they were protecting jon. From what? (TOJ)

[Pod The Impaler]

Seems we're back to setting priorities. The first duty to guard the king cannot be on the same level as the duty to obey orders. One of them has to have higher priority - and if guarding the king is the first duty of Kingsguard, there is no way the Prince's order totally overrode that. A captain's order does not override a standing order from a general, even though a soldier is bound to obey both, unless at conflict.

And if they were certain that this child would be king - if they trusted the man they served, that this child would be the king, and Viserys would never be ? It changes their priorities, knowing which child is supremely important and which is not. They are not machines, considering only the code they've been programmed with, and fulfilling it in only the most narrow-minded ways, without regard to the greater consequences.

We do not know what knowledge of the prophecy Rhaegar imparted to them. We also do not know what his plans and contingency arrangements were, aside from the fact that Lyanna giving birth successfully birth was so utterly important that 3 Kingsguard had to be there guarding her, equal to 3 at the Trident and 1 guarding the entire rest of the royal family that was in King's Landing.

Not saying this was a wise decision, only that this was the decision that was made.

[Ygrain]

Lazy Lion officially acknowledges that Ygrain is holding out for an overly-specific response from Martin, as his existing statement is clearly devastating to Ygrain's argument.

I suggest checking the meaning of the word devastating.

Lazy Lion also apologizes for missing the military analogy, but regrets to inform Ygrain that it is not really applicable to this discussion in its current form. If Ygrain is under the impression that so-called "standing orders" supersede orders given directly, Lazy Lion is sadly obligated to inform Ygrain that soldiers are obligated to obey orders given by their superiors even when those orders contradict standing regulations, and that this situation is not even all that uncommon.

Orders, not regulations... and funny how the military folks familiar with this particular analogy mentioned something about respecting the chain of command.

Lazy Lion would also like to raise a procedural question as to how long the participants of this conversation are expected to refer to themselves in 3rd person, or whether Ygrain was simply unaware that Lazy Lion was making a passing reference inside a statement that was still addressed to a separate individual.

People wishing to adhere to general standards of polite discussion are welcome to do so any time.

But he did confirm mine: that if Rhaegar gave the KG a specific order, they were bound by their duty to obey it, despite Viserys and his mother (Dany wasn't born yet) lacking KG protection.

He specifically states that exact point, so I'm uncertain how it continues to evade people... :dunno:

Where does he state that Viserys is king at that moment?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

With this post there are 400 of them in this topic.

And about 380 of them say the same damn thing.

[Pod The Impaler]

Lock the thread as we all agree to disagree.

On one side, the letter of the law, and the other, the spirit of the law. (Well, oath.)

[Ygrain]

And if they were certain that this child would be king - if they trusted the man they served, that this child would be the king, and Viserys would never be ? It changes their priorities, knowing which child is supremely important and which is not. They are not machines, considering only the code they've been programmed with, and fulfilling it in only the most narrow-minded ways, without regard to the greater consequences.

We do not know what knowledge of the prophecy Rhaegar imparted to them. We also do not know what his plans and contingency arrangements were, aside from the fact that Lyanna giving birth successfully birth was so utterly important that 3 Kingsguard had to be there guarding her, equal to 3 at the Trident and 1 guarding the entire rest of the royal family that was in King's Landing.

Not saying this was a wise decision, only that this was the decision that was made.

I'm not sure I'm getting your argument right - that the KG believed Lyanna's child would be the king, even though bastard-born?

[Lazy Lion]

If this is actually what happened — and I do not believe that it is — then the entire concept of what the Kingsguard actually is and what its purpose is, is a giant contradictory fraud. "Protect the king, unless a now-dead prince gave you an order, in which case fuck the king, stay to guard the prince's bastard." How does that make any sense? It completely — completely — undermines the entire basis of what they're supposed to stand for: protecting the king.

How do you reconcile this opinion with Martin's statement:

The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."

Let's again assume, for the sake of argument, that Rhaegar ordered the KG to guard the ToJ. (I don't even think that's under debate...)

Think it through: word reaches the ToJ that Aerys/Rhaegar/Aegon are dead. They have two choices: follow the orders they were given, or abandon the ToJ to protect Viserys.

Your position (as I understand it) is that they should have gone to protect Viserys. The fact that they didn't is evidence that Jon was Rhaegar's legitimate son, and therefore they were staying to protect him instead.

My position is that abandoning their position to protect Viserys on Dragonstone would be the KG saying "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else," which Martin has told us they are not allowed to do.

You and Ygrain are arguing that Rhaegar's order no longer has any force, and "doing something else" is the only action they can reasonably take. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it...but it isn't supported by either the text or Martin's statement.

Martin was asked why the 3 KG were at the ToJ instead of on Dragonstone. As you pointed out, he isn't likely to say "Because Lyanna is also the royal family" or "Because Jon was the King now." Even if you were right, he wouldn't say that.

But he also didn't say "They had their reasons," "You'll have to wait and see," or "Later books will answer that question." If Jon was the King, and the KG were staying because of his royal status, this is the kind of answer we would expect from Martin.

Instead we get "The KG have to obey their orders. Yes they protect the king and his family, but they have to obey their orders. If Rhaegar gave them an order, they would follow it. They can't decide to do something else."

If you're right, this was a rambling non-response by Martin, who suddenly forgot how to say "Wait and see."

If I'm right, this is exactly the kind of answer I would expect to see. When asked what you would expect from Martin if I was right, you never answered. I repeat that request: assuming that I'm correct, what would Martin say? Would it be similar to what he actually said, or would it be quite different?

I eagerly await a response to that last question. Not another dismissal, but an actual response.

ETA: My apologies, I completely missed your edited response below:

ETA: To answer your question, I think that to put the question to rest, GRRM should, if you're right, qualify it with something like, "Even though Viserys was the king, they still had to follow Rhaegar's orders." Which, as I pointed out in the first paragraph, makes no goddamn sense given what we know about how the vows work.

A moment ago you were arguing that Martin would not be expected to "put the matter to rest," but I'm not going to belabor that point.

More importantly, I see very little distinction between what you expect him to say and what he actually said:

Martin: "The KG protect the king, but if Rhaegar gave them an order they would follow it."

Your expectation of Martin: "The KG protect the king, but if Rhaegar gave them an order they would follow it. P.S. Viserys is the king now."

[Sordelor]

He could have said that Rhaegar ordered them to do so.

I'm probobly wrong tough.

[Ygrain]

Your expectation of Martin: "The KG protect the king, but if Rhaegar gave them an order they would follow it. P.S. Viserys is the king now."

And where did you get this? Since when does GRRM point out contradictions for anyone who missed them on their own?

We sure don't expect him to provide anything like that, but we claim that his answer is NOT an answer to the question "what the heck are the KG STILL doing down in Dorne now that Viserys is king?" The original question was off the target, and he was certainly most happy to provide an answer that addressed neither the line of succession nor the timing. Yes, Rhaegar certainly ordered the KG to stay behind when he was leaving for KL. At that time, no conflict between his order and their first duty existed as there were still the other four KG to carry out that duty.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

Lazy Lion, on 17 Nov 2013 - 2:26 PM, said:Lazy Lion, on 17 Nov 2013 - 2:26 PM, said:

Your expectation of Martin: "The KG protect the king, but if Rhaegar gave them an order they would follow it. P.S. Viserys is the king now."

No. The point is that GRRM is very good at wording his responses ambiguously. He isn't going to clear up anything unresolved in an interview or panel. He didn't say "Viserys was king the time" he didn't say "Jon was the king at the time" That would give everything away.

What we have is the text. Of course it isn't canon that Jon is legitimate and therefore king. The point is that the information we have provides compelling evidence that he was.

Aerys was dead. Rhaegar was dead. Aegon was dead. Viserys was the new king. Their duty should have been to go to Viserys and get orders from him and guard him. Unless of course Viserys was never king in the first place.

That SSM only explains why they were at the TOJ in the first place. It doesn't explain why they stayed after Rhaegar died and they should have protecting the new king Viserys.

ETA: Ninja'd by Ygrain

[Lazy Lion]

And where did you get this?

Apple Martini, on 17 Nov 2013 - 2:07 PM, said:

ETA: To answer your question, I think that to put the question to rest, GRRM should, if you're right, qualify it with something like, "Even though Viserys was the king, they still had to follow Rhaegar's orders."

That's where I got it.

We claim that his answer is NOT an answer to the question "what the heck are the KG STILL doing down in Dorne now that Viserys is king?"

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?

And I, again, claim that you are quibbling over minutia because the question and answer were not overly-specific enough to completely eradicate your personal theory. It's the "if you tilt your head and squint, I could still be right!" argument. "The remaining royal family members" clearly includes Viserys, and I for one credit Martin with not having to resort to such petty evasions.

Aerys was dead. Rhaegar was dead. Aegon was dead. Viserys was the new king. Their duty should have been to go to Viserys and get orders from him and guard him. Unless of course Viserys was never king in the first place.

Unless of course they had been ordered by Rhaegar to stay at the ToJ, and were not allowed to abandon that post.

Like Martin directly stated.

You (plural) seem to be under the impression that "protect the king" supersedes direct orders that the KG were given. If one of you would kindly link to the quote--either from Martin or the books themselves--where this is stated, I will profusely apologize for my error and stubbornness.

Until then, your central premise is based on conjecture, not evidence.

ETA: When the boar killed Robert Baratheon while Barristan watched, was Barristan following his orders or protecting the king? Were the two duties in direct conflict? If so, which did Barristan feel took greater precedence: his "first duty" to protect the king, or his duty to obey orders?

[J. Stargaryen]

The thing that seems to get lost most often in these ToJ debates, imo, is that the dialogue suggests that the KG are guarding the king. That's really the key point. The only way that is possible is if Jon is legitimate. I think sometimes too much focus is put on certain details.

All that really matters is that when Ned got there the KG were defending the king. The thought processes of the KG prior to that are less important.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

You (plural) seem to be under the impression that "protect the king" supersedes direct orders that the KG were given. If one of you would kindly link to the quote--either from Martin or the books themselves--where this is stated, I will profusely apologize for my error and stubbornness.

"The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat. The white knights were sworn to obey the king’s commands as well, to keep his secrets, counsel him when counsel was requested and keep silent when it was not, serve his pleasure and defend his name and honor. Strictly speaking, it was purely the king’s choice whether or not to extend Kingsguard protection to others, even those of royal blood."

If that's too ambiguous for you, I don't really know what else to say. It also doesn't help that Rhaegar had never been the king. Aerys seems to have extended authority over certain members of the Kingsguard to him, such that he had the authority to order the men to stay at the Tower for as long as Aerys allowed him to have it. But once Rhaegar died, along with his son and father, that authority ceased to exist. "The king is dead, long live the king." It's the saying for a reason; the passing and assumption of power is automatic and implicit. That power rested with Viserys, not with Rhaegar, once Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon were dead. Just look at the issue with Robert's will. The dead king's power was nil; the live king's was not. If it's the dead king's orders versus what the new king wants, who prevails? The live king, obviously.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

Lazy Lion, on 17 Nov 2013 - 3:03 PM, said:

Apple Martini, on 17 Nov 2013 - 2:07 PM, said:

That's where I got it.

And I, again, claim that you are quibbling over minutia because the question and answer were not overly-specific enough to completely eradicate your personal theory. It's the "if you tilt your head and squint, I could still be right!" argument. "The remaining royal family members" clearly includes Viserys, and I for one credit Martin with not having to resort to such petty evasions.

Unless of course they had been ordered by Rhaegar to stay at the ToJ, and were not allowed to abandon that post.

Like Martin directly stated.

You (plural) seem to be under the impression that "protect the king" supersedes direct orders that the KG were given. If one of you would kindly link to the quote--either from Martin or the books themselves--where this is stated, I will profusely apologize for my error and stubbornness.

Until then, your central premise is based on conjecture, not evidence.

ETA: When the boar killed Robert Baratheon while Barristan watched, was Barristan following his orders or protecting the king? Were the two duties in direct conflict? If so, which did Barristan feel took greater precedence: his "first duty" to protect the king, or his duty to obey orders?

If Viserys is king they have to now follow his orders. Not a dead man's.

[Lazy Lion]

The first duty of the Kingsguard was to defend the king from harm or threat.

Maybe you missed my belated edit.

When Robert ordered Barristan to stand aside and let him take the boar himself, did Barristan choose to protect the King or to follow his commands?

It also doesn't help that Rhaegar had never been the king. Aerys seems to have extended authority over certain members of the Kingsguard to him, such that he had the authority to order the men to stay at the Tower for as long as Aerys allowed him to have it. But once Rhaegar died, along with his son and father, that authority ceased to exist. "The king is dead, long live the king." It's the saying for a reason; the passing and assumption of power is automatic and implicit. That power rested with Viserys, not with Rhaegar, once Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon were dead. Just look at the issue with Robert's will. The dead king's power was nil; the live king's was not. If it's the dead king's orders versus what the new king wants, who prevails? The live king, obviously.

Martin specifically named Rhaegar in his response, ergo Rhaegar was recognized to have full authority to issue commands.

But more importantly, you've run into a bit of an issue: "If it's the dead king's orders versus what the new king wants, who prevails? The live king, obviously."

A live king's commands obviously supersede those of a dead king, so if Viserys had dispatched a message to the ToJ ordering the KG to Dragonstone, they would have been bound to obey.

But he didn't.

Rhaegar's orders were binding until they were fulfilled (Lyanna was no longer in the ToJ, for example) or they were overridden. If Viserys had given them orders, I have no doubt they would have followed them.

But Viserys gave them no orders.

[Ygrain]

Apple Martini, on 17 Nov 2013 - 2:07 PM, said:

That's where I got it.

And I, again, claim that you are quibbling over minutia because the question and answer were not overly-specific enough to completely eradicate your personal theory. It's the "if you tilt your head and squint, I could still be right!" argument. "The remaining royal family members" clearly includes Viserys, and I for one credit Martin with not having to resort to such petty evasions.

Unless of course they had been ordered by Rhaegar to stay at the ToJ, and were not allowed to abandon that post.

Like Martin directly stated.

You (plural) seem to be under the impression that "protect the king" supersedes direct orders that the KG were given. If one of you would kindly link to the quote--either from Martin or the books themselves--where this is stated, I will profusely apologize for my error and stubbornness.

Until then, your central premise is based on conjecture, not evidence.

ETA: When the boar killed Robert Baratheon while Barristan watched, was Barristan following his orders or protecting the king? Were the two duties in direct conflict? If so, which did Barristan feel took greater precedence: his "first duty" to protect the king, or his duty to obey orders?

1) Not what AM said, and not the context in which she said it.

2) GRRM's general answer does NOT adress the specifics of that particular situation. "Remaining family members" in NO way means automatically that one of them is the new king.

3) First duty, as per AM's quote of Barristan - and guess what? Robert is the king who, accidentally, might be the only person able to override that particular duty with his order.

[mambru]

That's how they seem to define it. Barring certain mundane circumstances, like their staff meeting, a member of the KG needs to be with the king at all times.

Seems to - that doesn't sound like certainty on your part. Can you actually point to some place in the books where it says that a Kingsguard must be with the king at all times unless specifically ordered NOT to, and that if the king is alone they MUST rush to be at his side, regardless of whether or not it's tactically senseless to do so (running to protect a King who HAS protection) and whether it endangers other members of the king's family they've been ordered to protect?

Thing is, I don't think that we can say with certainty just what the TOJ3 KG is supposed to do in the situation they were in. The KG was founded by the Targaryen dynasty on the Iron Throne - and regardless of whether the heir is Jon, Viserys or fetus Danaerys, the Targaryens have LOST the throne and aren't de facto kings anymore. The KG rules don't cover this situation.

If Jon were King, he should have a regent to give orders in his name (being a newborn). Lyanna should be that person - but the fact that the TOJ3 walked up to Ned and announced their intention to kill him IMO shows they weren't following Lyanna's orders, because she wouldn't have wanted them to do that. Rhaegar was intending to come back and had no idea he and his whole family except Jon and Viserys were about to die. He probably didn't name a regent. So what are they supposed to do? Who are they supposed to take orders from? Are they supposed to hover hopefully over Jon till he learns to talk about things other than milk and toilet training? Not practical. Are they going to name one of THEMSELVES regent over Jon? That's overreaching. The reasonable thing under the circumstances would be to take orders from Lyanna, who's the boy's mother - but they are trying to kill her brother, which shows they aren't doing what she would want. IMO, the way they acted doesn't seem like men trying to help Lyanna be regent to her unborn child in a practical manner, which would include helping her child survive - they are men following obsolete orders in a senseless fashion because that's what they promised to do, not because it would actually help that unborn child to live so that he could be king someday. IMO, then, they could be following senseless obsolete orders from Rhaegar regardless of whether Jon was the true King or not.

[Lazy Lion]

1) Not what AM said, and not the context in which she said it.

Almost exactly what AM said, and yes; the context was appropriate.

2) GRRM's general answer does NOT adress the specifics of that particular situation. "Remaining family members" in NO way means automatically that one of them is the new king.

GRRM's answer was about that particular situation. "Remaining family members" may not automatically mean that one of them is the new king, but it certainly includes Viserys. Again, if Martin was deliberately being evasive he was doing so in a way that was very out of character.

3) First duty, as per AM's quote of Barristan - and guess what? Robert is the king who, accidentally, might be the only person able to override that particular duty with his order.

And again, you're speculating.

Martin specifically said that if Rhaegar gave them an order, they would obey it. Ergo Rhaegar has the authority to give the order they were following.

And remember when Barristan took off into the Dothraki Sea after Dany because all of his other duties were superseded by physically protecting her? Neither do I...

But because I'm interested to include you in the earlier thought exercise of AM's (which I actually thought was very insightful), assuming for a moment that I'm right and the KG remained at the ToJ because they were still obeying Rhaegar's order to stay, how do you think Martin's response to the question would have been different. I've answered how I think it would differ if you were right, but I'm curious as to what you think.

Shaw: "Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?"

Martin: "_____________________________"

Fill in the blank. If I were right, what would he say?

[Ygrain]

Seems to - that doesn't sound like certainty on your part. Can you actually point to some place in the books where it says that a Kingsguard must be with the king at all times unless specifically ordered NOT to, and that if the king is alone they MUST rush to be at his side, regardless of whether or not it's tactically senseless to do so (running to protect a King who HAS protection) and whether it endangers other members of the king's family they've been ordered to protect?

When Jaime pouts about not being able to go to the Trident, he asks not just to be taken along but that another KG should stay in KL instead of him. Rhaegar needs protection more than Aerys does, yet Jaime thinks that someone needs to stay behind. Why, if it's not a must?

[Lazy Lion]

When Jaime pouts about not being able to go to the Trident, he asks not just to be taken along but that another KG should stay in KL instead of him. Rhaegar needs protection more than Aerys does, yet Jaime thinks that someone needs to stay behind. Why, if it's not a must?

Maybe the decision to leave a KG behind had already been made, and Jaime was simply complaining about being the one chosen?

Claiming that it is an ironclad rule is, again, merely speculation. Speculation is not evidence.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

When Jaime pouts about not being able to go to the Trident, he asks not just to be taken along but that another KG should stay in KL instead of him. Rhaegar needs protection more than Aerys does, yet Jaime thinks that someone needs to stay behind. Why, if it's not a must?

Yes, I thought it was pretty clear that someone among the seven had to stay with Aerys in King's Landing. All four of the remaining ones being away was never an option, or else Jaime wouldn't have asked about someone replacing him.

The day had been windy when he said farewell to Rhaegar, in the yard of the Red Keep. The prince had donned his night-black armor, with the three-headed dragon picked out in rubies on his breastplate. “Your Grace,” Jaime had pleaded, “let Darry stay to guard the king this once, or Ser Barristan. Their cloaks are as white as mine.”

Prince Rhaegar shook his head. “My royal sire fears your father more than he does our cousin Robert. He wants you close, so Lord Tywin cannot harm him. I dare not take that crutch away from him at such an hour.”

Jaime’s anger had risen up in his throat. “I am not a crutch. I am a knight of the Kingsguard.”

“Then guard the king,” Ser Jon Darry snapped at him. “When you donned that cloak, you promised to obey.”

A couple of things.

1. This suggests that at least one of them had to stay with the king. All four of them couldn't have gone, because then none of them would have been with Aerys.

1a. The use of "this once" makes it seem like this could be a recurring event, where the men take turns going off to do things for the war effort, but one always stays behind. It's not a one-time thing.

2. Jaime says he's a Kingsguard and Darry says, "Then guard the king." The first duty, obviously.