsguard would uphold a vow to Rhaegar over their KG vows. In my opinion, the impact is greater if there isn't foreshadowing in this particular case. Similar to Wyman Manderly becoming "allies" with the Boltons and Freys. There was no foreshadowing that Lord Manderly would turn against the Starks, and thus it was impactful when he besmirched the reputation of Stannis and Davos and seemingly sided with the Freys.

And lastly, "we swore a vow" is relevant because at the time that the vow was sworn (if it was sworn to Rhaegar) no one knew whether the child would be male or female.