Thoughts on Jaime and Kingslaying

[alexandral]

This is something that always puzzled me : why is everyone , literally everyone hates Jaime for what he did to king Aerys II? I have just re-read some Brienne's chapters where she meets some ordinary people and they say things like: "Jaime Lannister is an evil Kingslayer". Doesn't this seem to be a little unfair? I mean, killing the Mad King that was about to burn up the city was a good thing to do?



However, the cause-effect chain is quite interesting, and I think the answer for the universtal hate of Jaime is actually in the way the events unfolded. Two paragraphs below are taken from Wiki of Ice and Fire and contain the short synopsis of the events:

"Lord Tywin Lannister, who had remained neutral until the Battle of the Trident, marched to the gates of King's Landing with a force of 12, 000 men, claiming loyalty to Aerys II and asking to be let in. Aerys favored the advice of Grand Maester Pycelle over that of his spymaster Varys and opened the gates of the city. The Lannister forces then began to sack the city in Robert's name. Aerys ordered his most recent Hand, the pyromancer Rossart, to ignite the wildfire caches throughout the city, saying, "Let him [Robert] be king over charred bones and cooked meat. Let him be the king of ashes."

Aerys then ordered Jaime Lannister, one of his Kingsguard and Tywin's own son, to kill his father. Instead, Jaime slew Lord Rossart and then murdered Aerys himself on the Iron Throne. Tywin sent his knights Ser Gregor Clegane and Ser Amory Lorch to deal with the rest of the royal family, securing the throne for Robert and proving that House Lannister had forsaken the Targaryens forever. Gregor killed the baby crown prince Aegon Targaryen while his mother watched, and then proceeded to rape and murder Princess Elia herself. Amory dragged princess Rhaenys from under her father's bed and killed her. When Eddard Stark arrived shortly thereafter, he found Jaime seated on the Iron Throne and Aerys's corpse slumped below it. Tywin Lannister presented the bodies of Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys as tokens of his fealty, laid out beneath the Iron Throne. The resulting argument led to Eddard Stark riding out alone to finish the war in the south. "

From this, Jaime's killing of the Mad King can be viewed as a part of the bigger betrayal by Lord Tywin. This resulted in sack of King's Landing: babies murdered, women raped, etc. So I think it is easy to understand that the onlookers take the event as a whole, and instead of dividing it into "who did what" have a negative perception of the event. From what we know of Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch, the whole city must have suffered rapes and killings. Even more, King Aerys order to burn the city was issued after the sacking of the city already started, so in the cause-event chain, the sacking of the city is the beginning of everything. But this I think is less relevant - not many people seem to know that Aerys intended to burn the city (but unfortunately this is the main argument for Jaime's actions).

As to Jaime, I think he did the right thing by killing Aerys and his pyromancer. Some can argue that there was a chance for Jaime to imprison the Mad King, but if this would have happened, the King Arys would have been killed by Ser Gregor only a little later. There was no way for the King to be out of this alive.

But is Jaime clear of any blame for the Sack of King's Landing? I don't think so. He was, after all, an accessory, as Jaime's murder of the Mad King was an integral part of the events. And in the mind of ordinary people he was the son of Lord Tywin , the man behind the Sack.

What I am trying to say is that whatever I might think of killing the mad King Aerys II (kill him, I say :D) , the events are much more complex than that and the King's death is viewed in people's mind as a part of the whole "rape and kill" event that took place in King's Landing. Which, obviously, was horrific..

In particular, it is clear why Ned Stark was so angry with Jaime: he sees Jaime on the Iron Throne, the King dead. It is not clear if the bodies of the family were already laid out in the front of the Iron Throne, but even if they were not, they would be shortly later... Ned , obviously, was not pleased with this (in fact, the killing of the Royal family is something that will haunt him for years) and the argument between him and Lannisters resulted from here.

It is not clear if painting everyone with the same brush is the right thing to do, but it is a natural thing that happens so easily. Plus, purely objectively, Jaime was an accomplice of Lord Tywin (he was there, he killed the King, he did nothing to stop other atrocities), and by proxy, an accomplice of Ser Gregor and Amory Lorch.

Hmm, everything seems so complex! In short, I think poor Jaime is painted with the same brush as Lord Tywin here, and it is interesting that at the end, he is maimed and tortured by his father's people, the same people that did the Sack of King's Landing. The circle is completed. Jaime has paid the price - his right hand, the same hand that killed the Mad King

Comments

[geeklee.livejournal.com]

jaime is the kingslayer, whether his reasons are justified or not. and i believe that in the world of westeros, the people believe a knight of the kingsguard must protect the king, not kill him.

that is why he is so hated. if he had been part of the opposing force or just plainly, not a member of the king's inner circle, things would probably be seen differently.

i think jaime's situation is a perfect example of what grrm is trying to tell us. things aren't clear cut. things aren't always what they seem and people do bad things for good reasons and good things for bad reasons.

i also don't think jaime lost his hand as payment for killing the king. that would be too "good triumphs over evil". i think he lost his hand to force him to see things differently. had he kept his hand, i doubt his character would change as greatly as we are seeing. however, the people of westeros may see it as justice served.

but until he does something equally as shocking, (and i have no doubt that he will!) he will be called kingslayer by the people. the people don't know how evil aerys was. only that he was killed by his guard. isn't brutus forever known for killing caeser?

btw, i just finished reading a chapter where victarion battles. yes, i can see all the swash buckling you described in your last post. i agree, they do seem very interesting.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

jaime is the kingslayer, whether his reasons are justified or not. and i believe that in the world of westeros, the people believe a knight of the kingsguard must protect the king, not kill him.

I agree, but I think this is a bit unfair, because this WAS the right thing. But I loved your comparison with Brutus - Caesar did many bad things, but Brutus still is the household name for an evil person! It is just the way it is.


i think jaime's situation is a perfect example of what grrm is trying to tell us. things aren't clear cut. things aren't always what they seem and people do bad things for good reasons and good things for bad reasons.

Yes, I agree, and also GRRM show us how good things that do do not necessarily end up well? For example, In Jaime/King Aerys's case: Rhaegar meant to do some reforms (most likely, take the throne from Aerys) after he is back from the battle. For Westeros as the whole this would have been THE BEST, not the civil war, dead children and raped women.

i also don't think jaime lost his hand as payment for killing the king. that would be too "good triumphs over evil". i think he lost his hand to force him to see things differently. had he kept his hand, i doubt his character would change as greatly as we are seeing. however, the people of westeros may see it as justice served.

I don't see it as "payment", just one of those cruel jokes of fate that Martin is so fond of. Don't you think the symmetry is interesting? I am sure he (Martin) did it on purpose.

but until he does something equally as shocking, he will be called kingslayer by the people. the people don't know how evil aerys was.

The thing is, the people of Westeros probably didn't care too much when and if Ned's father was burned alive. Which is another typical thing.

btw, i just finished reading a chapter where victarion battles. yes, i can see all the swash buckling you described in your last post. i agree, they do seem very interesting.

Heeeeeeeee! I am so so glad you are interested too. Yes, the sea battles!!

[langoustes.livejournal.com]

Obviously killing the crazy king was a good thing overall. Since Jaime is the Kingslayer he gets the blame for everyone else who died as well, so even though Clegane and Amory were the ones killing innocent children and raping women (in Clegane's case), Jaime is seen as complicit in those crimes as well.

Also, Jaime is a complete ass who shows no compassion. He almost gleefully pushes a 7-yr-old out of a tower. No wonder people hate him. And let's not forget the incest.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Yes, i think he gets the blame for everything.

Also, Jaime is a complete ass who shows no compassion. He almost gleefully pushes a 7-yr-old out of a tower. No wonder people hate him. And let's not forget the incest.

Yes, but the ordinary people of Westeros know nothing about any of this.

It is interesting, though, that they (the ordinary people) don't seem to be that bothered with Ned's father being burned alive. Which is typical of class divide, really.

[langoustes.livejournal.com]

True about the tower, but many of the common people believe (or at least repeat) the incest "rumor". I think they were willing to tolerate Jaime while Robert was in power, but, after his death and the obvious power plays by the entire Lannister clan, commoners seem to be over it.

[raikune.livejournal.com]

Many people hold Jaime in contempt/hate him not only because he killed a king but because he's an oathbreaker, he went against his sacred vows as a knight of the Kingsguard. Oaths and oathbreaking are taken seriously in Westeros...off the top of my head, people who sneer at Jaime for being an oathbreaker are Ned, Barristan, Brienne...and think of the Night's Watch, and their penalty for desertion....

Whenther killing Aerys was the right thing or not doesn't matter, Jaime went against his vows and because of that he's now a symbol for treachery, in the eyes of some. Think of Barristan's reaction when he was told that Jaime would be Lord Commander of the Kingsguard. How he says that Jaime 'profaned his blade with the blood of the king he swore to protect.'

I'm not saying it wasn't a bad thing Aerys died, in fact Jaime did the world a favor by killing him, but ahh, he broke his sacred vows...something which he's aware of and eats away at him, so much so that he tries to restore some of his honor by giving Brienne the sword Oathkeeper...in a way, he wants Brienne to be the knight he never could be.

[langoustes.livejournal.com]

That's a very good point. I hadn't really thought about the oath-breaking thing. Once a traitor always a traitor?

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I agree, a lot Jaime's "guilt" is all about oath-breaking. But isn't more honourable to break some vows than to keep them? One of my friends has a lovey post where it is argued that some vows are not meant to keep.

Westeros is so much about the way things look, not about the way things are. It is just what Sandor Clegane keeps saying - there are no true knights, everyone is has done something that is not honourable, it is impossible not to! I think this is one of the main themes for Martin - that things are not the way they seems, including the vows, that there some vows that have to be broken and that you have to have your personal mortal compass, not blindly rely of your vows.

But yes, Brienne is one true knight, I wonder where Martin is going to go with this idea. Will she ever be put in in a situation where she has to break her vows. One my friends is afraid that at the end of A feast for Crows she is about to make an oath to Catlyn that she will kill Jaime. Killing Jaime just because of an oath won't be right, will it?

[corlee1289.livejournal.com]

I finished marathoning through the entire series in one setting yesterday!!

YAAAY~!

*slumps in front of the PC*

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

YAY!!!!!!!!!! Did you like it?

[kem-viva.livejournal.com]

I agree with the people who said that Jaime is disliked by the majority of Westeros for his oathbreaking. The oaths are like the traditional rules of Westeros so its more than just switching sides in a war, it is a deep part of their cultural establishment. Knights of the Kingsguard are fabled, they are remembered in song and story. As we know many other knights in the kingsguard have broken their vows, but what Jaime did went so far beyond, I mean his one job was to protect the King, and instead he killed him. I don't think people like Ned Stark or the majority of Westeros care if killing Aerys was right, they are just going to judge him as an oathbreaker and dislike him for it. Most people don't know the city was going to burn either because Jaime kept that oath of keeping the King's secrets (*sigh* oh Jaime).

I agree with your point about Tywin though, Jaime is probably seen to be a part of that simply by being Tywins son. I think that is what bothers Jaime the most of everything because he did like Rhaegar and I don't think he wanted his family killed like that even if technically it almost had to happen in Roberts eyes because of his Targ hate. I believe Jaime when he said he didn't know they were killing Elia and the children.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I think those notions of oath-keeping is one of the things that is keeping the society back. in Westeros :D But in all seriousness, I get it. Even in the current age and time the oath-breakers (example: double-spies) are not liked, even in the country they are betrayed their own country for. Usually everyone thinks they are triple-spies, or something like this.

Yes, it becomes clear that Jaime didn't think Elia and children would be killed this way. I think Robert wanted the Royal family dead, but I am not sure if he would have ordered the killing openly . I believe this was Lord Tywin's initiative: Tywin took it all upon himself to order the killing, thus freed Ribert from the responsibility but gave Robert what he wanted. This was another clever but horrible act from Lord Tywin.

[kem-viva.livejournal.com]

The theme of oaths, oathbreaking, and the traditional rules of Westeros is one of my favorite themes in the series. It is really interesting to see what the people of Westeros are okay with and what they are not. It is just so full of hypocracy, and it seems like only a few characters, such as Jaime, recognize that.

For instance the Red Wedding broke the guest right rule in a way as horrible as Jaime's kingslaying, it is interesting to see if that act is as universally scorned. Will the Frey's have an even worse reputation?

And the Kingsguard under Joff and Cersei is just awful really, it would be interesting to see what is thought of them outside the few perspectives we get. Are they still seen as this gold standard they used to? And were those previous generations of Kingsguards really that much better? Or is it just totally okay to be awful or compliant with awful actions if the King orders them/is okay with them? The way it appears the last is true, which is pretty sad tbh. I always feel like Jaime, even before killing Aerys, had every right to be disillusioned by the Kingsguard. The oaths are almost a shield they use so they don't have to question the morality of what they or the King is doing.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

These are my favourite themes too, This is why I like Jaime, brienne and Sandor so much, they all are parts of the same puzzle: oaths, knights, oath-breaking.

And yes, I also don't think too many characters are honest (not even with themselves), and all of the honest ones are my personal favourites (although may be they are not the best people in Westeros): Tyrion, Jaime, Brienne, Sandor.

For instance the Red Wedding broke the guest right rule in a way as horrible as Jaime's kingslaying, it is interesting to see if that act is as universally scorned. Will the Frey's have an even worse reputation?

I think frey's reputation was even worse, even to start with. Like Cat's father would never ever touch them with a barge pole. And the other lords too. This is why I am so angry with Robb- he knew who is messing with!!!

And were those previous generations of Kingsguards really that much better?

This is a very good question. I am impatiently awaiting for Baristan Selmy's POV. I want to find something there that will explain why he was just standing by when people were burned alive!!!
My pet theory is that Barristan loved Aerys II (in that,/I> way or some other way, he was the one to rescue the King from Duskendale rebellion) , but I want an explanation!

And the Kingsguard under Joff and Cersei is just awful really, it would be interesting to see what is thought of them outside the few perspectives we get.

We have Arys Oakheart's POV (he was one of the guys beating Sansa), but I do dislike him so , even in his POV. He is so.. weak.

[geeklee.livejournal.com]

The theme of oaths, oathbreaking, and the traditional rules of Westeros is one of my favorite themes in the series

i've been thinking about the oaths and vows for a while now. well, since i started thinking r + l = j and hoping for j to become king. (i don't want to spoil anything!) and then the vows jaime and the kingsguard.

so i wonder if all the vow-making and oath taking in westeros isn't folly. i'm trying to figure out what grrm wants to tell us with all the oaths and oath breaking. i probably won't know until the series is done (well i hope i will know by then!) but for now, i think he is trying to say that we are human and these absolute vows (having no love/family, following orders blindly) are distinctly contrary to human nature.

all my speculation of grrm's mind, mind you :)

[failte-aoife.livejournal.com]

I also think it was the oathbreaking that made the people hate Jamie. Had Aerys been killed in battle by Ned or Robert or whoever, it would have been different. They openly declared war on Aerys, in that case it had been 'just'.
Argh...I recently read an really interesting article about that topic, and the author could express everything so much better than I, but I can't remember where I found it...

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I know, i think you are right. It just seems to be so .. unfair? Declaring a war is just, but killing a man who is about to burn the whole city is not?

[marinshellstone.livejournal.com]

When you think about how Aerys killed the Starks, too...he was a totally despicable, insane, not-worthy-to-be-king King. But Jaime had still sworn that oath. He should have detained the king. Somehow...I don't know how. It also wasn't necessary to kill Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys. Tokens of fealty...Tywin is seriously fucked up. I think that Aerys had to go and Rhaegar of course was marked for death by Robert because of the whole Lyanna situation, which we still don't know for certain the truth of.

I love your last paragraph...full circle indeed. And I love how Jaime sits with the white book knowing that the rest of his pages are free, clear and empty for him to fill out as he chooses...

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

I can't wait for Barristan Selmy's chapters - I think we will find more info as to what has happened in King's landing in those chapters.

I love your last paragraph...full circle indeed. And I love how Jaime sits with the white book knowing that the rest of his pages are free, clear and empty for him to fill out as he chooses...

I love what you said about the white book. This full circle, BTW, is one of the resons Jaime is "safe" and will not die in the series.

[wildtiger7.livejournal.com]

I didn't think anyone knew that Aerys was planning to burn the city down. Jaime had to make the decision to kill him on his own. What gets Jaime, I think, is not the public persecution as an oathbreaker, because he clearly is one, but that it's over this, possibly the one oath he actually really should have broken.

I like your comparison between Tywin and Jamie, how they are both viewed by outsiders the same way. I think Tywin's death did more to free Jaime than any other thing could have, even releasing him from his oath to the Kingsguard. Because Jaime's not like Tywin, and I think many of the things he did were a combination of trying to prove that he was nothing like his father while simulatenously trying to be like his father.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree. And this what gets me too - the unfairness of it!

Yes, even Ned who knew exactly what has happened seemed to paint all Lannisters with the same brush (although, there might be some reason for this, they quite loyal to their family).

And yes, you are so right - jaime is trying to be NOT like Tywin, but I guess he is, in some ways?

[stoopid-silly.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think the reason Jaime gets so much hate is that he never really explained what the king was about to do. He finally opens up about it to Brienne (which I loved and as a shipper I was kind of bummed they let him talk so freely about it with Ned and Robert on the show. I thought it made Jaime and Brienne's relationship more special.) But I don't think most people even realize that the king was about to burn the city, so it does sort of look like a political move rather than about trying to save the city (it's both imo). Plus ~~honor is such a big deal in this society, so the fact that he's a kingsguard seems to be the major issue for some, like Ned, which is stupid, but that's Westeros.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

yes, I think you are right. I don't even think Ned knew that the King was about to burn the city. This is what I always didn't understand - would it hurt Jaime, you know, to explain himself?

which I loved and as a shipper I was kind of bummed they let him talk so freely about it with Ned and Robert on the show. I thought it made Jaime and Brienne's relationship more special.

did he tell this to Ned in the show? I don't remember! In the books, it didn't come across to me as if Ned knew what the Mad King intended to do.

Plus ~~honor is such a big deal in this society, so the fact that he's a kingsguard seems to be the major issue for some, like Ned, which is stupid, but that's Westeros.

yes, this is tupid, but I think if everyone knew that the Mad King was about to burn everyone they would thought slightly differently.

[heartshurt.livejournal.com]

Jaime was sworn to protect the king, and instead he killed him. It would've been the right thing to do, but not if you've sworn an oath. I agree with what everyone else says, he's an oath-breaker, and that's why people hate him, it doesn't matter if it was the right thing to do or not. I don't think the Sack of King's Landing has much to do with his reputation, it's not the most important part at least.

We know things aren't that simple, but they are in Westeros.

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think it is all about the notion of "honor" but sometimes I think "no! this is so stupid! this can't be!". I guess the fact that not everyone knew that the King is about to burn the city (in fact , it seems no-one knew) does not help as well.

:D