house of dayne Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Even aegon , rhaegars oldest son, would come before lyannas child..granted he apparantly was killed but viserys was clearly the prince of dragonstone and the legitimate heir of aerys before any legitimate or illegitmate heirs of rhaegar.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 On 6/24/2016 at 7:52 PM, Lord_Tyrell said: Personally, I think if Jon was never born and the Kingsguard were no longer at the Tower of Joy when Ned arrives. I think Tywin's most pressing concern after the Sack of King's Landing was finding the remaining 3 members of Aerys Kingsguard. If Lyanna miscarried or Jon was born earlier as a stillborn, they would have headed south to Starfall, dropped Lyanna off there for Ned to pick up later, and then sailed to be with Viserys. Once they're with Viserys, I really think Viserys would have taken back the throne. Gerold Hightower was the Commander of the forces in the War of the Ninepenny Kings, and along with the Sword of the Morning, he could have convinced multiple Free Cities and mercenary companies to join with him to put Viserys back on the Iron Throne. I think Tywin knew this to be the case, which makes it odd to me that he'd never consider Jon Snow to be Rhaegar's son and that Lyanna died in childbirth, especially considering that's what happened with his own wife. Any other theories on what would have happened if Aerys remaining Kingsguard were to join with Viserys instead of Jon? This is a non starter because the book you are speculating on would never be written Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 11 hours ago, house of dayne said: Rhaegar died before aerys so the next inline would be viserys and his offspring as the oldest living male heir...lyannas child is heir to nothing...the old god observing the wedding might be important to the starks if they had consented or even witnessed the event..beyond them no one else would care about first men supersticions and would demand that the seven legitimize the cerimony..but keep clutching at straws Even aegon , rhaegars oldest son, would come before lyannas child..granted he apparantly was killed but viserys was clearly the prince of dragonstone and the legitimate heir of aerys before any legitimate or illegitmate heirs of rhaegar.. You speak like you know more than the rest of us. GRRM is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 11 hours ago, house of dayne said: viserys was clearly the prince of dragonstone and the legitimate heir of aerys before any legitimate or illegitmate heirs of rhaegar.. This isn't how it works. When the Crown Prince dies his children are before his siblings in the line of succession. So any of Rhaegar's legimate sons will come before Viserys and that is why the 3 KG wew at ToJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
house of dayne Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 6 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said: This isn't how it works. When the Crown Prince dies his children are before his siblings in the line of succession. So any of Rhaegar's legimate sons will come before Viserys and that is why the 3 KG wew at ToJ. wow...the crown prince was rhaegar...he died before the king so the kings oldest son was viserys...the new crown prince of dragonstone and targaryen heir to the king..rhaegars oldest son was aegon...whomever was birthed in tower of joy could never precede these two..even after aegon was killed, or not killed, viserys was still the clear and uncontested targaryen heir...why this fact escapes you is beyond me but it doesnt take a genius or grrm to figure that out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 9 minutes ago, house of dayne said: wow...the crown prince was rhaegar...he died before the king so the kings oldest son was viserys...the new crown prince of dragonstone and targaryen heir to the king..rhaegars oldest son was aegon...whomever was birthed in tower of joy could never precede these two..even after aegon was killed, or not killed, viserys was still the clear and uncontested targaryen heir...why this fact escapes you is beyond me but it doesnt take a genius or grrm to figure that out Again that isn't how it works. If the Crown Prince dies it's not his younger brother that becomes the Heir but his oldest son. If his first son dies then the next son is the heir. If all of his sons die then the heir is the brother. The fact that the Crown prince died doesn't mean that his sons stop being at the line of succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
house of dayne Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 The second rhaegar died, he ceased to be the prince of dragonstone and viserys,as oldest son, suceeded him...had viserys had any children, they would have suceeded him..the prince of dragonstone is not a title carried into the grave...its rights extend to the oldest living male and his offspring..viserys...remember the king is still on the throne and his oldest living heir is considered the prince of dragonstone.. The instant rhaegar died, viserys assumed the role of official heir and was treated and considered as such..only if the king did not have an approbriate heir would succession skip a generation...but as viserys was clearly the prince of dragonstone, there was no need to consider the offspring of rhaegar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, house of dayne said: The second rhaegar died, he ceased to be the prince of dragonstone and viserys,as oldest son, suceeded him...had viserys had any children, they would have suceeded him..the prince of dragonstone is not a title carried into the grave...its rights extend to the oldest living male and his offspring..viserys The instant rhaegar died, viserys assumed the role of official heir and was treated and considered as such..only if the king did not have an approbriate heir would succession skip a generation...but as viserys was clearly the prince of dragonstone, there was no need to consider the offspring of rhaegar That's not how it works. The son inherits before the brother always. Baby Aegon was briefly the heir after Rhaegar fell. Viserys was always after Aegon in the line of succession. Though in this case, it's pretty much a moot point given King's Landing was sacked immediately after the Trident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 9 minutes ago, house of dayne said: The second rhaegar died, he ceased to be the prince of dragonstone and viserys,as oldest son, suceeded him...had viserys had any children, they would have suceeded him..the prince of dragonstone is not a title carried into the grave...its rights extend to the oldest living male and his offspring..viserys...remember the king is still on the throne and his oldest living heir is considered the prince of dragonstone.. The instant rhaegar died, viserys assumed the role of official heir and was treated and considered as such..only if the king did not have an approbriate heir would succession skip a generation...but as viserys was clearly the prince of dragonstone, there was no need to consider the offspring of rhaegar I am not sure that you know how the line of succession works. The King's heir is his oldest son and his sons. If the first son has no heir then the next son is the heir. I don’t know where you get the idea that if the Crown prince dies then his sons are not in the line of succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
house of dayne Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Lord Lannister said: That's not how it works. The son inherits before the brother always. Baby Aegon was briefly the heir after Rhaegar fell. Viserys was always after Aegon in the line of succession. Though in this case, it's pretty much a moot point given King's Landing was sacked immediately after the Trident. If the son precedes the brother, how could baby jon then be in line for the throne? Aegon was the oldest son, jon the younger brother...like rhaegar and viserys though neither has sons...rhaegar like aegon is killed..officially anyways...why do some suggest that jon is the heir when viserys claim is based upom being the oldest living son of the last king while jon is npt even the oldest son. I can accept the argument that aegon if genuine has a stronger claim than viserys but i cant see how jon as heir can be justified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 19 minutes ago, house of dayne said: If the son precedes the brother, how could baby jon then be in line for the throne? Aegon was the oldest son, jon the younger brother...like rhaegar and viserys though neither has sons...rhaegar like aegon is killed..officially anyways...why do some suggest that jon is the heir when viserys claim is based upom being the oldest living son of the last king while jon is npt even the oldest son. I can accept the argument that aegon if genuine has a stronger claim than viserys but i cant see how jon as heir can be justified If Jon is trueborn which is what the text point to so far, then Jon is after Aegon so the line was; Aerys->Rhaegar->Aegon->Jon->Viserys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 5 minutes ago, house of dayne said: If the son precedes the brother, how could baby jon then be in line for the throne? Aegon was the oldest son, jon the younger brother...like rhaegar and viserys though neither has sons...rhaegar like aegon is killed..officially anyways...why do some suggest that jon is the heir when viserys claim is based upom being the oldest living son of the last king while jon is npt even the oldest son. I can accept the argument that aegon if genuine has a stronger claim than viserys but i cant see how jon as heir can be justified Let's keep in mind we're talking about baby Aegon and now the fellow who turns up in Dance, who may or may not be him. Jon's claim is dubious at best and depends on a lot of things. First Rhaegar and Lyanna would've had to been married, otherwise he's still a bastard and would only have a claim in extraordinary circumstances like perhaps a great council. Next, alright let's suppose Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar through a second wife, that still puts him behind Aegon and ahead of Viserys in the line of succession. The problem there is proving it to anyone. This happens to be young Griff's problem in Dance. All he has is the say so of Jon Connington that he is Rhaegar's son. If not for that than he has a better claim to the throne than Dany, gender aside. What does Jon have? A long missing Uncle who's been off fighting snarks and grumpkins? A brother who can "see the past"? The word of an elusive barbarian frogman? Nothing anyone, especially anyone who has a stake on who sits on the throne, is going to believe. But in a nutshell JQC spelled out the line of succession assuming Jon is legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHodorThatWasPromised Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 20 minutes ago, house of dayne said: If the son precedes the brother, how could baby jon then be in line for the throne? Aegon was the oldest son, jon the younger brother...like rhaegar and viserys though neither has sons...rhaegar like aegon is killed..officially anyways...why do some suggest that jon is the heir when viserys claim is based upom being the oldest living son of the last king while jon is npt even the oldest son. I can accept the argument that aegon if genuine has a stronger claim than viserys but i cant see how jon as heir can be justified Why is it so hard to understand ? The line of succession is through the crown prince and then his male children. Only if there are no legitimate male children of the crown prince does the kings second son inherit the throne. If Jon is a legitimate child of Rhaegar he is before Viserys because he is the son of the crown prince. Its that simple ! Lets imagine that Brandon Startk had two sons before he died, then both of those two sons would be before Eddard in the line of succession. Just as Robb, Bran and Rickon are all before Benjen now. Do you understand that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Leftwich Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Anybody on here ever read Hamlet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 3 minutes ago, Ser Leftwich said: Anybody on here ever read Hamlet? The part where Ophelia Dany turns mad and dies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
house of dayne Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 acoording to the westeros wiki..."When his brother Rhaegar was killed at the Battle of the Trident, Viserys was named his father's heir, passing over Rhaegar's infant son Aegon. "...as Aerys was still alive and on the throne it is safe to assume it was his royal decree that passed over Aegon in favour of Viserys...as no one objected, it seems this is within the power of a sitting monarch to do..the royal decree from the iron throne surely has more legal weight than the claims of rhaegars offspring legitimate or otherwise or past precedence...from the prespective of the three kingsguard at the tower of joy, i simply can not understand how they could consider jon the heir to the targaryens given the simpler and legally stronger claims of viserys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 42 minutes ago, house of dayne said: acoording to the westeros wiki..."When his brother Rhaegar was killed at the Battle of the Trident, Viserys was named his father's heir, passing over Rhaegar's infant son Aegon. "...as Aerys was still alive and on the throne it is safe to assume it was his royal decree that passed over Aegon in favour of Viserys...as no one objected, it seems this is within the power of a sitting monarch to do..the royal decree from the iron throne surely has more legal weight than the claims of rhaegars offspring legitimate or otherwise or past precedence...from the prespective of the three kingsguard at the tower of joy, i simply can not understand how they could consider jon the heir to the targaryens given the simpler and legally stronger claims of viserys 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buried Treasure Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 30 minutes 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, so it most likely never happened. Agreed on the wiki not meaning much of anything.. Additionally the maester that 'wrote'' TWoIaF may have been inaccurate because he was compressing the timeline - Rhaegar's children died so soon after Rhaegar that it wasn't long before Viserys actually was Aerys heir. From the perspective of somebody writing after the events, Viserys was the new heir because Aegon died before his succession could be of relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon's Queen Consort Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 14 minutes ago, Buried Treasure said: Agreed on the wiki not meaning much of anything.. Additionally the maester that 'wrote'' TWoIaF may have been inaccurate because he was compressing the timeline - Rhaegar's children died so soon after Rhaegar that it wasn't long before Viserys actually was Aerys heir. From the perspective of somebody writing after the events, Viserys was the new heir because Aegon died before his succession could be of relevance. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buried Treasure Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 If the mad king did make such a proclamation then perhaps Maester Yandel referenced it even though nobofy else thinks it relevent because a) Aegon died soon after and b ) it was a madman making a politically dumb and legally questionable* proclamation without the backing of any lords to witness (and thereby agree to enforce it) so didn't hold weight by any metric except to a historian interested in noting the decision making into why Aerys shipped Viserys to relative safety at that time. Though I still think it is most likely an imprecision by Yandel. *Heirs can be skipped, but the precedents we have seem to be for cause: traitor / feeble-witted / female. Skipping over the legitimate heir just because you prefer someone else is not actually a thing that seems to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.