Jump to content

Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance


Jaak

Recommended Posts

World of Ice and Fire mentions that Aerys formally disinherited Rhaegaer´s children - in the short time after Trident.

At that time:

Connington was exile

Barristan was a wounded prisoner.

So, neither would have been with Aerys to hear the announcement. But both would eventually have heard accounts of Aerys´ last days, including the fact of Aegon´s disinheritance.

How seriously are they likely to take such acts by Aerys?

Would Barristan tell Daenerys: "Yes, Aegon´s the son of your big brother, and yes, Aegon should have reigned if Aerys said nothing else, but Aerys did, and therefore Iron Throne is yours and not Aegon´s!"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jaak said:

World of Ice and Fire mentions that Aerys formally disinherited Rhaegaer´s children - in the short time after Trident.

At that time:

Connington was exile

Barristan was a wounded prisoner.

So, neither would have been with Aerys to hear the announcement. But both would eventually have heard accounts of Aerys´ last days, including the fact of Aegon´s disinheritance.

How seriously are they likely to take such acts by Aerys?

Would Barristan tell Daenerys: "Yes, Aegon´s the son of your big brother, and yes, Aegon should have reigned if Aerys said nothing else, but Aerys did, and therefore Iron Throne is yours and not Aegon´s!"?

This doesn't really matter. Aegon, Viserys, Dany, Jon, (perhaps) Tyrion - all would have to fight for the Iron Throne. They all have blood claims of some sort.

Aerys didn't disinherit Aegon and Rhaenys, he made Viserys his heir instead of Aegon or Rhaenys but that doesn't mean Aegon and Rhaenys (and Lyanna's son) have no claim at all. Just that they might come after Viserys and his descendants/heirs. In the mind of a king who died shortly after naming Viserys his heir.

Viserys III's death later on sort of changed the game again. He made Daenerys Stormborn his heir so the strength of her legal claim will depend in part on whether the Targaryen loyalists in Westeros recognize Viserys III as a Targaryen king in exile or not (and even if they do they might still think him making a girl his heir is null and void if there is some boy they can join instead).

But in general law and custom matters not at all if you are essentially some brigand or sellsword. Aenys Blackfyre didn't care that Bittersteel had crowned his nephew Daemon III king, nor did Maelys the Monstrous care that his cousin Daemon was captain-general of the Golden Company (and presumably a Blackfyre descendant from an elder branch) when he killed him.

Aegon acted first. He went to Westeros and might not only successfully claim the loyalty of the Targaryen loyalists but also the Iron Throne. Dany will come too late. Henry I also stole England away from his elder brother Robert Curthose when William the Conqueror's chosen heir and successor, William II, died whilst hunting.

Dany can always declare Aegon an impostor but she can also stress the fact that Aerys II lawful successor was Viserys III, the last Targaryen king to be crowned in Westeros (on Dragonstone) and he then later made her his heir in exile. Thus we can easily have two different branches of House Targaryen fighting each other with different legal justifications for their claims. Not to mention that Dany has dragons and Aegon has none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This claim that Daenerys is Viserys's official heir remains interesting.

It seems to me that Martin had no intention of establishing a clear heir with a stronger claim than any other candidate, else he would have left that for Jon's big reveal. If people complain that there were insufficient witnesses to Jon's true parentage, even in presumed signed witness statements from the three Kingsguard at the Tower, then how much less credible would Daenerys's claims of being declared Viserys's heir be to Westerosi lords if it was witnessed only by Essosi foreigners and other questionable endorsers?

They really only have Dany's word for it, and maybe some old letter from Ser Darry. Hardly as strong an endorsement as potential letters from Aerys's legendary super Kingsguard themselves, endorsing Jon.

So, if such letters from the Kingsguard - and perhaps Rhaegar himself - exist, then it makes a stronger case for Jon being Rhaegar's heir than it does for Dany being Viserys's.

And then it merely becomes a contest between two Targaryens, and then Jon's gender coupled with Rhaegars greater stature, legend and following compared to Viserys, almost certainly will favor Jon's claim.

So in the end Dany will take the Throne by force of Dragons, and not due to any declaration that Viserys ever made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, as a Targaryen loyalist I will take and accept any dragon I can get - even Jon (assuming he switches surname that is)

Preferably one with good credentials, like Daenerys. She might have a hard time "proving it", but she got the targaryen look, the dragons and that she actually exist according to westerosi. 

FNR - What letters? Why would those exist? And where are they kept in that case? Is this an actual theory or something you just made up?

Anyways, Daenerys dragons should put her firmly first as the scion with the symbol of the house as mounts. That should be the real succession criteria, that dragonriders always beats those that are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

At this point, as a Targaryen loyalist I will take and accept any dragon I can get - even Jon (assuming he switches surname that is)

Preferably one with good credentials, like Daenerys. She might have a hard time "proving it", but she got the targaryen look, the dragons and that she actually exist according to westerosi. 

FNR - What letters? Why would those exist? And where are they kept in that case? Is this an actual theory or something you just made up?

Anyways, Daenerys dragons should put her firmly first as the scion with the symbol of the house as mounts. That should be the real succession criteria, that dragonriders always beats those that are not.

No one disputes that the Dragons will win Dany the Throne. The issue was whether any legitimacy would derive from her being Viserys's designated heir - any more than her being of confirmed Targaryen blood.

And my view is no, it won't. Because of a lack of evidence to that effect. I am not aware of any formal ceremony confirming her as heir, or any other event that was witnessed by prominent Westerosi observers who could endorse her claim.

So she will just be one of a number of Targaryen descendants then, all with competing claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No one disputes that the Dragons will win Dany the Throne. The issue was whether any legitimacy would derive from her being Viserys's designated heir - any more than her being of confirmed Targaryen blood.

And my view is no, it won't. Because of a lack of evidence to that effect. I am not awareof any formal ceremony confirming her as heir, or any other event that was witnessed by prominent Westerosi observers who could endorse her claim.

So she will just be one of a number of Targaryen descendants then, all with competing claims.

Ah, well then I misunderstood you. I agree, the blessing from Viserys will mean jack shit.

Still very interested about those letters you were speaking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I don't think that they will take it very seriously. If Aegon is the only Targaryen to rally around in Westeros, they'll rally around him, legalities from some twenty years ago be damned. If Aerys could disinherit Aegon, that is...

Yes he could. If Rhaegar was declared atainted, his descendants would lose their claim as well unless the king said otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This claim that Daenerys is Viserys's official heir remains interesting.

It seems to me that Martin had no intention of establishing a clear heir with a stronger claim than any other candidate, else he would have left that for Jon's big reveal. If people complain that there were insufficient witnesses to Jon's true parentage, even in presumed signed witness statements from the three Kingsguard at the Tower, then how much less credible would Daenerys's claims of being declared Viserys's heir be to Westerosi lords if it was witnessed only by Essosi foreigners and other questionable endorsers?

They really only have Dany's word for it, and maybe some old letter from Ser Darry. Hardly as strong an endorsement as potential letters from Aerys's legendary super Kingsguard themselves, endorsing Jon.

So, if such letters from the Kingsguard - and perhaps Rhaegar himself - exist, then it makes a stronger case for Jon being Rhaegar's heir than it does for Dany being Viserys's.

And then it merely becomes a contest between two Targaryens, and then Jon's gender coupled with Rhaegars greater stature, legend and following compared to Viserys, almost certainly will favor Jon's claim.

So in the end Dany will take the Throne by force of Dragons, and not due to any declaration that Viserys ever made.

Daenerys would not be the official heir because a woman could not inherit the throne. The next closest in line would be Viserys, and after him Robert Baratheon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This claim that Daenerys is Viserys's official heir remains interesting.

It seems to me that Martin had no intention of establishing a clear heir with a stronger claim than any other candidate, else he would have left that for Jon's big reveal. If people complain that there were insufficient witnesses to Jon's true parentage, even in presumed signed witness statements from the three Kingsguard at the Tower, then how much less credible would Daenerys's claims of being declared Viserys's heir be to Westerosi lords if it was witnessed only by Essosi foreigners and other questionable endorsers?

They really only have Dany's word for it, and maybe some old letter from Ser Darry. Hardly as strong an endorsement as potential letters from Aerys's legendary super Kingsguard themselves, endorsing Jon.

So, if such letters from the Kingsguard - and perhaps Rhaegar himself - exist, then it makes a stronger case for Jon being Rhaegar's heir than it does for Dany being Viserys's.

And then it merely becomes a contest between two Targaryens, and then Jon's gender coupled with Rhaegars greater stature, legend and following compared to Viserys, almost certainly will favor Jon's claim.

So in the end Dany will take the Throne by force of Dragons, and not due to any declaration that Viserys ever made.

Jon is a bastard, so he would not be heir to the throne, unless he took it by force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just more arguments for the Maesters. The lords and knights of the realm will back who they will, based on whom they perceive to be the rightful, or the best heir, and more often than not, that will be the claimant their overlord supports, or the one that offers them the best chance to benefit the interests of their house. And, in at least few cases, 'cause plot if nothing else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

No one disputes that the Dragons will win Dany the Throne.

*raises hand* I dispute this!

I'll go so far as to said Dany will never win the throne and her dragons will be turned against her as there is no other way for the book to go. GRRM is not going to let Dany steamroll the 7 kingdoms then steamroll the WW with her dragons. with the large army and three livng nukes its clear Dany is being set up to fail so at some point that matter her dragons will fail her and fail her big.

there two most likely being Euron stealing one and/or Jon warging one.

4 hours ago, tugela said:

Jon is a bastard, so he would not be heir to the throne, unless he took it by force.

this is not yet a known fact and there are many way for Jon to be a legit heir with a better clam then dany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tugela said:

Yes he could. If Rhaegar was declared atainted, his descendants would lose their claim as well unless the king said otherwise.

Problem is that if they want a Targaryen on the throne but Rhaegar's descenents are the only ones around, then I don't think that they would let a thing like legality stand in their way of getting a live Targaryen on the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of the end of Dance of Dragons, Barristan is unaware of Aegon as yet.

Barristan follows what he thinks is right - otherwise he'd have rallied  to Stannis or Renly rather than go seek Viserys.

If Barristan hears of Aegon, is his duty with Daenerys or with Aegon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

As of the end of Dance of Dragons, Barristan is unaware of Aegon as yet.

Barristan follows what he thinks is right - otherwise he'd have rallied  to Stannis or Renly rather than go seek Viserys.

If Barristan hears of Aegon, is his duty with Daenerys or with Aegon?

Well, I suspect that the issue will start and remain with the legitimacy of Young Griff's identity, rather than moving on to the legitimacy of Rhaegar's son's claim to the Throne. In Aegon's case, at least.

In Jon's case I suspect the legitimacy of his identity will be proven in some way, leading to the second question becoming the issue of importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

This claim that Daenerys is Viserys's official heir remains interesting.

It seems to me that Martin had no intention of establishing a clear heir with a stronger claim than any other candidate, else he would have left that for Jon's big reveal. If people complain that there were insufficient witnesses to Jon's true parentage, even in presumed signed witness statements from the three Kingsguard at the Tower, then how much less credible would Daenerys's claims of being declared Viserys's heir be to Westerosi lords if it was witnessed only by Essosi foreigners and other questionable endorsers?

They really only have Dany's word for it, and maybe some old letter from Ser Darry. Hardly as strong an endorsement as potential letters from Aerys's legendary super Kingsguard themselves, endorsing Jon.

So, if such letters from the Kingsguard - and perhaps Rhaegar himself - exist, then it makes a stronger case for Jon being Rhaegar's heir than it does for Dany being Viserys's.

And then it merely becomes a contest between two Targaryens, and then Jon's gender coupled with Rhaegars greater stature, legend and following compared to Viserys, almost certainly will favor Jon's claim.

So in the end Dany will take the Throne by force of Dragons, and not due to any declaration that Viserys ever made.

Well, the question here is what people will think of legal claims, not how they enforce them.

I'd say any partisans of Aegon (or Jon Snow, if there ever will be any) will have problems ignoring Daenerys' legal claim based on Viserys because a Targaryen loyalist cannot actually (and would not) ignore the fact that Viserys III was crowned king on Dragonstone and thus had any right to anoint an heir of his own.

That Viserys III saw Dany as the last surviving Targaryen scion as well as his own heir until such a time as they had a son together (or he himself had one) cannot really be doubted because that is how Daenerys is treated by anyone she and her brother hung out with in Essos.

Targaryen loyalists would be interested what the rightful king did in his exile, prepare for the day of his return, and not acknowledging the usurper and false king Robert in their hearts (and we know that at least the Martells were indeed keeping an eye on Viserys and Dany and were actively preparing and working for their return).

Aegon and Jon Snow both have the disadvantages of entering the game suddenly without preparation or people even knowing that they might (still) exist. You can reinterpret this whole thing as a game changer ('If Viserys III had known that his brother's son was still alive he would never have named Daenerys his heir') but you don't have to.

Not to mention that both definitely have to convince people that they are who they claim they are. Aegon there has all advantages on his side. He has the looks (unlike Jon Snow) as well as the support of Rhaegar's old friend, Jon Connington. Not to mention that he is claiming to be a Targaryen prince who actually is known to have existed once whereas Jon Snow would be a complete wild card since (presumably) his very birth and existence would be news to everybody.

The idea that there would be any letters signed by some long dead Kingsguard to vouch for Jon's identity doesn't make any sense, by the way. Such letters wouldn't even contain the new name of the child considering that it would only have been named 'Jon' by Eddard Stark after the knights at the tower were long dead. Arthur Dayne talking about some boy named X Targaryen wouldn't really help Jon Snow's cause. Besides, if words are wind in this series, written words are even less important than uttered words. If Gerold Hightower (or Eddard Stark) stood in front of you telling you the truth about Jon Snow that would certainly be able to sway a lot of people. But the words of dead people do not matter much in this series.

Thinking about Jon and Aegon a bit I really have trouble imagining 'objective proof' Jon Snow could have or use that is going to be better than Aegon's. We, the readers, might eventually see visions of the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage and Jon's birth convincing us beyond the shadow of a doubt. But it is unlikely that all the lords of Westeros will be privy to such a vision.

George most definitely will play with the fact that highborn Jon Connington telling a beautiful lie about a beautiful boy with Valyrian features must sound much more convincing to everybody than ragged Howland Reed telling a rather far-fetched story about some Starkish-looking bastard living at the Wall. If people ever had too choose between these two Westeros would declare as a man for Prince Aegon.

And even the dragonriding thing might not be interpreted as proof by everybody. Aegon might have sufficient dragon blood to become a dragonrider, too, and Jon Snow's skinchanger abilities might enable him to claim a dragon even without having dragon blood. And we know that people are not necessarily willing to seat any dragonrider on the Iron Throne (e.g. the end of the Two Betrayers).

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

As of the end of Dance of Dragons, Barristan is unaware of Aegon as yet.

Barristan follows what he thinks is right - otherwise he'd have rallied  to Stannis or Renly rather than go seek Viserys.

If Barristan hears of Aegon, is his duty with Daenerys or with Aegon?

He has already joined team Daenerys. I doubt he will change his allegiance now. Although he might try to preserve the peace between both factions assuming he believes Aegon is Rhaegar's son.

12 hours ago, Protagoras said:

At this point, as a Targaryen loyalist I will take and accept any dragon I can get - even Jon (assuming he switches surname that is).

Do you actually think you would buy the Jon Snow story as a Targaryen loyalist while you knew that Dany and Aegon were also out there?

I wouldn't. As a Targaryen loyalist I'd like my beloved royals platinum-haired and purple-eyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the question here is what people will think of legal claims, not how they enforce them.

I'd say any partisans of Aegon (or Jon Snow, if there ever will be any) will have problems ignoring Daenerys' legal claim based on Viserys because a Targaryen loyalist cannot actually (and would not) ignore the fact that Viserys III was crowned king on Dragonstone and thus had any right to anoint an heir of his own.

That Viserys III saw Dany as the last surviving Targaryen scion as well as his own heir until such a time as they had a son together (or he himself had one) cannot really be doubted because that is how Daenerys is treated by anyone she and her brother hung out with in Essos.

Targaryen loyalists would be interested what the rightful king did in his exile, prepare for the day of his return, and not acknowledging the usurper and false king Robert in their hearts (and we know that at least the Martells were indeed keeping an eye on Viserys and Dany and were actively preparing and working for their return).

Aegon and Jon Snow both have the disadvantages of entering the game suddenly without preparation or people even knowing that they might (still) exist. You can reinterpret this whole thing as a game changer ('If Viserys III had known that his brother's son was still alive he would never have named Daenerys his heir') but you don't have to.

Not to mention that both definitely have to convince people that they are who they claim they are. Aegon there has all advantages on his side. He has the looks (unlike Jon Snow) as well as the support of Rhaegar's old friend, Jon Connington. Not to mention that he is claiming to be a Targaryen prince who actually is known to have existed once whereas Jon Snow would be a complete wild card since (presumably) his very birth and existence would be news to everybody.

The idea that there would be any letters signed by some long dead Kingsguard to vouch for Jon's identity doesn't make any sense, by the way. Such letters wouldn't even contain the new name of the child considering that it would only have been named 'Jon' by Eddard Stark after the knights at the tower were long dead. Arthur Dayne talking about some boy named X Targaryen wouldn't really help Jon Snow's cause. Besides, if words are wind in this series, written words are even less important than uttered words. If Gerold Hightower (or Eddard Stark) stood in front of you telling you the truth about Jon Snow that would certainly be able to sway a lot of people. But the words of dead people do not matter much in this series.

Thinking about Jon and Aegon a bit I really have trouble imagining 'objective proof' Jon Snow could have or use that is going to be better than Aegon's. We, the readers, might eventually see visions of the Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage and Jon's birth convincing us beyond the shadow of a doubt. But it is unlikely that all the lords of Westeros will be privy to such a vision.

George most definitely will play with the fact that highborn Jon Connington telling a beautiful lie about a beautiful boy with Valyrian features must sound much more convincing to everybody than ragged Howland Reed telling a rather far-fetched story about some Starkish-looking bastard living at the Wall. If people ever had too choose between these two Westeros would declare as a man for Prince Aegon.

And even the dragonriding thing might not be interpreted as proof by everybody. Aegon might have sufficient dragon blood to become a dragonrider, too, and Jon Snow's skinchanger abilities might enable him to claim a dragon even without having dragon blood. And we know that people are not necessarily willing to seat any dragonrider on the Iron Throne (e.g. the end of the Two Betrayers).

He has already joined team Daenerys. I doubt he will change his allegiance now. Although he might try to preserve the peace between both factions assuming he believes Aegon is Rhaegar's son.

Do you actually think you would buy the Jon Snow story as a Targaryen loyalist while you knew that Dany and Aegon were also out there?

I wouldn't. As a Targaryen loyalist I'd like my beloved royals platinum-haired and purple-eyed.

Well my answer to most of this post is that - unlike you, (if I recall your position correctly) - I find it narratively pointless to have this big build-up relating to Jon's identity without Martin having a mechanism in store for it to be proven to people who matter. I don't buy the idea that Martin is going to simply use this as a big F*&^ you to the trope of the secret heir, and leave Jon's valid claim un-utilized in some poignant, bittersweet twist.

I think Jon's identity is central to the story, and that it cannot fulfil its purpose without the mechanism to prove it to the world existing in Martins arsenal of yet-to-be-revealed plot developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well my answer to most of this post is that - unlike you, (if I recall your position correctly) - I find it narratively pointless to have this big build-up relating to Jon's identity without Martin having a mechanism in store for it to be proven to people who matter. I don't buy the idea that Martin is going to simply use this as a big F*&^ you to the trope of the secret heir, and leave Jon's valid claim un-utilized in some poignant, bittersweet twist.

I think Jon's identity is central to the story, and that it cannot fulfil its purpose without the mechanism to prove it to the world existing in Martins arsenal of yet-to-be-revealed plot developments.

Well, he might have a mechanism for that. Jon never making a claim to the Iron Throne on his own and eventually teaming up with either Aegon or Dany to become a member of their family/cause.

Or perhaps his sole purpose is to fight against the Others and die the death of a hero.

In the end the game of thrones level of the story is irrelevant. If the Others win there won't be either a game of throne nor a Targaryen restoration. And some crucial people have to die or sacrifice themselves in the fight against the Others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tugela said:

Daenerys would not be the official heir because a woman could not inherit the throne. The next closest in line would be Viserys, and after him Robert Baratheon.

You would be, I'm guessing, referring to the famous citation from TWOIAF:
" In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendents."

See the problem? If Dany is out, then Bob's out, too.

(And that's only one of many problems with the alleged "iron precedent").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...