R+L=J v.142

[IceFire125]

Isn't the point that the KG are right to protect Jon unless and until they know that he's not the heir. If Viserys is crowned then their duty switches to him. But by protecting Jon they are not choosing sides, they're just loving the one they're with. To abandon Jon would be choosing sides - and would be a disastrous measure if the side they chose was the wrong one, as they might have condemned the rightful king to death. There's little they can do to protect Viserys right now - but they can protect Jon.

Admittedly, though, that doesn't quite marry up to the dialogue at the ToJ. It does appear that they believe that Viserys is not the King (and therefore that Jon is).

I will respond to the bold of your statement.

I think it's clear from Ned's dream that the opportunity to go to Dragonstone was presented to the Kingsguards. Hightower, the by-the-book, stickler of the rule, would at first chance gave command to the other two, if there were doubts that Jon is born of royalty (seeing evidence that Rhaegar + Lyanna married), and maybe volunteer himself to go to Dragonstone (EVEN THOUGH, it could be a trap set up by the rebels). Their duty was bound to Dragonstone, to Viserys the next in line.

However, in their conversations with Ned, they gave the face of confident knights, that they are staying. There was no doubt in their eyes, their vow was bound to, in that moment.

[The Twinslayer]

As to Lord Varys' point about people's interpretation of the Kingsguard vows, most people seem to think that Ned knows the vow that the KG reference in the dream as he witnessed Jaime's investiture. So because he knows their vow, which he says Jaime swore to "protect and defend King Aerys", then this must be the vow that the Kingsguard are referencing (protect and defend the king).

But this interpretation doesn't actually fit with how the conversation goes, because Ned wonders why the Kingsguard weren't at Storm's End. There were zero members of the royal family there, so why would Ned think that they would have been there? He'd know that the Redwynes and Tyrells were the ones sieging Storm's End, not the royal family. He'd also know by doing the math that only Viserys and Rhaella were left of the Targaryen family after the Trident and the Sack, so if the Kingsguard oath required the Kingsguard to protect and defend the king, above all else, then Ned should never have expected to find them there. He should have been expecting them only at Dragonstone if he believed, having witnessed Jaime's oath, that the KG HAD to defend the king.

Swore "to protect and defend King Aerys" is right, since it is not clear that the KG vow switches to the new king automatically when the old king dies. Consider this exchange between Ser Arys Oakheart and Arianne:

"I swore an oath!"

"To Joffrey, not to Tommen."

"Aye..."

And, don't forget that protecting the king is only party of the Kingsguard vow, as Ser Barristan points out:

"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 the royal blood. Some kings thought it right and proper to dispatch Kingsguard to serve and defend their wives and children, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins of greater and lesser degree, and occasionally even their lovers, mistresses and bastards."

Or, more simply:

"If the queen had commanded me to protect Hizdahr, I would have no choice but to obey."

So long as there is at least one KG with the King, other members of the KG can act independently as Generals, Diplomats, Policemen etc etc. We saw this with Dayne and the Kingswood Brotherhood, Darry and Barristan etc reforming the royalist troops between BoBells and BoTrident, KG leading section of the army at he Trident, and many other times. The Tyrell besiegers of Storms End are possibly the largest royalist army (probably larger than that at the Trident), and if any KG were not at the Trident or the Sack its a reasonable possibility for them to be leading the Tyrell army at Storm's End (especially with Aerys' paranoia). Members of the royal family being there are not actually relevant to this possibility.

And Ned went almost straight from the Sack to Storms End, only a few days, so its reasonable to guess that some or all of the unknown KG might still be there, not all immediately magically transported to Dragonstone.

There is no rule that one KG has to be with the king at all times. For example, when Larys Strong ordered Fell and Thorne to leave the king under the protection of a bastard knight and go do something else, they obeyed the order.

Jon Connington could also have gone with Rhaegar, only to part company with him at one point - say, by being disgusted over this travesty of a marriage he had to witness ;-). We know he had to be back at KL to be appointed Hand after Merryweather. And who knows - perhaps Rhaegar and Lyanna only had to go underground after the court learned that Rhaegar had taken Lyanna to wife, causing a massive uproar from Aerys, Rhaella, the Faith, and the Martells... Rhaegar and Lyanna could have first gone to Mooton at Maidenpool, originally intending to take ship to Dragonstone - only to change their minds after they realized what they did.

Connington does not believe that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married. He very specifically remembers attending Rhaegar's wedding. Not one of Rhaegar's weddings, or both of Rhaegar's weddings.

"Connington remembered Prince Rhaegar's wedding all too well. Elia was never worthy of him."

Which, to me, is pretty good proof that there was no Rhaegar/Lyanna wedding. Connington is the next best thing to Rhaegar. If Rhaegar had a second wedding, Connington would know.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV—

I don’t have the patience to go into full detail on a response to each of your points, but I will try to give quick answers to each point and hopefully it will clarify my position:

1. Viserys I did not change the precedent. He attempted to change the precedent and, in the end, he failed. No one agrees that his daughter was ever Queen, so no one agrees that he successfully changed the precedent.

2. I understand that there are examples of younger sons coming before grandsons from elder lines. You know that I know of these examples. But each case clearly is considered a “one-off” situation. I acknowledged that they create confusion whenever such a situation arises. But I disagree that there is no “normal rule” at all. What the precedents generally establish is that a GC can resolve competing claims. They don’t establish a precedent to guide a future GC on how to resolve those claims – that is left to the future GC.

3. If Maekar had named an heir and IF the heir had been accepted, then yes, the named heir would become king. I said as much myself in my last post. But what if Maekar named an heir and that heir was NOT accepted by the royal family and their supporters? My point, which you have not really refuted, is that we have no precedent in which everyone agrees AFTER the death of a king that his named successor had the only legitimate claim where a rival claimant came forward. Yes, I agree, a named successor will have a claim. But naming a successor does not guarantee the absence of competing claims. So even if Maekar had named an heir, a competing claimant still might have challenged and won. Yes, you are correct that a king might be able to do things to minimize this risk, but short of executing all potential rival claimants (effectively killing his own siblings/children/grandchildren), the king cannot eliminate the potential for a rival claimant to come forward after the king’s death and challenge the “named” successor. Believe me, I understand precedent very well. But precedents become understood to stand for different things over time. GC 101 and DoD stand for the proposition that male-preferred primogeniture is the general rule for Targ succession. Other precedents are not understood to set forth any real “rule” for future use. So while these other precedents demonstrate that exceptions can be made – in particular by a GC (although obviously no GC was held during DoD) – whenever rival claimants are under consideration. These precedents do not mean that there are no “general” or “normal” rules – it such rules from which the GCs are making exception on a case-by-case basis. The Ran quote that people keep citing (I think you included) admits that a form of primogeniture is the general rule – this rule simply is not always binding. Saying that a rule is not always binding – i.e., that sometimes exceptions are made on a case-by-case basis – is the opposite of saying there are not general rules. It is an admission that there are general rules – they just are not always followed.

4. Your discussion of Duncan really supports my point and not your point. Duncan agreed to abdicate – and as you point out then died in any event. But you are wrong that abdication cannot control. If someone refuses to accept a position, no one can force that position upon him. No one knows if Duncan’s claim might have been renewed under other circumstances. But your insistence that Aegon V disinherited Duncan is simply not supported by the text. There is no text anywhere in any of the books to support that assertion. Aegon V accepted the abdication, but he never put out a decree disinheriting Duncan. It never happened, and your argument about it “effectively” happened by naming Jaehaerys as Prince of Dragonstone is not the same as disinheriting Duncan. That is simply a statement of acceptance of the abdication. But as you point out, perhaps if Duncan had lived he could have pressed a claim to the throne and maybe won in a GC. Who knows? The point is that this situation is not an example of the King choosing to disinherit a son and everyone after the king’s death ignoring a claim by the disinherited son on the basis of the dead king’s royal decree. That simply is not what happened and thus is not proof of your point regarding naming of heirs.

5. I never said that the King cannot name heirs. I never said a named heir does not have a claim. I simply have asserted that named heirs do not necessarily have the best claim if a rival claimant is viewed by the people in power after the king’s death as having a better claim. That is was DoD has come to be understood to stand for. Even though the King named an heir and during his life no one openly challenged this decision, after his death and in the aftermath of the war, everyone agreed that the King’s named successor (Rhaenyra) had an inferior claim to a different claimant (Aegon II), and only recognize him and not her as having ruled from the IT – despite the named successor having in fact effectively ruled from the IT. I read your later post about what how Westeros views being coronated and thus the legit King – I was not persuaded.

6. I have no idea what you are getting at with Princes Maegor and Aegon. Maybe they would have challenged their uncles under the right circumstances and maybe they would not. Who know? That is purely speculative. The point I was making is that no matter whether the dead king named someone else as chosen heir, the dead king cannot eliminate the potential claim of these other Princes and under the right circumstances a GC could be called which would use the DoD precedent to put the Prince on the throne rather than the named successor. Of course if the Prince does not challenge the named successor then there is no issue. I never disagreed with that point, so making that point is pointless. And by the way, Lord of Storm’s End is not a title that anyone in Westeros would consider relevant to being a claimant to the Throne, so I don’t get your point there. Stannis was Prince of Dragonstone. Renly’s claim was clearly inferior to Stannis’s claim – but I agree Renly had a claim simply by reason of being the King’s brother – just not as strong a claim as Stannis.

7. Yes, as I explained above (point 3) there is a “normal” heir in the sense that GC 101 and DoD are understood to stand for the proposition that male-preferred primogeniture is the basic rule – but later GC’s showed that exceptions can be made by GC where there are rival claimants. I believe that Bloodraven knew that Maegor had the strongest claim to the throne, and avoiding war was his stated reason in part because I think he thought Maegor becoming king likely would lead to war and because he could not admit his real reason – his preference for Aegon V. So Bloodraven, knowing that Maegor had little support in court, was free to call a GC and allow the GC to do what a GC is allowed to do – ignore the primogeniture rules and name someone else King – which is what they did (likely at Bloodraven’s subtle direction – maybe even “magical” influence to push the members of the council in the right direction – but that is purely speculative and not really important for my analysis – more of a random thought). As to whether Dorne would have pushed Aegon’s claim against Viserys under the right circumstances – purely speculative. If enough people in court told Doran that he likely would win his challenge because people loved Rhaegar and Viserys seems too much like Aerys – Doran (or others) might have pushed Aegon’s claim. The point is that Aerys naming Viserys was NO guarantee Viserys would be respected as King (even if the Targs won the war) because Aegon (if he survived) would be a potential rival claimant who might have enough support to be named King over Viserys. I assume that during the life of Aerys, no one would challenge Viserys as the named heir, but upon the death of Aerys, Aegon necessarily would be a potential rival claimant – who might or might not push that claim. Your “rule” that the King has the right to name his successor simply has no support in the text. Yes, during the King’s life he has that right and no one will challenge the choice during his life – but once the king dies, he has absolutely no assurance that his choice will be respected. And the best precedent available (DoD) says that his choice does NOT need to be respected.

RH—

I really think you are misunderstanding my point. No one knows (or those who know don’t publicly acknowledge) that Cersei tore up the will. If people knew, they would say that she had no right to do so and the will should have been considered and likely respected. But EVERYONE knows that Viserys named Rhaenyra as his heir. Aegon III, Rhaenyra’s son knows this fact. The historians of Westeros know this fact. But nevertheless, even though Rhaenyra was coronated and sat on the IT for at least half a year – no one considers her to have been Queen. If the people of Westeros believed that the King has an absolute right to name his successor and no rival challenger should be considered where the King has named a successor, then Rhaenyra would be recognized historically as having been Queen because any attempt by Aegon II to become King while she was alive would not be regarded as legitimate. I am not saying that the King does not have a right to name a successor. I am not saying that a named successor will not have a rival claim to become King/Queen. I am saying that naming a successor does not guarantee that this named successor will be accepted as King/Queen after the King’s death. No one states that Aegon II acted unlawfully in becoming King. If the King has an absolute right to name a successor which cannot be challenged, WOIAF would have said that Rhaenyra was considered the rightful Queen after her father’s death and Aegon II would only be regarded as King from the date of her death. But no one in any of the books (not even her son, Aegon III) makes that point – which means that no one thinks that the King naming a successor remains binding after his death. The naming of an heir only needs to be respected during his life – when it does not matter. Once he dies – the only point at which it matters – it is no longer binding. It likely gives the named successor a claim – but not always the best claim.

Avalatis—

Luckily, this forum is a written and not spoken forum. It is much easier keeping my cool in writing than speaking (I tend to get much more heated when discussing these issues than when writing about them). And I actually really like LV and RH (to the extent you can like someone you have never met and only communicate on a forum like this). I do not consider either to be troll and think they really are trying to analyze the text. I just don’t think their analyses are always accurate. But I enjoy the debate (even if their “obtuse” responses can get frustrating at times).

JS—

Sorry that I cannot always remember from where I read a particular theory (but note that I did not try to take credit myself). Thanks for the support on my method of analysis. Although I think LV is a decent guy, I really do think he makes unsupported leaps of logic but honestly does not recognize that he is doing so.

[Lord Varys]

The Twinslayer,

yeah, but Lyanna does not come up at all when Jon's rivals for Rhaegar's love and affection come up in Jon's mind. The wedding he thinks of is the one to Elia, and it is she who was never worthy of Rhaegar - however, Lyanna might have been, in Jon's mind (or not, that is yet unclear). People are expecting that Elia 'Lady Lance' Sand is going to make quite an impression on Jon Connington. If we get a chapter from his POV seeing her ride - or, gods forbid, joust - we could actually get Jon's memories of Harrenhal and get from him the confirmation that Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughing Tree.

Oh, and thank you for the Arys Oakheart-Arianne chapter. That effectively confirms what I've been saying for quite some time now - that it is very likely that every KG (as well as every member of the court and royal household) has to swear an oath to the new king upon his coronation. Prior to that I was arguing on the basis of the fact that Barristan Selmy had to swear an oath to Robert and accept his pardon, and that Rhaenyra Targaryen had swear all the people in the Red Keep an oath to her following her ascension to the Iron Throne.

The idea that the KG are bound by oath to protect a king of their own choosing following the death of the previous makes little sense, nor would it make sense to assume that an oath sworn, personally, to King Aerys can reasonably extend to King Rhaegar or King Robert. We are talking medieval monarchy here, not modern-day contracts in which you can expect to be loyal to a legal institution like a company where personal loyalty to the owner/guy in charge is not important at all.

[UnmaskedLurker]

DP

The new forum software sucks, for me.

It doesn't seem to show the 'new posts' when they come up mid-write, and you click to show them, and doesn't update when you post either. Need to reload the whole page afterward.

Actually, while I am not entire sure, I think that the software is basically the same but they did an upgrade to the wiki that causes the main forum to crash under even mildly heavy traffic. In order to avoid the forum from crashing, the mods have to turn off certain features, such as searching. So what I think we are all experiencing is the result of the, hopefully temporary, disabling of feature like the search function, which seems to also have the side effect of messing up the things your describe. I believe that if they ever figure out how to fix the glitch in the upgrade or if the traffic goes down enough (likely only after the HBO season ends), the mods can turn full functionality back on and the forum should perform as you are used to it performing.

But maybe I am mistaken that maybe the new software just completely sucks.

[The Twinslayer]

The Twinslayer,

yeah, but Lyanna does not come up at all when Jon's rivals for Rhaegar's love and affection come up in Jon's mind. The wedding he thinks of is the one to Elia, and it is she who was never worthy of Rhaegar - however, Lyanna might have been, in Jon's mind (or not, that is yet unclear). People are expecting that Elia 'Lady Lance' Sand is going to make quite an impression on Jon Connington. If we get a chapter from his POV seeing her ride - or, gods forbid, joust - we could actually get Jon's memories of Harrenhal and get from him the confirmation that Lyanna was the Knight of the Laughing Tree.

Oh, and thank you for the Arys Oakheart-Arianne chapter. That effectively confirms what I've been saying for quite some time now - that it is very likely that every KG (as well as every member of the court and royal household) has to swear an oath to the new king upon his coronation. Prior to that I was arguing on the basis of the fact that Barristan Selmy had to swear an oath to Robert and accept his pardon, and that Rhaenyra Targaryen had swear all the people in the Red Keep an oath to her following her ascension to the Iron Throne.

The idea that the KG are bound by oath to protect a king of their own choosing following the death of the previous makes little sense, nor would it make sense to assume that an oath sworn, personally, to King Aerys can reasonably extend to King Rhaegar or King Robert. We are talking medieval monarchy here, not modern-day contracts in which you can expect to be loyal to a legal institution like a company where personal loyalty to the owner/guy in charge is not important at all.

I don't think Lyanna was the knight of the laughing tree. I think it was Howland. We know he can't fight well on foot. But I think he is good on a horse. After all, when he fought the KGs at the TOJ, he was on horseback, and apparently he was good enough to be the decisive factor in the fight against Dayne.

On your point about Prince Duncan's abdication, I think it was a lot like Nixon's resignation (or Edward VIII's abdication). Nixon only resigned once he knew that if he tried to stay, he would be removed from office. In other words, Duncan was disinherited as you suggest, but he was allowed to resign so he could save face.

[Lord Varys]

UL,

precedents aren't changed nor can they be changed. They just are. That's were your error is. A precedent in court - which is how this term is usually applied in modern-day society - is when a court makes a ruling which strictly speaking is only used in this special case but is then later used by other courts to justify their decision to stick to the ruling established by the earlier ruling they refer to now as a precedent.

In regards to the succession every successful ascension of a King on the Iron Throne established a precedent. Aegon I set a precedent for the fact that Kings on the Iron Throne count their reign from the day they are anointed and crowned by the High Septon. Aenys' ascension set a precedent for both male primogeniture (as he was Aegon's eldest recognized son) as well as for a king choosing his heir as Aegon I treated and raised Aenys as his heir throughout his whole life. Maegor I set a precedent against male primogeniture/that an uncle can become before a son.

But that is not all of it. Royal decrees, and the decision of the king/the Crown to go along with the wishes of a Great Council can also be considered to be precedents. When Viserys I named Rhaenyra his heir he also created a precedent by ignoring the decisions of the kings before him. Just as courts of the past may have been ruling against, say, the rights of homosexuals to marry but are now creating new precedents by ruling in favour of such rights, thus creating new precedents. What precedents you cite when you are arguing for a against a motion or decision depends on what you agenda and your goal is. Viserys I wanted to make his only child his heir and did not want his brother Daemon to succeed and thus decided to name her heir. He could do that, he was the king.

Precedents don't change. But custom may change if new precedents are made and the people in charge (i.e. the kings) choose to base their decisions on whatever precedent they felt could be used to justify their decision. For instance, Aegon IV lacked a precedent in favour of passing over an eldest son in favour of younger (bastard) son - which is most likely one of the reason why he did not disinherit Daeron in favour of Daemon Blackfyre (the other being the fact that Daeron had many friends and also enjoyed the support of the Prince of Dorne which could have dragged him into war had he decided to disinherit Daeron). But had Aegon the Unworthy lived a hundred years later - after the Great Council of 233 and Duncan's abdication/disinheritance - he would have had two precedents in favour passing over his eldest trueborn son in favour of somebody else. Aerys II could cite many precedents against the inheritance of a grandson over a younger trueborn son (again, Maegor I, 92 AC, 101 AC, 233 AC, and Duncan-Jaehaerys). The legal basis for this decision was sound and nobody could claim Aerys had done something that was outrageous and against the usual custom (establish if we keep in mind that he thought Elia's family had betrayed Rhaegar at the Trident - Shireen is also no longer considered Tommen and Myrcella's heiress, no?).

You should not stress the fact that a Great Council is somehow allowed to make exceptions from general rules. Nothing suggests this is the case. You are arguing as if a Great Council is legally above the king and his administration when in fact it is not. Great Councils are doing pretty much the same thing kings do when they are discussing the succession - they reach a decision, but they don't have a greater authority, and all their rulings have to be ratified by the Crown in the end (which could, of course, decide to ignore them - for instance, if it had been 51:49 in favour of one of the claimants in 101 or 233 Jaehaerys/Bloodraven would most likely have ignored the Great Council and chosen an alternative claimant in an attempt to prevent a war. The difference is that Great Councils usually favour grown-up claimants and pretenders rather than children while kings would usually prefer their own blood - how inapt it may be - against, say, their second cousin.

My point in Duncan's case is that Duncan's abdication is meaningless if the king does not accept it - just as Tywin or Ned's resignation is meaningless if the king does not accept it. Note that Duncan only abdicated as Prince of Dragonstone, by the way. He cannot possible abdicate as 'Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne' as this is not an position of power - heirs are people who wait for their parents to die to inherit something, they cannot legally reject an inheritance why the stuff is still owned by the parents. Only when somebody dies is an inheritance passed on, and only then could Prince Duncan reject the Iron Throne. But for all intents and purposes Aegon V disinherited his son Duncan insofar as the Iron Throne was concerned as it was he who forced Duncan to abdicate as Prince of Dragonstone, and the Prince of Dragonstone was the position the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne held since the days of Aenys (Aegon V actually did not want to do that, he wanted Duncan to leave Jenny and marry Lyonel's daughter and used the Iron Throne, pushed by his court and the Faith, as leverage to force Duncan to do what he wanted - Aegon V certainly could have deposed Duncan as Prince of Dragonstone against Duncan's will if he wanted to), Duncan did not choose this of his own free will. I imagine he actually wanted both - to be his father's heir and Jenny's husband. After Duncan stepped down, Prince Jaehaerys became Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne until his father died. While we can say Duncan 'sort of voluntarily abdicated as Prince of Dragonstone' it was Aegon V who actually named his younger son, Prince Jaehaerys, Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent in Duncan's stead and thus effectively disinherited Duncan. Or are you trying to say Aegon V was not the one who named Jaehaerys his heir and Prince of Dragonstone in Duncan's place? Or that the king was forced to do this/had no other choice?

The Dance is also not a precedent for anything but the fact that females should not rule. Rhaenyra lost her life during the fighting, and Aegon II was restored. That's why she is not considered to be a true queen, not because her father's will was null and void. If legally the naming of an heir would not matter all that much/was an empty gesture, it wouldn't be done nor would anyone claim he was king because his father/uncle/cousin/whatever had wanted him to succeed. It would be the Dothraki way of succession.

And of course, naming heirs does not destroy competing claims. Joffrey was Robert's named and recognized heir as he never learned that the child wasn't his son (and thus Eddard Stark was actually in a very bad position to justify his coup against Cersei and Joffrey). But historically it is a fact that named heirs - even if they were not the king's direct descendants (like, for instance Aerys I's heirs Rhaegel, Aelor, and Maekar) succeeded much more easily than when there existed no named heir (say, when people spoke for Princess Daena and against Prince Viserys).

You can always challenge a claim if you have the determination and the means to do so. But what happens during a war has nothing to do with legal actions a king does during peace time. A royal decree is binding law, and the law does not matter during a war (of succession) which means you cannot use 'war' as an argument against the fact that a king choosing an heir is legally binding to everyone involved. You can get away with breaking the law and winning the war, but that doesn't make it right from a legal point of view.

Your speculation about Bloodraven's role in 233 makes little sense. Bloodraven was the Hand. He was in charge of the Great Council, and apparently had enough to power to call a Great Council - which he was very much in power at that time. If he had been not, the claimants (or the people speaking for them, in Maegor's case) would have been able to ignore the old man, crown themselves, name their own Hands (like Renly and Stannis did) and declare upon each other (and on the traitor Bloodraven who failed to see who the true king was). Yet instead many/all Lords of the Realm felt obliged to honour Bloodraven's decision to call a Great Council and even the claimants accepted to present their claims there rather than crown themselves.

And, honestly, we don't know if Bloodraven had a favourite. That's just an idea. Aerion died in 232 AC, Maekar had months - perhaps even a whole year - to name a new heir. Yet he did not. My guess is that at least Maekar was not actually eager to see Egg on the throne at that time due to all this peasant friendliness of his - and Bloodraven may have thought Egg did not have the guts for the job (after all, Egg had to kill the boy only after he had become king). Bloodraven and Aerion seem to have been allies in the question of the execution of Bittersteel in 219, so it may be the case that Bloodraven was actually sort of impartial on the king question, or slightly leaning towards Egg as he was the only grown-up claimant. But Maegor could only have a party strong enough to challenge Egg's claim if Aerion and Daenora had a strong party lords who supported them, or else there wouldn't really have been the danger of a Second Dance. If many lords quickly dismissed Maegor's claim due to his age and his father's character all those enemies of Egg's had only Aemon and Aenys Blackfyre as alternative claimants (and it really seems Aenys had a very good chance of winning as Aemon was apparently only an afterthought to prevent Aegon V after Maegor and Vaella had been dismissed and Aenys executed).

Cersei's coup was strictly speaking only against Robert's appointment of Eddard Stark as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm. He did not have the time to elaborate on the fact that Joffrey Baratheon wasn't Robert's son, and Ned also failed to tell Robert which could have enabled him to name a new in his will (Stannis or Renly), or to use his last breath to take Cersei and her children into custody/executing them, enabling Ned to hand over the throne to whatever heir Robert wanted to choose (or to whoever Ned wanted to give it if Robert could not decide whether it should be Renly or Stannis).

Oh, and I actually really like UL, too. He may be mistaken at times, but unlike others he does not solely concern himself only with imagining entire tales about how things happened that will eventually be revealed in the books, anyway, but is interested in other portions of the story, too - and we do actually agree on other topics rather often. What many people don't seem to get is that I don't find it impossible or don't believe that Jon Snow is Lyanna's son by Rhaegar or that they may have been married, I just don't agree on certain portions of the narrative certain people have written to justify why Jon Snow has to be Lyanna's son by Rhaegar. The question in itself is pretty much settled. What this thread makes fun to me is to discuss and reassess the things we already know fit together and what may be the best possible solution to all of that. And a lot of this stuff essentially cooked up prior to the release of ADwD and TwoIaF simply isn't good enough to cover everything - despite the fact that it may involve well-loved tales.

[sabrecmc]

This is a very interesting analysis of the text and background of Ned's dream...for those who don't think it indicates that the KG believed Jon to be the king, how does the rest of the, obviously circumstantial, clues and evidence impact your thoughts? I guess if I only had that one thing, I'd be a lot more skeptical...and I admit that some of the "clues" in and of themselves don't seem that much, but taken as a whole, I feel pretty comfortable saying that GRRM is telling us something. Just curious if any of that, when added to the dream, makes you more or less persuaded or has no impact on your thinking.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV—

I will try to keep my answer brief and just hit my main points.

Of course each instance of succession is a precedent. The question is – precedent for what principle? GC 101 and DoD are understood to be precedents for male-preferred primogeniture (not just no females inherit – especially GC 101 that went into the argument about males from female lines being behind males from more junior all male lines). After those instances, the royal court considered that rule to have been set as the general rule. Again, even Ran admitted that it was the general rule – just not binding. So it is a general rule, it is just that under certain circumstances, exceptions can be made because the general rule is not always binding.

Now I agree there are other precedents. But other precedents – like GC 233 – simply stand for the proposition that a GC can decide among rival claimants. So of course every precedent is a precedent. The question becomes – precedent for what principle?

Regarding royal decrees, you are blurring the line between decrees during life and after death. Certainly during life, decrees of the King control. But what seems to be the case is that after the king’s death, the decrees he made are not necessarily controlling. And the GC of 233 occurred without a King in place at the time, so your point about a GC only being advisory is not correct when we are talking about a GC to choose the next King after death of the prior King. I agree that the GC is not above the King – but at that time, there is no King. Your argument that Bloodraven, as Hand, could ignore the GC and install someone else as King is not stated anywhere in the text. But even if true, it demonstrates that after the death of a King, the Hand might not respect who the King named and might install a rival claimant. During the life of the King, the Hand is not free to ignore the King’s decree. But after death, under your theory, the Hand can ignore whatever the King wanted and install someone else. So even if you are correct, it still supports my position that the naming of an heir by the King cannot assure ascension because the King will be dead when the decision is made to install the next king, and there is no rule that the dead King’s named heir cannot be legally challenged. Everyone in Westeros seems to understand DoD to stand for the principle as its precedent.

As to whether Bloodraven had a real favorite – I really don’t know. I was just throwing ideas out there as pure speculation. I don’t have a strong opinion on that particular issue.

[MtnLion]

<snip>

• But Lyanna is a Stark not a Targ and as a described she-wolf doesn't seem likely to be the type that would subscribe to being a second wife.

Basically I could see her having an affair with Rhaegar but not marrying him when he was married already.

What I leave open is the possibility that perhaps Lyanna was pregnant by a lover and they had trysts in the crypts in the vein of Bael the Bard.

Rhaegar perhaps learned that a Stark offspring was of particular concern in the ptwp prophecy and he acted to protect her and her child.

By marrying her which he could justify to the KG as having precedent then he could extend royal protection to her child even though it wasn't of his body.

Basically I am saying that to me it seems more consistent with what is known of Lyanna's character that she would become Rhaegar's second wife in name only or his lover but not both his second wife and his lover.

Again, I think it likely that Rhaegar is Jon's father but I am open to the possibility that he is not.

I don't think there is anyway that he isn't Lyanna's son.

And to avoid any troll responses I do not accept that Jon's father is a Stark. I think those theories are absurd.

1. The feeling I get about Lyanna's personality does not lend itself to being a second wife either. However, Elia is not capable of carrying another child, and is off Rhaegar's menu.

I cannot see her having a willing affair with anyone. She has way too much starch in her skivvies.

You suppose that Lyanna had an affair with someone, but wouldn't be a second wife, if the first was barred from relations? Further, you suppose that she was pregnant before Rhaegar took her south? You do realize that Brandon and Rickard died at King's Landing about a year before the sack? You do know that we have placed jon's birth from two weeks before to two weekas after the sack? How long was Jon's gestation?

Possibly, but why wouldn't the child be his, from his fire, and Lyanna's ice?

I have a problem here, too. The Kingsguard tell Ned that they do not flee, because they swore a vow. (Dayne said, "then or now", which works out to when Viserys was sent to Dragonstone, and present with Viserys at Dragonstone. In both instances the king is not going to Dragonstone. Ned knows the Kingsguard Vow, as he was present for Jaime's vow.

Why in name, but not for real, as second wife?

I have no doubt.

I have no doubt.

Anything is possible, but the blue rose pretty much seals the deal, Rhaegar's and Lyanna's true born son is at the Wall.

[MtnLion]

This is a very interesting analysis of the text and background of Ned's dream...for those who don't think it indicates that the KG believed Jon to be the king, how does the rest of the, obviously circumstantial, clues and evidence impact your thoughts? I guess if I only had that one thing, I'd be a lot more skeptical...and I admit that some of the "clues" in and of themselves don't seem that much, but taken as a whole, I feel pretty comfortable saying that GRRM is telling us something. Just curious if any of that, when added to the dream, makes you more or less persuaded or has no impact on your thinking.

Are you referring to something in particular? Have you read the analysis that is linked in my signature? (At the tower of joy)

[J. Stargaryen]

JS,

from the facts we know - Prince Rhaegar leaving his son and heir, Prince Aegon, to rot on Dragonstone and eventually being at the mercy of his uncaring and mad royal grandfather - it seems very unlikely to me to propose that Rhaegar's actions connected to Lyanna and to stay at that tower as long as he did had anything to to with Aegon at all. If Rhaegar felt the need that Aegon should one day become king, and if he had been convinced that Aerys was dead-set in his conviction to disinherit him and/or his bloodline, then he should better have tried to continue his plans to depose Aerys rather than doing stuff with Lyanna at the very end of the world.

You just presuppose that Rhaegar might consider the possibility of him dying/predeceasing Aerys. There is no hint that this thought ever crossed his mind. He seems to be very confident that he is going to defeat the rebels when he leaves KL. But even if he thought about the possibility of dying he most likely knew that this would be the end of the Targaryen dynasty, too, as Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, and Rhaegar's own children even younger. I very much doubt that ensuring Aegon's succession in a scenario in which would still have become king had Rhaegar won and eventually succeeded or deposed Aerys is not exactly a priority. And it makes virtually no sense for Rhaegar to risk the fate of the whole dynasty - by refusing not to return to KL when Ser Gerold shows up - simply to ensure Aegon's eventual ascension should Rhaegar predecease Aerys.

Finally, we actually don't know Aerys' mindset towards Rhaegar and vice versa at this point. The fact that Aerys actually had Gerold find and return Rhaegar to the capital suggests that he wasn't ready to burn his son alive for causing the whole rebellion, and for hiding at the tower since at least after the dismissal of Lord Merryweather as Aerys then, apparently, only made Connington Hand because Rhaegar could not be found.

It is possible that Aerys still mistrusted Rhaegar but felt still compelled to overcome this mistrust and give him command. Or it is possible that he had overcome his mistrust and actually reconciled with his son and gave him command because he loved him and wanted his son and heir to defeat the enemy. We know that Rhaegar still planned to depose his father, but that his personal intentions, I think, were always motivated by the fact that Aerys was a very bad king for Westeros (and his dynasty) in the mental and physical state he was in. His reluctance to act against his father - around the time of Harrenhal and later - can be read as a hint that he wasn't driven by ambition or hate but simply by the fact that his father had become insane.

We also do not know yet whether Rhaegar and Lyanna had no clue/idea what was happening in the larger Realm until Ser Gerold showed up, and do thus also not really know why they stayed at the tower. If they had no clue then they most likely reason was 'we are very much in love with each other and want to go on extended private honeymoon, and run away from our responsibilities, perhaps forever' (the name 'Tower of Joy' actually suggests something like that). If they were apprised of events (the deaths of Rickard and Brandon at Aerys' hands, the command of the king to execute Ned and Robert, the beginning of a rebellion that tore the Realm apart) then they have to have another reason to stay there.

But I very much doubt that one of those reasons would have been to ensure the succession of Elia's son should Rhaegar predecease Aerys - you know, how could Rhaegar be sure that Aerys was not going to burn Aegon alive in his absence to punish Rhaegar for his absence just as Maegor the Cruel tortured Prince Viserys to death following the flight of Alyssa Velaryon?

I don't have much to say to that. I just wanted to highlight it because it made me laugh. Rot on Dragonstone, really? A tad bit dramatic there, sir. It's not like he imprisoned Aegon in the dungeons before he left.

Yeah, I do, since it was war. I don't think that's much of a leap either, that Rhaegar would have considered the possibility that he might die in war. I think it's sort of ridiculous to object to that point, too.

JS—

Sorry that I cannot always remember from where I read a particular theory (but note that I did not try to take credit myself). Thanks for the support on my method of analysis. Although I think LV is a decent guy, I really do think he makes unsupported leaps of logic but honestly does not recognize that he is doing so.

No need to apologize. I was just pointing out that I was the author of that particular idea.

[sabrecmc]

Not referring to anything in particular, MtnLion, though I suppose the first page of this thread would be a beginning. I have read your link at some point, back when I was obsessed with this. After upteen threads, I admit to have lost a lot of interest and forgotten a lot. I was just curious, amidst all of this analysis of the dream, if anyone was swayed one way or the other by other hints and clues (to name a few, I guess, off the top of my head: blue rose in the ice wall, Jon's crypt dream, the rubies thing, the presumably Bloodraven!crow shouting things, interviews with cast, the giant anvils they've been dropping on the show lately, etc.), or if none of that really affected people's thoughts on how we the readers are to interpret the dream.

[Lord Varys]

UL,

precedents don't necessarily stand for a principle on their own - the people citing them and using them in their argumentation make them represent principles (or evoke them to defend a principle). For instance, we only know that Jaehaerys I chose Baelon instead of Rhaenys in 92 AC but not why. Was he trying to make general statement or did he just consider Baelon to be the better king? We don't know. But we do know that there were people who later used his decision to argue against the inheritance of the female line in general. The same is true about the Great Council of 101 - the question at hand was the opinion of the Lords on the succession of Jaehaerys I, nothing more. Later on, there were people who argued that the Great Council had set an 'iron precedent against both female inheritance as well as the inheritance of males through the female line' - we don't know if that was actually the intention of the lords who supported Viserys in 101.

Yandel does not give us Aerys' reasoning why he names Viserys his heir instead of Aegon - but just as people used 92 and 101 as precedents against female inheritance Aerys II could have used Maegor I, 233, and Duncan-Jaehaerys as precedents in favour of naming a younger son his heir. He did not have to do this, of course, but the fact that younger sons actually came before elder sons (or their descendants) on a number of occasions is proof enough that the king was not bound by law or custom to name Aegon his heir after Rhaegar died.

And considering that a Great Council isn't a Kingsmoot we have to assume that a lot of legal argumentation was used to argue for either Vaella, Maegor, Aemon, or Aegon in 233 - we just don't know those argument yet. Legally speaking the supporters of Aegon - among them, Lord Gerold Lannister - could have used both 92 AC and 101 AC as precedents in favour of the inheritance of the younger line if the claimant from the younger line was a more experienced man that the claimant from the elder line. In addition, they could have cited Maegor. They certainly would have used arguments pointing out the strength of Aegon's claim rather than repeating 'Aegon for king, Aegon for king' or 'Aegon is our man' over and over again. And considering that Laenor - who was rejected in 101 - was actually male he could be cited as precedent in favour of Aegon's ascension if one did not overemphasise the fact that historically Laenor was rejected because he was from the female line as well as because of the fact that he was still a boy, and not the king's favourite heir.

I imagine that Vaella's rejection was the most easiest thing to do - she was a young girl (born 222 AC), and simple besides (however, the strength of her claim came from the fact that she was the only child of King Maekar's eldest son and thus primogeniture actually favoured her - if King Daeron III had ruled, her father could have named her heir instead of Aerion or Aerion's son). In Maegor's case the situation is much more difficult - he was of the elder line on both his parents' side, and the son of Maekar's second eldest son. Legally, he had a very strong case as primogeniture and purity of blood both spoke for him (which was not the case in Aegon vs. Viserys as Aegon's mother was Elia). As of yet, the only arguments against Maegor that we know are his age and his father's character - which are essentially not very good arguments from a legal viewpoint. Either something else happened what made Maegor's ascension problematic or Aerion was truly hated by many lords throughout the Realm, and that hatred was transferred to his son.

The idea that Great Council had the authority to choose the most capable claimant - or was even interested in doing that - is not very likely. They all had agendas.

As to Bloodraven's position:

We know that Ser Otto Hightower was ruling the Realm in the king's name 'until such a time as a new king is crowned'. That should be the position all subsequent Hands had (although the earlier Hands may have not held such a position - the earlier Dowager Queens were much more powerful than their later counterparts). In that sense, Bloodraven was effectively king in all but name until the next king was crowned and had thus the authority to call a Great Council - a mere prince who was not the Hand could most likely not have done that. And Bloodraven had the advantage of being in office for a very long time, serving apparently from 209-233 AC.

Bloodraven called the Great Council, presided over it, and ratified the ruling of the council later on. Back in 101 the king named Viserys Prince of Dragonstone, not the Great Council, and in 233 Bloodraven would have done the same in the late Maekar's name and place - if we assume the assembled lords made Aegon V king then Egg would have been 'a king appointed by the lords' which would have set a very dangerous precedent for the whole dynasty - and nothing later on suggests that Aegon V and the subsequent monarchs were made by their subjects.

Hands are not at liberty to ignore their kings decrees after their deaths, of course (although they have done so, most notably Ser Otto Hightower). But just as kings they could ignore the ruling of Great Council if they are not happy with it. For instance, Bloodraven would never have accepted Aenys Blackfyre as king had he been chosen by the Great Council in absentia.

[Lord Varys]

JS,

well, I meant rot in the sense of being abandoned. A poor choice of words on my side - Rhaegar abandoned both his wife and his two children to their loving care of his royal father, and subsequently got all three of them killed. That is not exactly suggesting he wanted him named heir should he die in battle. If Rhaegar had had any sense he would have sent Aegon and Rhaenys with Elia to Sunspear.

Rhaegar reminds me in this regard of Prince Daemon during the Dance, who abandoned his wife to a horrible death at the hands of her half-brother, as well as his eldest son and his two daughters to the mercy of whoever ended up winning the war, when he decided to throw away his life.

[J. Stargaryen]

JS,

well, I meant rot in the sense of being abandoned. A poor choice of words on my side - Rhaegar abandoned both his wife and his two children to their loving care of his royal father, and subsequently got all three of them killed. That is not exactly suggesting he wanted him named heir should he die in battle. If Rhaegar had had any sense he would have sent Aegon and Rhaenys with Elia to Sunspear.

Rhaegar reminds me in this regard of Prince Daemon during the Dance, who abandoned his wife to a horrible death at the hands of her half-brother, as well as his eldest son and his two daughters to the mercy of whoever ended up winning the war, when he decided to throw away his life.

Rhaegar not being a loving, affectionate, doting father -- and we're not sure that he wasn't when he was with his children -- does not mean he was not a dutiful father. I think you're confusing the two. That is, you could even be right, but it doesn't contradict my argument the way you're implying that it does.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Not referring to anything in particular, MtnLion, though I suppose the first page of this thread would be a beginning. I have read your link at some point, back when I was obsessed with this. After upteen threads, I admit to have lost a lot of interest and forgotten a lot. I was just curious, amidst all of this analysis of the dream, if anyone was swayed one way or the other by other hints and clues (to name a few, I guess, off the top of my head: blue rose in the ice wall, Jon's crypt dream, the rubies thing, the presumably Bloodraven!crow shouting things, interviews with cast, the giant anvils they've been dropping on the show lately, etc.), or if none of that really affected people's thoughts on how we the readers are to interpret the dream.

For whatever it is worth, I have always thought that the evidence for Rhaegar and Lyanna being married goes beyond the ToJ conversation and helps to inform my understanding of the ToJ conversation. In fact, the first OP I ever wrote after registering for the forum was on the very topic of whether they were married (link here). While I probably would make some changes if I were to write that OP today, I think most of the analysis stands up. So while the ToJ conversation is the strongest evidence, it is not the only evidence.

[jlk7e]

7. There is no such thing as a normal heir. Heirs are raised, recognized, and installed as such. If an heir is installed as such - regardless if he is the son, grandson, uncle, nephew, or cousin of the king - his ascension is much securer then if he is first considered as heir on the day the king died.

Considering Doran's caution it is very unlikely that Dorne would have pushed Aegon's claim against Viserys III if he had to fight against the other six kingdoms to do so.

But of course that wouldn't be the situation. The North, Vale, Riverlands, and Stormlands aren't going to be supporting either Viserys or Aegon. Only the Tyrells and Lannisters might conceivably support Viserys.

[UnmaskedLurker]

But of course that wouldn't be the situation. The North, Vale, Riverlands, and Stormlands aren't going to be supporting either Viserys or Aegon. Only the Tyrells and Lannisters might conceivably support Viserys.

This reference was part of an on-going conversation in which we were talking about a hypothetical in which the Targs win the war and Aerys and Aegon survive (but Rhaegar does not) and Aerys names Viserys as heir. In that situation, it would be assumed that all the territories would bend the knee in favor of the Targs, and on the death of Aerys, the only real candidates to be the next King would be Viserys or Aegon. Given that we have no real idea who would control those territories if the Targs had won, it is difficult to speculate on who they would support between Viserys and Aegon. For purposes of the discussion, I am not sure it really matters. The point merely was that just because Aerys named Viserys as heir, Aegon could still be a rival claimant after the death of Aerys, and thus Aerys's desire to have Viserys as the next king might not be respected and the IT might go to Aegon. But the hypothetical is so far from the facts that actually happened in the books that we don't really know. The example was merely being used to try to examine the rules of succession in order to better understand what the KG at ToJ might have believed regarding whether Jon was the rightful King.

[Lord Varys]

jilk7e,

that lines were in response to an alternative scenario in which Rhaegar dies but Aerys wins the war and names Viserys his heir. From Doran's character we can deduce that he wouldn't start a war of succession if only Dorne would fight for Aegon upon Aerys' death - especially not if Aerys had lived long enough to make it crystal clear that Viserys was his successor. And with Aegon, Rhaenys, and Elia as hostages in Aerys' care, it would have been very difficult for a party to gather around Aegon - about as difficult as it was for Princess Daena to gather supporters for her claim while she was imprisoned in the Maidenvault.

JS,

I just think Rhaegar was either stupid/politically naive if did indeed not foresee that abandoning the promised prince on Dragonstone would not do if his father thought about using him as hostage against Rhaegar. Aegon was not just Rhaegar's son, he was (in his mind at least) a prophesied saviour of sorts. If we assume that he was not on his way to take Lyanna when he left Dragonstone with his companions his actions would make some sense (as he was not intending to cause a crisis which could lead to Aerys taking steps to put Elia under his direct control - or Elia to go to KL to complain about Rhaegar humiliating by taking another wife). But if he set out to take Lyanna he would have to be entirely stupid to assume that this would not stir up major trouble. Not if he had any idea about the history of Westeros and his own house.