Exercise: Lyanna miscarries, what of the Kingsguard?

[Lord Lannister]

3 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The timeline always bothered me. One other thing is that if that happened and someone knew about it how no one has ever mentioned it? Not even Jaime who was will Aerys? No one during the books mentions that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children and named Viserys his heir.

The only thing I can think of that might suggest Aerys disinheriting Aegon is the fact that Aerys kept Elia and her children in the capitol while he sent his wife and children to Dragonstone. Though I happen to believe Jaime's version of events that this was to keep Dorne loyal rather than a slight against Rhaegar's children.

[RumHam]

6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The timeline always bothered me. One other thing is that if that happened and someone knew about it how no one has ever mentioned it? Not even Jaime who was will Aerys? No one during the books mentions that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's children and named Viserys his heir.

Actually when Jaime thinks about who should succeed Aerys he thinks of Viserys before Aegon.

Quote

"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking? He thought for a moment of the boy Viserys, fled to Dragonstone, and of Rhaegar's infant son Aegon, still in Maegor's with his mother. A new Targaryen king, and my father as Hand. How the wolves will howl, and the storm lord choke with rage. For a moment he was tempted, until he glanced down again at the body on the floor, in its spreading pool of blood. His blood is in both of them, he thought.

 

7 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

This is the wiki and the only time someone like that was mentioned was in the twoiaf where it was also told that Elia killed her children. Not even once in ASOIAF it was mentioned that Aerys named Viserys his heir and disinherited Rhaegar's children, so it most likely never happened.

Aerys naming Viserys his heir makes perfect sense. He disliked the Dornish and thought had betrayed Rhaegar, why would he leave Ellia's son as his heir? Not to mention Aegon was a baby. Aerys at least knew Viserys and knew he was his son. That it hadn't been explicitly mentioned previously seems like an odd complaint. You could say the same of any fact the first time we read it. Besides not many people in the novels are reflecting back on what was ultimately a moot point fifteen years ago.

Also for the record Yandel does not say that Elia killed her children. He includes it in a list of rumors about what happened. It's clear he's being careful not to offend the Lannisters by repeating the most common rumor about Gregor and Lorch having killed them. Yandel has a reason to omit that detail. As far as I can tell he has no conceivable motivation to lie about who Aerys's heir was all those years ago. Not to mention that lying about an established fact like that seems odd. Who would he convince with that one sentence if it had never happened?

But mainly, to what end? If you have a theory what would be gained by making that up I'd love to hear it. Ran even said that it wasn't an error and Yandel was basing that bit on historical documents. While I allow there's a slim chance those documents had it wrong somehow (though again, I can't imagine why anyone would have forged them), it should be clear that Yandel didn't just make up the fact that Viserys was Aerys's heir. 

[house of dayne]

@rumham....thank you

[Jon's Queen Consort]

7 hours ago, RumHam said:

snip 

Correct me if I am wrong but a *historical document* could had been a letter right?

The only thing I can think of that might suggest Aerys disinheriting Aegon is the fact that Aerys kept Elia and her children in the capitol while he sent his wife and children to Dragonstone. Though I happen to believe Jaime's version of events that this was to keep Dorne loyal rather than a slight against Rhaegar's children.

Agree.

[Nitisha]

I think that for Viserys to sit on the iron throne,he must change his mindset. He must realise that he and his sister are the last,the very last Targaryens. Viserys should not have sold Daenerys like that to khal Drogo, but it's no use as viserys is dead and the mother of dragons is coming to westeros

[Ser Ronan Storm]

On 6/24/2016 at 9:03 PM, Lord_Tyrell said:

Then why were they protecting her over Viserys? Reading that passage through, there is only one reasonable answer: the king was up those steps.

Since it's mentioned that those 3 Kingsguard members were absent during the Battle of the Trident (presumably guarding Lyanna at the Tower of Joy the entire time), technically the future king, Aegon, was at King's Landing. As the firstborn son of the Mad King's firstborn son, Aegon would have been 1st in line for the throne. I know he was snuggle buddies with Arthur Dayne, but how Rhaegar convinced 2 more Kingsguard knights to ignore their mandate and sit out a freaking war is beyond me.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, house of dayne said:

@rumham....thank you

Not true. It depends what historical document would mean. A letter from Aerys to Rhaella would had been a historical document and yet wouldn't had any power.

[Ser Ronan Storm]

To answer the OP, if Lyanna had miscarried or whatever, then I'd expect Arthur Dayne, Gerold Hightower, and Whent to continue acting irrationally. Rather than fleeing to Dragonstone, they would probably try to execute Robert Baratheon to avenge Rhaegar or something stupid like that. These 3 men were already willfully ignoring their vows during a rebellion against the very man they are sworn to protect. They also ignored protecting every member of that man's family except for Lyanna's baby, who may not even be legal, depending on whether or not Rhaegar married her lawfully.

Really, the whole Tower of Joy scenario lessens my loathing of Young Jaime, because while Jaime murdered his king, 3 of his sworn brothers effectively abandoned him, allowing for it to happen.

[RumHam]

5 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Correct me if I am wrong but a *historical document* could had been a letter right?

A letter could certainly be a historical document, but I doubt a single letter is the source of Yandel's statement about Viserys being the heir. He mentions it in passing with no elaboration, as if it's a known fact. Not something surprising he discovered in some recently unearthed letter. If Aerys wanted Viserys to succeed him instead of Aegon you'd expect him to make his wishes known. Heralds proclaiming it in the streets and ravens flying to all those who remained loyal. 

3 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Not true. It depends what historical document would mean. A letter from Aerys to Rhaella would had been a historical document and yet wouldn't had any power.

All he said was "thank you." How can that be considered true or false? Anyway, I think it would depend. If the letter formally declared Viserys as his heir and had the king's seal on it, I don't see why it would be any different from say Robert's will. (Of course someone could still tear it up.) Also minor point of fact but Aerys wouldn't have written to Rhaella with this information. Viserys was already the "new heir" when Aerys shipped him and Rhaella off to Dragonstone. So she would have already known. 

Honestly I don't get the reluctance among some people to accept this new piece of information that fits pretty well with what we already knew. It doesn't even have to be a mark against any aspect of the R+L=J theory. You just have to assume that either the Kingsguard were not informed, or they were at the tower following orders rather than because they assumed Jon would be a boy and the new king. None of these things are incompatible with Jon being the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna. 

[house of dayne]

I think its well within the kings rights to declare his oldest living son his heir..a king has power to strip lands and titles from anyone and can bestow those titles to anyone..aerys was well known to do exactly that upon a whim...the precedences and traditions of succession do not trump the kings power to manage his own house...if the situation was different and rhaegar was the one rebelling, aerys would not be bound to accept rhaegar and his offspring as heirs..thats ridiculous...in this case, aerys had real concerns about the the loyalty if dorne and in his madness, he regarded aegon as more dornish than targaryen..i cant imagine he was happy to have him as heir..he has the power to disinherit his son and dissolve his claims by royal decree, just as he has the power to legitimize any bastards...given aerys s paranoia about the loyalty of rhaegar and the dornish influence upon him, it is logical that he did in fact dissolve aegons claim in favour of his own son..it would be out ofhis character to not do so.

[RumHam]

19 minutes ago, house of dayne said:

I think its well within the kings rights to declare his oldest living son his heir..a king has power to strip lands and titles from anyone and can bestow those titles to anyone..aerys was well known to do exactly that upon a whim...the precedences and traditions of succession do not trump the kings power to manage his own house...if the situation was different and rhaegar was the one rebelling, aerys would not be bound to accept rhaegar and his offspring as heirs..thats ridiculous...he has the power to disinherit his son and dissolve his claims by royal decree, just as he has the power to legitimize any bastards...given aerys s paranoia about the loyalty of rhaegar and the dornish influence upon him, it is logical that he did in fact dissolve aegons claim in favour of his own son..it would be out ofhis character to not do so.

Oh a king surely does have that power. The Unworthy threatened Daeron with it, Aegon V forced Duncan the Small to abdicate his claim, people suggested that Aerys disinherit Rhaegar. Though it's unclear if Aerys totally disinherited Aegon or merely placed Viserys ahead of him. Again probably a moot point since they're all dead.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 hours ago, RumHam said:

A letter could certainly be a historical document, but I doubt a single letter is the source of Yandel's statement about Viserys being the heir. He mentions it in passing with no elaboration, as if it's a known fact. Not something surprising he discovered in some recently unearthed letter. If Aerys wanted Viserys to succeed him instead of Aegon you'd expect him to make his wishes known. Heralds proclaiming it in the streets and ravens flying to all those who remained loyal. 

If it was a known fact someone would had mentioned it so far or it may was the fact that Aerys chose to save Viserys and Rhaella. Since no one have ever mentioned that Aerys' disinherited Rhaegar it seems that it was something that was never being know to the rest of Westeros or was legal. So there is no reason to believe that it was more than just a wish that never became true like a letter to someone. 

[RumHam]

6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If it was a known fact someone would had mentioned it so far

This simply isn't true. You're essentially suggesting that Martin cannot introduce any new facts at this point in the story because nobody has mentioned them yet. Again nobody has any reason to think back on Aerys's plans for succession all these years later. The one time someone comes close, with Jaime remembering how Crakehall asked if he should proclaim a new king, Jaime thinks of Viserys first. 

Never mind the fact that if Martin wanted to ret-con establish facts, he could. We sometimes get new facts that directly contradict things that were previously established (for example "all Egg's sons married for love" in Dance but now it turns out one was gay and never married.) 

6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

or it may was the fact that Aerys chose to save Viserys and Rhaella. Since no one have ever mentioned that Aerys' disinherited Rhaegar it seems that it was something that was never being know to the rest of Westeros or was legal. So there is no reason to believe that it was more than just a wish that never became true like a letter to someone. 

Nobody is arguing that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar.  Rhaegar died and then Aerys named Viserys as his heir over Aegon who would have normally come next. There is a reason to believe it was more than a wish, the fact that Yandel states that Viserys was the heir. He doesn't describe him as "Aerys's preferred heir" or anything like that. He states that he was the new heir. The idea that Yandel found a letter where Aerys stated his preference for Viserys over Aegon and then interpreted that to mean that Viserys was the heir is pretty ridiculous. 

[Ser Leftwich]

I do not discount that disowning Rhaegar/Aegon could have happened. Actually, it makes sense, but the KG may not have heard it or chose not accept it.

Something to consider about who in KL might have know and the fact that Tywin had all the captives from KL sent to the wall, for example Ser Jaremy Rykker and Ser Alliser Thorne.

Tywin probably wanted to just get rid of anyone that was loyal to Aerys, but it ends up being a story element fro GRRM.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

snip

If he had chosen Viserys over Aegon that would mean that he had disinherited Rhaegar. I never said that Viserys wasn't the preferred heir and he hadn’t expressed his preference or even written a letter about it. What I say is that he done nothing to make it formal because everyone would knew about it.

[RumHam]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If he had chosen Viserys over Aegon that would mean that he had disinherited Rhaegar. I never said that Viserys wasn't the preferred heir and he hadn’t expressed his preference or even written a letter about it. What I say is that he done nothing to make it formal because everyone would knew about it.

No, because Rhaegar was dead at that point. We don't even know that he totally disinherited Aegon. He could have just named Viserys his heir without disinheriting anyone. Then if Viserys died and Aegon lived Aegon would be king. I'm inclined to think everyone did know about it. It just never came up in the novels because why would it? I've tried to explain how we can't use the lack of a mention of Viserys being the heir before the worldbook as proof that it didn't happen, or that people didn't know it had happened.

Martin has said that by the time the novels are done we'll know a lot more about Roberts Rebellion, to the point that a prequel novel would be redundant. There is so much we don't know about those years yet. So obviously we're going to continue learn more things that just haven't been mentioned yet. That doesn't mean they did not happen or were not widely known. That just does not make sense. 

[house of dayne]

As we can see the matter of succesion is very complicated..that is why the kingsguard had no business deciding for themselves who might be king...perhaps jon was rhargars rightful son and heir..but literally no one on earth knew about him..they turned their backs to the rightful king they were honour bound and sworn to protect for a baby who at best had a suspect and difficult to prove claim..furthermore they allowed rhaegars real family to be brutally slaughtered in their abscence..in fact, one could say that they ceased to be kingsguard at all and were in fact simply rhaegars personal henchman...they did nothing during the long rebellion to honour their vows and instead engaged in rhaegars pet project that had nothimg to do with the safety of the king..their presence at the tower does not imply that they are protecting royalty...it seems theyve done everything they can to avoid doing just that..that they dont know who the heir is is no excuse..theu made no effort to present themselves for duty and their ignorance stems from their absence at court..its their job to know who is king and who is heir but its not up to them to decide...their presence there reflects that they abandoned their kg vows in order to serve rhaegar, for whatever reason, good or bad.

.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

16 hours ago, RumHam said:

No, because Rhaegar was dead at that point. We don't even know that he totally disinherited Aegon. He could have just named Viserys his heir without disinheriting anyone. Then if Viserys died and Aegon lived Aegon would be king. I'm inclined to think everyone did know about it. It just never came up in the novels because why would it? I've tried to explain how we can't use the lack of a mention of Viserys being the heir before the worldbook as proof that it didn't happen, or that people didn't know it had happened.

Martin has said that by the time the novels are done we'll know a lot more about Roberts Rebellion, to the point that a prequel novel would be redundant. There is so much we don't know about those years yet. So obviously we're going to continue learn more things that just haven't been mentioned yet. That doesn't mean they did not happen or were not widely known. That just does not make sense. 

Or it's simply much more likely that since no one has ever said that Viserys was before Rhaegar or at least his son, Viserys was never named the Crown Prince formally. I don't see why we should believe something that has no text proof from the main series.

[RumHam]

5 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Or it's simply much more likely that since no one has ever said that Viserys was before Rhaegar or at least his son, Viserys was never named the Crown Prince formally.

I ask you again, when would someone ever have mentioned it? If you can point to somewhere in the text where someone is discussing or thinking about the issue of Aerys's heir and it seems odd they didn't mention it, let me know. The closest I know of is the Jaime quote I posted before where he thinks of Viserys before Aegon. You're basically suggesting that after five books there's been some cutoff where no new information about the rebellion can be introduced. That's patently absurd. We know we're going to learn even more new stuff about the rebellion before the series ends. 

5 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't see why we should believe something that has no text proof from the main series.

My main complaint here is that the unspoken end of that sentence is "...when it conflicts with my established head canon." It's funny how nobody ever questions 90% of the previously unrevealed historical facts presented in the worldbook. The Pact of Ice and Fire for example is never mentioned in the main series either, but nobody seems to doubt it happened. You yourself  said earlier this month that you thought the pact had been fulfilled by Lyanna and Rhaegar. Of course you didn't need confirmation from the main series that the pact existed. That would be ridiculous. 

[Orphalesion]

Erm...this is all irrelevant.

Viserys is dead, and there is a chance that Aegon is as well or, if Griff is the real thing, will eiher die in the conquest or won't be able to validate his claim, same as Jon. Even Daenerys claim could be contested, theoretically, after all white haired girls with purple eyes aren't exactly in short supply in Essos. The advantage she has above (f)Aegon and Jon is that she has Dragons.

Considering that Westeros is currently caught up in a messy civil war and that there's an Apocalyptic invasion coming down from the North I wager that the next King/Queen on the Iron Throne (if the title even continues to exist) will be decided by right of might rather than who slid out of who's private parts in what order and/or what Aerys decided in the last weeks of his life.