they were protecting jon. From what? (TOJ)

[Lonin]

If somebody is referred to as an usurper, it means that he has taken by force something that rightfully belongs to somebody else, and you acknowledge the rightful claim of the previous owner, not the new one.

That's not exactly correct. History is full of usurpers that founded a new dynasty. You can call Robert Baratheon a usurper and still acknowledge him as king. It does not relate to how you acknowledge the claim. Obviously, supporters would tend not to use 'usurper' because of its derogatory tone. Its a fact that Robert is the king and gained his kingdom by usurpation. Granted on this forum most people see 'usurp' as much more of a pejorative than I do - I use it as a description of how the ruler gained his throne.

[Jory Cassel]

It's curious that the brother of the kidnapped and raped victim thinks one of her jailors "the finest knight that ever lived", or that he draws comparisons between the rapist and her betrothed in favour of the rapist... unless he knows that there was no rape involved.

As for Lyanna's agenda: first and foremost, she didn't start a war, Aerys did by demanding that Jon Arryn hands him over the heads of Ned and Robert on a silver platter. Secondly, being the one and only mistress of a loved person is a bit different than being married for life to an unloved whoreman, and thirdly, there is the whole issue of the Targaryen polygamy that would actually allow Lyanna to be with Rhaegar without cheating.

Preposterous, how dare you bring up a reasonable point that does not paint Rhaegar as an utter scumbag? :P

[El Guapo]

It's curious that the brother of the kidnapped and raped victim thinks one of her jailors "the finest knight that ever lived", or that he draws comparisons between the rapist and her betrothed in favour of the rapist... unless he knows that there was no rape involved.

Ned also thought that Joffrey would be a wonderful husband for his daughter. Just sayin'

[Wylla Manderly]

Ned also thought that Joffrey would be a wonderful husband for his daughter. Just sayin'

Where did he say or think this. The engagement between Sansa and Joffrey was proposed by Robert. Ned couldn't say no to this as Robert was not only his friend but also his king. And Ned was more than willing to break the engagement off when he planned to go back to Winterfell.

[WhiteOwl18]

If somebody is referred to as an usurper, it means that he has taken by force something that rightfully belongs to somebody else, and you acknowledge the rightful claim of the previous owner, not the new one.

Thank you! That is exactly what I was trying to say.

[Ygrain]

That's not exactly correct. History is full of usurpers that founded a new dynasty. You can call Robert Baratheon a usurper and still acknowledge him as king. It does not relate to how you acknowledge the claim. Obviously, supporters would tend not to use 'usurper' because of its derogatory tone. Its a fact that Robert is the king and gained his kingdom by usurpation. Granted on this forum most people see 'usurp' as much more of a pejorative than I do - I use it as a description of how the ruler gained his throne.

Usurp: to take and keep (something, such as power) in a forceful or violent way and especially without the right to do so (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp?show=0&t=1384202458)

The three KG may see Robert as the one whose ass is currently polishing the IT but they do not acknowledge him for a rightful king, because the rightful claim is with the Targaryens. If they considered the Targ dynasty done, their own KG status would be void; yet, they emphasize both their loyalty and their status as KG, neither of which makes sense if they didn't think that the Targ cause was worth fighting for.

I beg your pardon. I used the wrong word. I meant to say, "If the KG at TOJ had the sense God gave a pig, they wouldn't need a crystal ball to know that many honorable people aren't like them in being willing to do atrocious things just because a king told them to...the successful REBELLION proves that."

I fail to grasp it? How upsetting. Let me think it over and see where I've gone wrong. I'll glance at the awoiaf to refresh my memory.

But how could that be? Lord Arryn was known as the soul of honor. And as Lord Paramount he had fealty to the king! Surely his pseudomedieval honor therefore obliged him to hand over those two boys he raised from childhood. Yeah, the king will almost certainly put those two boys to death unjustly without a fair trial. But since the king ordered it, Jon would be totally guiltless in handing over innocent young Ned and Robert to the king to be killed, in your view. So why didn't he? Is it because Arryn was vilely dishonorable? I tend to think it's because the Westerosi code of honor allows you to disobey your king - and indeed, rebel and overthrow him - when he demands something of you that is too vile and dishonorable to give him. Honorable Arryn chose to flip off the king for the sake of Ned and Robert - and they weren't even his kin. So, I do think I grasp some things about Westerosi honor.

The fact that you say it once again does not prove it is so. I say that's hairsplitting. If I know where an innocent person is hidden that someone wants to kill, and I tell where that person is hidden, I share in the guilt of his death even if I didn't kill him with my own hands. I doubt Ned would see it any differently. He angrily told Robert to his face that killing Rhaenys and Aegon was murder, just because they were children - and they weren't even his kin. When the baby in question is his own nephew, the act would be even more dishonorable. Stannis, that guy who is obsessive-compulsive about honor, weighed the loyalty he owed to his king and his lord and the loyalty he owed his brother as his kin - and decided that the dishonor of fighting against his own blood was worse than the dishonor of rebelling against his king.

Because Ned is renowned for never ever being dumb, and having a keen grasp on how acting according to an oversimplified code of honor in a complex situation can lead you to doing HUGE harm to what you honor if you're not careful and flexible enough.

Oh yeah...it was just a flesh wound...he could still BITE!

But of course that Jon Arryn defied the order - throughout the history, people have always deviated from what they were supposed to do, mostly for gain or family ties - which, accidentaly, is exactly what triggered the Rebellion. Love is the death of duty. Jon Arryn loved his wards (and the fact that Aerys offed his heir didn't exactly help), Hoster had a gain in it, and on the Rebellion went.Sure. But let me give you a primary source:

“It is every man’s duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false,” Stannis declared in a tone that brooked no argument.

A desperate folly took hold of Davos, a recklessness akin to madness. “As you remained loyal to King Aerys when your brother raised his banners?” he blurted.

...

"Aerys, If you only knew... that was a hard choosing. My blood or my liege. My brother or my king.”

Now show me that part where the code of honour allows to disobey the king.

[Ygrain]

Ned also thought that Joffrey would be a wonderful husband for his daughter. Just sayin'

Where did he say or think this. The engagement between Sansa and Joffrey was proposed by Robert. Ned couldn't say no to this as Robert was not only his friend but also his king. And Ned was more than willing to break the engagement off when he planned to go back to Winterfell.

What Wylla says.

[Tywin Manderly]

In medieval societies they didn't know an unborn child existed while it was still in the zygote stage, and probably not for weeks afterwards.

That's why in my country there was and still is a mandatory regency in the event that the male ruler dies without legitimate issue but has a consort who could be carrying an heir.

[Djinn]

They didn't know that Aerys was not protected! As far as they knew, there were others KG with him. By the time they knew he was dead, it was too late to do anything about it!

But it wasn't to late to pick Rhaegar's kid and bolted to a more defensible location or even to cross the sea. The TOJ is the place of the didn't know: R+L didn't know about the deaths of Brandon and Rickard, they didn't know about the beginning of the rebelion, they didn't know how crazy Aerys was, they didn't know about the attack on KL, they didn't know about the aproaching Northern army. In that place, nothing is know untill it's to late, aparentely.

Faster still doesn't mean instant, we are talking about the distance of several hundred miles. Ned's army was rushing towards KL from Trident and there is no telling who and how had the means/knowledge to inform ToJ after Rhaegar's death. If you take into consideration that Dany was conceived before Rhaegar left for the Trident (Darry was present), evacuated shortly prior the Sack and born on Dragonstone 9 months later, that means that the time span between Rhaegar's departure for the Trident and the Sack itself was only a few weeks and the time between the Trident and the Sack even less. It's actually quite possible that the news of the Trident arrived only together with the news of the Sack. - Oh, and rebel armies approaching Storms' End were still a couple hundred miles away.

Ned does not mention a maester but he does refer to at least one other person present other than HR ("they had found him" holding Lyanna's body). I don't know how long it takes to breed and train ravens to carry messages, so I dare not guess if they could establish a rookery within the time they had available. I rather suspect they didn't and relied on a friendly location (Starfall) to supply the news. Whatever the means was, though, they did know, the way they respond to Ned shows this.

Ned's army marches faster that a lone KG. If the news of Trident and Sack arrive at same time at TOJ, Hightower could've still ride to SE to rally the Tyrell army in defense of Jon, but no, they stay put. If the news arrive after SE, they could still take of with Jon to Starfall or Tor to take a ship to a more secure location. Standing ground to a army is folly. In fact, the KG standing the ground there oddly resembles Courtnay Penrose and Blackfish on the sieges of SE and RR.

''They'' could've been a midwife or servant. Since not all Lords have the services of a Maester, a Tower in the middle of nowhere with one would draw attention, and considering that Oberyn would not have rejoiced at his sister being publicly humiliated and with them being in Dorne, well...it seems less likely that there was a Maester. The way they responded to Ned could've been just men making empty boasts after the facts.

[mambru]

But of course that Jon Arryn defied the order - throughout the history, people have always deviated from what they were supposed to do, mostly for gain or family ties - which, accidentaly, is exactly what triggered the Rebellion. Love is the death of duty. Jon Arryn loved his wards (and the fact that Aerys offed his heir didn't exactly help), Hoster had a gain in it, and on the Rebellion went.Sure. But let me give you a primary source:

“It is every man’s duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false,” Stannis declared in a tone that brooked no argument.

A desperate folly took hold of Davos, a recklessness akin to madness. “As you remained loyal to King Aerys when your brother raised his banners?” he blurted.

...

"Aerys, If you only knew... that was a hard choosing. My blood or my liege. My brother or my king.”

Now show me that part where the code of honour allows to disobey the king.

Um...what Stannis actually did? He's talking about duty. There's duty to your king and lord in the Westerosi honor code, but it doesn't end there. You have duty to your family. You have duty to your guest. You have duty - if you're an idealistic, knightly sort - to protect the innocent and helpless, or at least make an effort not to actively harm them. ALL these duties are honorable, not just the duty to the king. And if those duties conflict - if the king tells you to kill your family, for example - then honor ceases to be black and white and becomes shades of gray. When Ned saw Rhaenys and Aegon slaughtered on the floor, he called it murder and thought it was dishonor to have killed them even though Robert approved of it. If only honor toward your king mattered (as you say) then Ned should have been perfectly okay with that dead baby on the throne room floor if Robert was okay with it. After all, Ned did not love those dead children - he didn't even know them. Why should he care? But he DID care, because he felt that there are some things too vile for even a king's approval to make them honorable.

Whatever, though. I think in this case it doesn't matter whether it's honor or love that causes a man to disobey a king. The fact is, by your own admission, love - love of your family, love of your friend, love of the children you raised - can cause even honorable men to turn against their lieges. Honorable men like Jon Arryn. Honorable men like Ned. Even stick-up-the-ass honorable men like Stannis. The KG at TOJ know that, if they haven't been lobotomized. So therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to try to appeal to Honorable Ned's love of his family - Lyanna - to try to save Jon. It's not at all farfetched to think that Ned actually loves Lyanna enough to do it. Certainly, it was worth asking. But they didn't. Their narrow, rigid KG version of honor was more important to them than actually trying to save Jon in a way that would work. To me that seems like more of a toxic form of narcissism than real goodness.

[Pingslayer]

1. It does if you actually read between the lines of what's being said.

1. If we read between the lines, it is more likely that they were trusting Willem Darry to protect Viserys.

"Kingsguard does not flee" This shows why the KGs were not going to Dragonstone.

"Ser Willem is a good man and true" It is likely that they thought he was probably better than a KG. They knew that Aerys was killed by Jaime and from this they thought that it was not even safe for a king to be protected by a KG. Since they know the goodness of Willem, they thought Viserys was going to be safer, and they could abide Rhaegar's orders.

From the book we can easily deduce that Rhaegar thought he was going to win and never once imagined that he and Aegon were going to die. He was just too obsessed with Lyanna and TPTWP stuff. So Rhaegar, who was sure that he would be able to come back, could have said to KGs like "no matter what happens, you should protect Lyanna". This pretty much binds the KGs to stay in the TOJ to their end.

Nonsense. Why should he bother, and how should he do so without compromising the location?

Basically, the whole ToJ logic boils down to a simple observation:

After the Sack, Hightower, Whent and Dayne are the only Targaryen KG who are still available. If Viserys is king, though, and they place some other duty above protecting him, they are oathbreakers. If they are not oathbreakers, then Viserys is not king, someone else is, who is at ToJ. Is there a way for Jon to be king? Yes, being legit. How can Jon be legit? By Aerys' decree or by Rhaegar's marriage. No other option left.

Edited for clarity.

It's more of a nonsense that Rhaegar never told the KGs that he was taking Selmy and Darry.

The reason why they they could not leave TOJ boils down to my point above.

[Pingslayer]

:rolleyes:

Thanks. My bad.

[Pingslayer]

Even if Jon was not trueborn, the Kingsguard could be at TOJ for these reasons:

1. The KGs were bound to Rhaegar's command. To protect his lady love no matter what.

2. This.

Ned would be as aware of that as anyone else, and I doubt most people would consider you free of the taint of kinslaying if you just hand your helpless newborn relative to someone you know will kill him instead of actually doing it yourself.

But the fact is that Ned DID harbor the heir of his greatest enemy, after surviving the KG trying to kill him - to kill the best chance that heir has for survival. Ned is not following the same code the KG are. The Kingsguard are following the terms of a vow that does not follow the usual honor code that most honorable men in Westeros follow - in fact, that vow sometimes requires them to act in a way that any sincere knight would consider DISHONORABLE...like stand idly by while a woman is mistreated and raped, or while innocent people are being burned to death in front of them, then defend to the death the man who did those things. Presumably, if the king had ordered one of those noble KG at the TOJ to cut off his rebellious father's head, they would have thought they were compelled to do so under the terms of their vow.

Jaime can't have been the only man in the KG who agonized over the fact that his vow - which was supposed to make the KG the epitome of honorable men - was making him act like a thug aiding and abetting a sadistic maniac in his crimes. If the KG at the TOJ didn't realize that the same thing had happened to them - didn't realize that the rigid obedience to the terms of their vow could cause them to behave in such a horrible way that an ordinary honorable man like Ned is their superior in honor, not their equal - then they weren't honorable saints, but men shutting their eyes to an unpleasant truth so that they could avoid feelings of guilt as they made themselves accomplices of a criminal. And if they felt they couldn't bend the letter of their last orders from Rhaegar even to try to obey the spirit of those last orders - SAVE THE BABY'S LIFE - then they were bloody clowns.

See, to me it looks like this: Ned comes riding up to the TOJ with his friends. Arthur Dayne says to his buddies, "See, here comes Ned Stark, an honorable man, as Lyanna has told us, and as can be seen by the fact that he comes forward to talk to us like a gentleman instead of peppering our exposed faces with arrows at a distance to see if he can raise the odds still further in his favor. Now, some might say that the best way to fulfil our mission to protect Rhaegar's infant is to try to appeal to this honorable man's sense of family to protect the child. The country has fallen to the Usurper. Even if one of us survives fighting Ned and his men, that one of us is unlikely to escape to a safe country while burdened with a newborn child and a mother who's just given birth - he'd likely get the precious child and himself killed, trying. Some would say that asking this child's honorable uncle to hide and raise this child is the best chance for his survival, and someday his mother or one of us can tell him who he is so that he may stake his claim. Some would say Lyanna would certainly prefer us to NEGOTIATE with her beloved brother rather than kill him. Some might even say that keeping the baby alive by dealing with his uncle would probably be what Rhaegar would have wanted, rather than us trying to kill the uncle - the only man in that approaching party with a reason to spare the baby - and risking the baby's life on a bet that we can be sure not one of Ned's men stays alive to kill the baby AND that one of us will survive unwounded and still capable of baby-smuggling. Well, I say screw 'em. We aren't here to think for ourselves and decide what the prince would have wanted us to do in these circumstances. We're here to obey to the letter the last orders he gave us when he was sure he would win the battle and return, even though they don't make any sense now! Charge, my friends, and maybe we can kill Lyanna's brother under her window where she can watch!"

The rest of the KG: "YOLO!"

That doesn't look like a high tragedy to me; that looks like gory, stomach-turning farce.

Plus, they knew that Viserys at least had some honest protection by Willem

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

Pingslayer, on 11 Nov 2013 - 7:52 PM, said:

1. If we read between the lines, it is more likely that they were trusting Willem Darry to protect Viserys.

"Kingsguard does not flee" This shows why the KGs were not going to Dragonstone.

"Ser Willem is a good man and true" It is likely that they thought he was probably better than a KG. They knew that Aerys was killed by Jaime and from this they thought that it was not even safe for a king to be protected by a KG. Since they know the goodness of Willem, they thought Viserys was going to be safer, and they could abide Rhaegar's orders.

From the book we can easily deduce that Rhaegar thought he was going to win and never once imagined that he and Aegon were going to die. He was just too obsessed with Lyanna and TPTWP stuff. So Rhaegar, who was sure that he would be able to come back, could have said to KGs like "no matter what happens, you should protect Lyanna". This pretty much binds the KGs to stay in the TOJ to their end.

It's more of a nonsense that Rhaegar never told the KGs that he was taking Selmy and Darry.

The reason why they they could not leave TOJ boils down to my point above.

They most like did trust Willem Darry to protect Viserys. That doesn't change the fact that he wasn't a KG and there must be a KG with the king. If Viserys was the king, they would have had to have at least one KG protecting him. Yet, all three of them stayed with Jon and died trying to keep him. It doesn't make sense leaving the king without a KG to keep three on a bastard and a mistress. The primary duty is to protect the king the rest of the family comes second. This has been pointed out so many times! :bang:

I really think you just hate the possibility of Jon becoming king so much that you're purposely ignoring the evidence. Of course all we're debating is whether or not Jon is the legitimate Targaryen heir. Jon being the trueborn son of Rhaegar does not mean he will be on the IT at the series. It's merely one of many possibilities.

[Addam of Hull]

"Ser Willem is a good man and true" It is likely that they thought he was probably better than a KG.

Yeah, there's no way any member of the Kingsguard believed that. If other people can do a better job of guarding the King than the Kingsguard, it's officially a defunct, purposeless institution. I can accept that they may have trusted him to guard Viserys, but not this.

[Pingslayer]

They most like did trust Willem Darry to protect Viserys. That doesn't change the fact that he wasn't a KG and there must be a KG with the king. If Viserys was the king, they would have had to have at least one KG protecting him. Yet, all three of them stayed with Jon and died trying to keep him. It doesn't make sense leaving the king without a KG to keep three on a bastard and a mistress. The primary duty is to protect the king the rest of the family comes second. This has been pointed out so many times! :bang:

Basically, when Jaime killed Aerys, the oath of protecting the king was turned upside down. The KGs came to realize that a king being with KG posed even more danger and didn't even trust one another. They thought instead of letting one go to protect Viserys, it would be better to trust Willem Darry, whom they all know is very honourable, since one of the KG could possibly end up killing Viserys or defect to Robert, like Barristan.

I'm saying this again.

I quoted another possibility in my previous post. Are you overlooking that?

[Ser Pollo Loco]

Basically, when Jaime killed Aerys, the oath of protecting the king was turned upside down. The KGs came to realize that a king being with KG posed even more danger and didn't even trust one another. They thought instead of letting one go to protect Viserys, it would be better to trust Willem Darry, whom they all know is very honourable, since one of the KG could possibly end up killing Viserys or defect to Robert, like Barristan.

I'm saying this again.

I quoted another possibility in my previous post. Are you overlooking that?

so thats why they assert that 1) they swore a vow and 2) Darry is not one of them, its because they don't trust each other and they don't believe in their vow any more?

Thematically speaking, i think it's funny that the chapter following (the "king") Viseryes dying (where Khal Drogo kills him with the help of three blood riders) has"three men in white cloaks, he (Eddard) thought, remembering, and a strange chill went through him" on the first page

[BitsOfBrains]

It's curious that the brother of the kidnapped and raped victim thinks one of her jailors "the finest knight that ever lived", or that he draws comparisons between the rapist and her betrothed in favour of the rapist... unless he knows that there was no rape involved.

*CUT*

Well keep in mind what Ned thinks a great knight should be.

1. Skill at arms. These guys could clearly throw down, but that doesn't make them good guys.

2. Honor. Being willing to die for a lost cause is "honorable".

3. Loyalty. They all knew Arys was a complete piece, yet they held to their vows because they were loyal. In a twisted way being loyal to a complete POS is in itself a greater feat of loyalty. Its easy to be loyal to a good guy, but it a takes some serious loyalty to be the unswerving fist of a scumbag.

Neds idea of what makes a "fine knight" is an unquestioning killing machine.

Doesn't mean they aren't unquestioning killing machines in service to a rapist and kidnapper.

Its like when a complete jerkass has a really nice car or bike.

Even though said car or bike is helping spread d-baggery across the land, doesn't mean its not one of the finest rides.

[tydides]

I think what he means is this:

Ned would not have killed Lyanna, his sister, or Jon, his nephew.

His companions would have followed his wishes.

Why then did the KG and the northmen fight? Neither wants to hurt Lyanna and Jon, and I bet Ned would have protected his sister-hidden her at Winterfell, Greywater Watch, or with the Northern Mountain Clans, or even sent her to Essos, and the KG could have stayed with them

I just think rhaegar didnt think everything through. Also, nice picture

[Beathag]

Likely because, despite being her sister, Ned was also one of the primary instigators in the rebellion and a traitor to the crown as a result. You and I know that Ned wouldn't harm Jon, but Ser Gerold Hightower, Ser Arthur Dayne, and Ser Oswell Whent don't know that for certain.

Yes. And Robert might have killed Jon --- if L + R = Jon is true.