The Great Council Precedent Issue

[KyleLitke]

We were talking about this in the R+L thread and I thought it could use its own.

Essentially, the question is, was Viserys declared heir by Aerys, bypassing Aegon, or was Viserys automatically the heir because of the precedent set at the Great Council that selected Aegon V?

I personally don't buy that there's a precedent, for a few reasons. #1, the Great Council of 101 AC was specifically set up to settle the question of who would inherit; the grandson of Jaehaerys' first son, who had a female Targaryen for a mother, or the son of Jaehaerys' second son. Jaehaerys was asking for a precedent to be set, essentially. Furthermore, Archmaester Gyldayn writes "In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession." Note he doesn't write that a definitive precedent was absolutely set. His qualifier, that even this precedent only exists in the eyes of many, seems to suggest that it's not automatic that a Great Council sets a precedent. I don't dispute that a precedent was set here; it's used later to dismiss female claims. However, the idea that it's absolutely clear that any Great Council automatically sets an ironclad precedent, I don't see it.

Going on to the Great Council of 233 AC, note that the first person they consider is a female, the daughter of Prince Daeron. She's dismissed immediately, but if the precedent is as ironclad as some have suggested, why even mention her? They then dismiss Maegor (the main reason they called the Council in the first place), but note that reasons are given as to why. Maegor is an infant (and would require another long regency, which had not gone well in the past), and Maegor's father was particularly insane and cruel. These seem like good reasons to skip over him; they seem like very shaky reasons to use to declare that forever after, no son can ever inherit over an uncle.

I'd also point out there were reasons for Aerys to want to skip over Aegon once Rhaegar was dead anyway. He blamed the Dornish for Rhaegar's death, and even before then, refused to even touch Rhaenys because she "smells Dornish". He clearly has something against Dorne, and with Rhaegar dead, there isn't a compelling reason for batshit Aerys to want Aegon to be his heir.

I think that, had Aerys chosen to, he could have named Viserys his heir and attempted to use the GC of 233 to justify it, attempting to claim there was a precedent set of skipping over a baby in favor of an older heir (although this is a very different case, since Aerys still lived and Viserys was also quite a bit away from being of age). It might have even worked. But the idea that a Great Council automatically sets an ironclad precedent, and thus everyone knew all along that Viserys would come after Rhaegar, not Aegon...I just don't see the evidence for that.

[Lord Varys]

We are talking medieval 'law' here. A precedent is always set when a law is made, or a legal authority (the king, or a Great Council) decrees something.

When Aegon I named Aenys his heir, he made another precedent for the well-known custom that the eldest born son should always inherit.

When Maegor I named Aerea, his grand-niece, heiress in place of the traitor Jaehaerys, he made another precedent (in favor of female inheritance).

When Jaehaerys chose Baelon, the Great Council Viserys, and Viserys Rhaenyra this process continued.

Another such thing occurred when Baelor's sisters were passed over in favor of Viserys II, and so on and so forth.

It makes little sense to discuss those matters actually, because GRRM himself has stated many times that in Westeros inheritance laws are, as in the real world middle ages, not set in stone. If might does not equal right (which is mostly the case) then people turn to legal precedents for guidance. How have other kings ruled in a similar matter, and so forth.

What can be deduced from the Great Council of 101 and 233 is that the claimants from the male and female elder branch (Laenor, Maegor) can be passed over in favor of a claimant. This cannot be denied. Aerys could have turned to the Great Council of 233 AC, but he could have just dictated another decree, setting a new precedent. He was the king, he could do that. Just as Viserys I did, when he named Rhaenyra his heir - although that was not fully without precedent as Aerea proves.

The Lords passing over Laenor and Maegor may have had specific reasons (Laenor being a young boy from the female line; Maegor being an infant, and the son of a cruel madman) but that does not change the outcome, and added a lot more flexibility to the inheritance.

In essence, Viserys vs. Aegon is the exact same thing as Baelon vs. Rhaenys, and considering that Rhaegar was dead, and the king in question, Aerys II, did neither trust Elia nor her family, it is natural that he chose his own blood (i.e. his son) over his grandson.

The fact that Vaella the Simple's claim is discussed in 233 is no surprise. There were a number of precedents against female inheritance after the Dance (in 171, and confirmed again in 221, when Maekar came before Aelora and Daenora), but this was not completely set in stone. Vaella was the daughter of Maekar's eldest son, and thus of the eldest branch. According to Andal tradition, she had a claim, although a very weak claim. Which is why it was dismissed immediately.

What we are doing here is maester squabbling among another - the claimants themselves would push their claims, and look only for precedents backing their claims. And a king naming an heir would just do whatever the hell he wants, because he can.

[Lord Annaly]

We are talking medieval 'law' here. A precedent is always set when a law is made, or a legal authority (the king, or a Great Council) decrees something.

When Aegon I named Aenys his heir, he made another precedent for the well-known custom that the eldest born son should always inherit.

When Maegor I named Aerea, his grand-niece, heiress in place of the traitor Jaehaerys, he made another precedent (in favor of female inheritance).

When Jaehaerys chose Baelon, the Great Council Viserys, and Viserys Rhaenyra this process continued.

Another such thing occurred when Baelor's sisters were passed over in favor of Viserys II, and so on and so forth.

It makes little sense to discuss those matters actually, because GRRM himself has stated many times that in Westeros inheritance laws are, as in the real world middle ages, not set in stone. If might does not equal right (which is mostly the case) then people turn to legal precedents for guidance. How have other kings ruled in a similar matter, and so forth.

What can be deduced from the Great Council of 101 and 233 is that the claimants from the male and female elder branch (Laenor, Maegor) can be passed over in favor of a claimant. This cannot be denied. Aerys could have turned to the Great Council of 233 AC, but he could have just dictated another decree, setting a new precedent. He was the king, he could do that. Just as Viserys I did, when he named Rhaenyra his heir - although that was not fully without precedent as Aerea proves.

The Lords passing over Laenor and Maegor may have had specific reasons (Laenor being a young boy from the female line; Maegor being an infant, and the son of a cruel madman) but that does not change the outcome, and added a lot more flexibility to the inheritance.

In essence, Viserys vs. Aegon is the exact same thing as Baelon vs. Rhaenys, and considering that Rhaegar was dead, and the king in question, Aerys II, did neither trust Elia nor her family, it is natural that he chose his own blood (i.e. his son) over his grandson.

The fact that Vaella the Simple's claim is discussed in 233 is no surprise. There were a number of precedents against female inheritance after the Dance (in 171, and confirmed again in 221, when Maekar came before Aelora and Daenora), but this was not completely set in stone. Vaella was the daughter of Maekar's eldest son, and thus of the eldest branch. According to Andal tradition, she had a claim, although a very weak claim. Which is why it was dismissed immediately.

What we are doing here is maester squabbling among another - the claimants themselves would push their claims, and look only for precedents backing their claims. And a king naming an heir would just do whatever the hell he wants, because he can.

This.

There is no real inheritance law but only traditions & customs.

I so often have to explain to folks that even though there is a clear Line of Succession and there are the usual traditions and customs & beliefs (daughter before uncle etc) that it means little or nothing if someone opposes the obvious Line of Succession and if that claimant gets enough support, either political or militarily then you can have a new Line of Succession if the claimant is successful.

Current case in point is if Aegon is real or Jon is McRhaegar then they have the stronger claim but simply put Dany (at the moment) is the only one with dragons.

Females are always going to find it hard to get the sufficient support even if they are either named Heir over a son or even if they are the sole child. In such a society that is patriarchal & misogyny is the order of the day.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

The difference between the great council if 233 and Aerys/Viserys, is that at the council, the king was dead and thus there was immediate need of someone capable of ruling, whereas Aerys was still alive when he needed to name a new heir. He could choose between three children, one of them female. The options were never optimal. In the end, Aerys most likely named Viserys because of his mistrust for Rhaegar, and thereby Rhaegars children.

Had Aerys needed to choose a new heir when Aegon and Viserys were both adults, I guess that Aerys would have had a hard time naming Viserys his heir.

[Lord Annaly]

And as we know naming an Heir is no guarantee either that Heir will get sufficient support.

And as Cersei showed, a Will is not worth the paper it is written on.

I think that even with a extremely capable female heir and a useless male contender that the male would get more support.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I basically agree with most of what has been written so far in this thread. The actions of a GC set a precedent of a sort, but as we have seen, sometimes a GC simply does something new and that becomes a precedent. But the ability to do something new shows that a GC can ignore precedent and go off on its own--this power itself is really the precedent we see from GC actions. A GC can basically do anything that can gather a consensus of the participants for whatever reasons they find reasonable at that time. So what?

I think that discussion misses the point in terms of the relevance to R+L=J. Certainly it is clear that a GC can be called and can make determinations of who is the next king. We also know that kings can name their heirs, but a dead king's wishes are not always respected (thus DoD 1.0). But again, I ask, so what? These issues are not really debatable because we have seen them in action. They are not really that relevant to the R+L=J discussion (other than the question of whether the KG knew that Aerys had named Viserys as heir).

The real issue for the question of whether the actions of the KG at ToJ are relevant to R+L=J--or really whether R+L=(legit)J is whether, absent a GC and absent knowledge that the king named an heir, is there a "rule" or "regular order" to inheritance between the king's grandson by the king's older (dead) son and the king's younger son. I would argue that under the rules, as understood at that time, were clear. Absent a GC being called to change the "regular order" and absent the naming of a different heir by the last king, the grandson inherits the throne over his uncle. I believe this is 100% clear. Yes, a GC can be called to change this order of inheritance. And yes, a king can attempt to change the order by naming his younger son king--which might lead to a GC after the king's death to resolve the competing claims. But for purposes of analyzing the actions of the KG, if we assume they did not know that Aerys had named Viserys as heir and given that no GC was going to be called under the circumstances, the KG would have no question that Jon was king and not Viserys.

[Lord Annaly]

But this has no bearing whatsoever on R+L=J since Viserys is dead and childless so whether he was heir or kings matters not.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

We can also wonder whether Yandel describes Viserys as Aerys' heir because Aerys named him heir, or because Yandel did not want to write too complicated, and Viserys would be heir anyway a few days after fleeing KL, so he was just described as such..

[Liz Stark-Targaryen]

Thanks for starting this thread! I think I was the one who said we needed one...

But this has no bearing whatsoever on R+L=J since Viserys is dead and childless so whether he was heir or kings matters not.

It actually does have some bearing. If Aerys named Viserys as his heir, then it follows the pattern of passing over the king's eldest son's children for the king's younger children... there's sufficient precedent for this in Targ dynastic history, but never for a female claimant.

We've seen plenty of women passed over throughout the 300 years of Targ history. Post-WftD, she may have a surprising amount of support. I get that many here see her only as a female claimant with dragons and foreigners, but if it comes down between Dany and Jon, what if Jon says that he doesn't want the throne, and Dany does? That's something to be considered.

Also, and this bears thinking about, the North and Dorne may be separate kingdoms in the end. They really were affected least by Targ rule.

In the end, I could see Sansa, Arya, and/or Jon holding the North as regent until Rickon comes of age -- Sansa will become adept at playing the Game, there has been a "She-Wolves of Winterfell" precedent for women leadership, Jon will be an experienced military leader, Arya will be a formidable assassin. The North will likely be freed from the grasp of the Seven Kingdoms... and it will be a much expanded North since the Wall may come down and there will be the Free Folk to consider. Perhaps the Lands Beyond the Wall & the Gifts become something like Canada's NW Territories, semi-autonomous regions.

Either Arianne or Trystane will rule Dorne. They were always loosely tied to the Seven Kingdoms, and those ties were by marriage. If Aegon dies in the second Dance that we've been told is coming, so does Dornish interest in union. Neither Dany nor Jon has any recent ties to Dorne, so they will feel no obligation to them. They'll go their own way.

So the Great Council would determine rulership he "Five Civilized Kingdoms" (don't have my book to grab the exact name) may still be governable as a unified entity and in fact would be far more stable without the constant Stormlands vs. Riverlands vs. Iron Islands wars. The Vale might go its separate way, but the Riverlands, Stormlands, Crownlands, Westerlands, and the Reach seem like a probable domain.

Jon will have zero interest in kingship, and after WftD, who knows if Dany will? But I think someone will rule the lands in the middle of Westeros... and I also think there'll be more frequent Great Councils. Definitely believe that the swinging pendulum of reforms pre-298 AL (Egg wanting to give the smallfolk more power, and Aerys giving them less) will finally be resolved with some pre-Parliamentary structure... no House of Commons yet, but the Lords will convene more frequently.

[Bael's Bastard]

Had Aerys died and a council been called to determine his successor from among Targaryens, then perhaps Viserys may have been able to garner more support than Aegon. I am not sure, as you are still going to have a lengthy regency in either case, one would just be closer to twice the length of the other (interestingly, a regency for Aegon would have been likely to end around the start of the series). But I am not sure Aerys's choice of Viserys over Aegon would have been accepted in the long term in a situation where the Targs were not overthrown.

Even Aegon IV didn't seem to think he could get away with making one of his bastard sons his heir over Daeron, who he suspected of being someone else's bastard. No, it is not a science, but the cases where someone had to choose an heir rather than it just being obvious, or where a council was called, were all unusual circumstances where there wasn't a clear heir. That is not the case with Aegon. His father was Aerys' eldest son and heir, and he was his father's eldest son and heir. There was no justification for skipping Aegon while Aerys was still alive. His being an infant only becomes relevant when a king is needed, not an heir.

[UnmaskedLurker]

But this has no bearing whatsoever on R+L=J since Viserys is dead and childless so whether he was heir or kings matters not.

It has a bearing on evidence of whether Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. One of the biggest clues of their marriage is that the KG stay at ToJ rather than send at least one to guard Viserys. Viserys was alive at that time and living on Dragonstone. If the KG would have believed that Viserys was the rightful king, then I am baffled by their behavior and statements to Ned (i.e., Kingsguard do not flee--it would not be fleeing to go and guard the new king). So I conclude that if Aerys named Viserys as his heir, the 3 KG at ToJ did not know it. And that the 3 KG did not expect a GC to be called to decide between Jon and Viserys, so the 3 KG considered Jon to be king.

On the other hand, if the rules are just rough guidelines and no one can ever know after the death of one king who the next king will be whenever there is more than one theoretical claimant, then again the actions of the KG at ToJ make no sense to me. So I conclude that either WoIaF "jumped the gun" and Viserys really only became the presumed heir after the death of Aegon (given that no one knew of Jon's existence) OR Aerys named Viserys heir but the 3 KG did not know it and thus did not think there was any issue of multiple possible claimants to the Targ throne--Jon was King.

[Lord Varys]

To bring this thing back on track:

A Great Council seems to be part legal deliberation, and part popularity contest. The claimants present their cases, maesters cite precedents in supporting or dismissing their claims, some lords take a stand argue in favor or against a claim, and eventually there is vote. It seems to be more refined version of a Kingsmoot, actually - although Great Council seem to be discussing other matters of state as well, the Great Council of 136 AC did not discuss the succession but appointed three more regents by lot.

In that sense it is clear that children or infants tend to be passed over in favor. Although with Viserys' I succession we now face an interesting case. Alyssa Targaryen, Viserys' mother, was older than Prince Aemon, and thus Viserys had claims from both his father and his mother, one older and the other younger than the claims of Aemon's descendants.

Such deliberations figured in the succession, too. A similar argument is raised by Lyman Beesbury in TPatQ. Rhaenyra had more Targaryen blood than Alicent's children.

This argument can also be made with Dany vs. Aegon, Aegon vs. Viserys, and Dany vs. Jon.

I'm not sure how Aerys' decision to pass over Elia's children figures into that Jon thing all that much. It is clear that the KG stayed at that tower because they were commanded to do this by Rhaegar. And they honor that order even after his death. It is really as simple as that.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I'm not sure how Aerys' decision to pass over Elia's children figures into that Jon thing all that much. It is clear that the KG stayed at that tower because they were commanded to do this by Rhaegar. And they honor that order even after his death. It is really as simple as that.

Hogwash. It is completely implausible that 3 KG maintain the orders of a dead prince to stay at a tower and guard his mistress and bastard child rather than go the rightful king (Viserys) and make sure he has a proper KG to guard him. I don't care what Rhaegar said, changed circumstances require the KG to act based on the understanding of their duties. The orders of a dead prince cannot stand forever. At some point logic must prevail, and if the king has been spirited away to Dragonstone, he needs at least on KG to guard him.

[Bael's Bastard]

I don't recall when Aerys is said to have made Viserys his heir, but if it was only after Rhaegar died, the chronology of the books puts the Battle of the Trident within the fortnight between the burning of Chelsted and the slaying of Rossart and Aerys. I am not sure there were a ton of witnesses to Aerys's decision, and even if the KG heard rumors of it later, I doubt they would trump whatever they were commanded to do personally. I do think it is possible that Rhaegar and Lyanna married, but I am not convinced the KG were there to "guard their king." Half the KG was already there guarding them presumably for many months while the actual king, his heir, and his heir's heir were all still alive and in KL after the Battle of the Bells, and guarding their king was never their primary concern in all that time. I don't think their reason for continuing to guard what they had already been guarding for months suddenly became that they were guarding who they believed to be their king. And had they survived the TOJ battle, we don't know that they wouldn't have then gone to Viserys and Rhaella on Dragonstone.

[Maid So Fair]

I think the only real precedent is that if the line of succession isn't clear you should call a Great Council before the situation escalates into an all-out war.

The problem with precedents is that you can always argue for a narrow interpretation and insist it does not apply in this particular case because reasons. Every claimant is different. Wherever or not Aerys would have been able to pick Viserys over Aegon would depend a lot more on Viserys and Aegon than on Aerys. In this particular scenario I really don't see it as no one in their right mind would ever support Viserys.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I don't recall when Aerys is said to have made Viserys his heir, but if it was only after Rhaegar died, the chronology of the books puts the Battle of the Trident within the fortnight between the burning of Chelsted and the slaying of Rossart and Aerys. I am not sure there were a ton of witnesses to Aerys's decision, and even if the KG heard rumors of it later, I doubt they would trump whatever they were commanded to do personally. I do think it is possible that Rhaegar and Lyanna married, but I am not convinced the KG were there to "guard their king." Half the KG was already there guarding them presumably for many months while the actual king, his heir, and his heir's heir were all still alive and in KL after the Battle of the Bells, and guarding their king was never their primary concern in all that time. I don't think their reason for continuing to guard what they had already been guarding for months suddenly became that they were guarding who they believed to be their king. And had they survived the TOJ battle, we don't know that they wouldn't have then gone to Viserys and Rhaella on Dragonstone.

A lot of what you have said has been hashed and re-hashed many times, so I will try to summarize as best I can what the basic argument for this theory. But first, the new information from WoIaF is that after the death of Rhaegar, Aerys sent his "new" heir to Dragonstone. So based on that quote in the book, that Viserys was Aerys's "new" heir after Rhaegar's death, people are concluding or surmising that on the death of Rhaegar, Aerys must have named Viserys as the heir over Aegon. But of course, there are other possible readings of the text, such as the maesters were "jumping the gun" and referring to Viserys as heir because they knew Aegon would be dead as part of the sack (and not knowing Jon exists) or some people argue that the rules "changed" when Egg was made king and now an uncle inherits over his dead older brother's son. I find the second theory unlikely and is an impetus, I believe, for starting this thread.

But the KG at ToJ issue has been discussed ad nauseum. Here is the gist. Prior to the death of Aerys, Aerys was king and had a KG with him. So the 3 KG at ToJ were free to stay at ToJ and follow Rhaegar's order because the King appeared to be safe in the Red Keep and had Jaime, a KG, guarding him. As long as one KG is guarding the king, the other KG can be assigned other duties. Viserys is sent to Dragonstone with Darry, who is not KG. That is fine because at that point Viserys is not king, so no need for him to have a KG. But then the facts change. Rhaegar dies, Aerys dies, Aegon dies, 2 KG die, Jaime switches sides, Selmy is incapacitated. So now the 3 KG are faced with a decision. They are the only KG remaining who respect the Targ dynasty as the rightful dynasty. If Viserys is the new king and does not have a KG, do they need to send at least one KG to guard Viserys so that the KG vow to guard the king is fulfilled? I believe, unambiguously, yes.

I know others have a different view, but I am convinced that the duties of the KG as set up by GRRM and the personalities of these KG--particularly Hightower--would require at least one of the KG to leave ToJ and go to Viserys under these facts. If one assumes Rhaegar and Lyanna were not married, then the prior orders from Rhaegar to stay at ToJ and protect his mistress and bastard child simply cannot--under those circumstances--be obeyed when the rightful king is on the run on Dragonstone and has no KG to guard him. The KG simply would not be fulfilling their primary duty--to guard the king. It makes no sense--and it really makes no sense that Ned's dream would have Hightower say that going to Viserys would be fleeing. Having the KG go to the king cannot be fleeing. Whether Ned invented the conversation or the conversation really happened is not relevant. The conversation has to be consistent with Ned's understanding of the facts. And if Ned believed Viserys was king at that point in time, he would not have Hightower say that going to Viserys would be fleeing. It simply makes no sense. The statement only makes sense if Jon is king--meaning Rhaegar and Lyanna must have been married.

[Lord Varys]

I simply don't take the contents of the Tower of Joy dialogue at face value, I'm sorry. I did also not say that I believe that Lyanna was a mistress and her son a bastard. That's still a possibility, however. But even then, the child would at best have been a royal prince and claimant to the throne, not yet an anointed and crowned king.

And we know way too little about those men and their sense of duty than to reduce them to soulless machines who start disobeying orders as soon as the authority who gave them died. Not to mention that takes a rather great leap of faith to assume that they knew that Rhaella and Viserys had no KG with them on Dragonstone. Who would have told them that? Who would have told them when that no KG went with Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone? And how the hell could they have known that Darry, Selmy, and Lewyn went with Rhaegar to the Trident and died there. Assuming that they had knowledge of Rhaegar's death is already a stretch, but assuming that they heard in detail what happened to their brethren simply does not make any sense.

As long new king is crowned and the KG renew the fealty to that king they are bound to obey the orders of the previous king (or the guy they chose to answer to, i.e. Rhaegar).

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--If you want to simply discount everything in the conversation between Ned and the KG, fine. I think that approach does not make sense because even if the conversation happened, it has to be consistent with facts that Ned believed to be true. So if Ned has the KG say something, it either is something they actually said (if the conversation really happened) or something Ned believes they could have said based on the facts as Ned understands them (if Ned is inventing the conversation). Either way, the information is useful to the reader. GRRM did not just include it for fun.

And I am not reducing them to soulless machines. A soulless machine would just follow the last orders of the dead prince and not consider a new situation requiring new behavior. We know that Hightower was a stickler for the rules. He was LC of the KG and took his duties to guard the king seriously. We may not know much about him, but I think we know that.

So the point of the conversation is that it proves, at a minimum, that Ned had reason to believe that the KG knew of the death of Rhaegar and Aerys (and by implication, although not explicitly stated, Aegon) and the move of Viserys to Dragonstone without a KG and the betrayal of Jaime by killing Aerys. Ned would not put those words in the mouths of the KG unless Ned had reason to believe the KG knew those facts. It is irrelevant whether the conversation actually happened. What is relevant is that the conversation is constructed in a way that is consistent with the facts as Ned knew them to be--and thus Ned must have had reason to believe that the KG knew those facts (even if the conversation never really happened).

So of course, like any theory that has not been confirmed in the book yet, we cannot know for sure. But the dream conversation is not there as a lark. It does not work as a red herring because what would it be a red herring for? It is there so that after the big reveal of R+L=J is made, the readers who had not already figured out RLJ before can look back and realize all the deeper meaning in the conversation (laid out quite well by MtnLion in his famous analysis linked in his sig).

I don't agree that the KG have to wait for a new king to be crowned for them to have obligations to the new king. Maybe where there is an open question as to who will be the next king. But if the KG believed that Viserys was the only potential candidate to be the next Targ king, they don't wait until the coronation to start providing him KG protection. Now that approach would require a soulless machine.

[naseridrl]

If I was a Lord in Westeros it seems Viserys would have been the best choice for a GC to make. If somehow Rhaella was still alive I think his stock would rise quite a lot as well. He had his mother to be regent who was a Targ. You wouldn't have the Martells or Starks getting more power by being linked to the King either or being his regent. Would other big houses like having someone from a rival big house very closely linked to the King? I doubt it. That might be why the Targs didn't really marry that much into too many of the Lord Paramount houses He's also older so he'd become King quicker.

[Lord Varys]

I do not doubt that the guys were there, or that there was a talk. I just find it much more convincing that this conversation is something Ned made up shortly thereafter in his dream - thus it is an old dream - to deal with what happened there. In reality, things must have gone somewhat differently. And GRRM already confirmed as much. He did use a dream to keep things vague and hint at certain things. If he wanted to tell the truth he would have gone with a memory.