Jump to content

Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance


Jaak

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Was Robert (while in open rebellion) in succession after Viserys, after Rhaenys, or not at all?

The mistake is to assume there was a fixed line of succession at all. People most likely would have agreed that Steffon and his sons came after Aerys and his descendants but the order wouldn't have been fixed clear at all.

The history of the Targaryen reign tells us that the succession was never clear unless the eldest son followed his father (and even then problems could rise like the father being unhappy with the son (Rhaegar) or rumors that the son wasn't his father's seed (Daeron II)). If the eldest son predeceased his father then things were pretty much unclear. That was the problem after the deaths of Aemon/Baelon and after the deaths of Daeron/Aerion.

If there had been a fixed line of succession then there wouldn't have been a debate or uncertainty who would be next when Aemon and Baelon died - and even less uncertainty after the deaths of Daeron and Aerion. Yet this was clearly not the case.

Quote

That's still compatible with a lot of people denying he had the right to do so.

But nobody did deny that he had the right to do so, right? Nobody even said Viserys I did not have the right to name Rhaenyra his heir in 105 AC. People later said the king should change the succession in favor of Aegon the Elder, they never said the king did not have the right to rule on his own succession.

Quote

NOT named by King. Maegor expressly named Aerea as his heir - Jaehaerys usurped the throne anyway.

Well, this was a civil war. Was Maegor a true king from the POV of Jaehaerys I? If we assume that Rhaena and her daughters were supporting the claim of Jaehaerys I after he had proclaimed himself (which is confirmed for Rhaena) then House Targaryen decided at that point that a younger son of Aenys I had a better claim than a grandchild of Aenys I from his eldest son.

Quote

Highly arguable. It's true that Jaehaerys appointed Baelon, and then appointed Viserys separately after Great Council. However, when Viserys I appointed his heiress, a lot of people did not obey.

That is not true. Not every lord swore allegiance to Rhaenyra but that's just because not all the lords went to KL for that ceremony. The leader of the Green party, Otto Hightower, was the first man to do homage to Rhaenyra, after all.

Quote

A Green could argue that neither Jaehaerys nor Viserys had the right to name their heir - they had obeyed Jaehaerys not because he had the right to name heir but because he had named the right heir, and Viserys had no right to name his heir and had named the wrong one.

That would be a weird view because the first Great Council openly discussed the succession. If a majority had supported Laenor then he would have been the 'right heir'. The idea that you only discuss the succession under the condition that your claimant/legal view is the right one means that there is no real discussion.

Besides, if such a view had been prevalent among the lords then there would have been no need for a Great Council in the first place because nobody would have supported Rhaenys/Laenor.

Quote

And anyone who complies to Aegon II-s decrees by failing to list Rhaenyra as Queen and numbering Aegon son of Rhaenyra as Aegon III is recognizing the Greens as right.

Aegon II did not remain king because he was 'right'. He outlived his sister, killed her, and was restored to the throne. He is as much 'the rightful king' as Maegor the Cruel and Joffrey Baratheon were. They sat the Iron Throne and killed/outlived some of their rivals but they were eventually brought down. But we cannot really say they were unquestioned rulers or actually in control of their kingdom. Half and more of the Realm stood up against Joff and he wasn't yet in control of the entire Realm when he died. The same is even more true for Maegor the Cruel (whose death prevented his deposition and execution) and Aegon II (who was killed while besieged in his own capital).

Quote

Again NOT named by King.

We actually don't know. It doesn't seem as if Baelor the Blessed named an heir but that is actually sort of strange. Who the hell people thought should follow upon Baelor's death? They must have thought about that and Baelor must have known about that problem, too, considering that he did not intend to marry or father children.

In that sense Viserys II might have been Baelor's anointed heir and Prince of Dragonstone and there might have still a discussion whether this was okay after Baelor's death.

But even if there had been no official heir Viserys II was the Hand and would have spoken with the King's Voice when the succession was discussed.

Quote

Moot because Duncan did not, in the end, survive his father.

No, because we don't yet know whether Duncan and Jenny had any children. If they did then the younger line of Jaehaerys II prevailed. Even if they didn't then the Realm was indeed fine with Prince Duncan being disinherited in favor of his younger brother. In fact, the Realm demanded that because of Duncan's morganatic marriage.

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't agree. We have no idea if Aerys had done anything formally.

We know that Aerys II formally named Prince Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death because Viserys wouldn't have been Aerys 'new heir' if Aerys hadn't done anything formally. Naming an heir is a formal legal act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We know that Aerys II formally named Prince Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death because Viserys wouldn't have been Aerys 'new heir' if Aerys hadn't done anything formally. Naming an heir is a formal legal act.

We don't know that. No one from the people who have been in KL during RR have mentioned it, so it most likely never hapenned or at least was never formal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

We don't know that. No one from the people who have been in KL during RR have mentioned it.

Maester Yandel mentioned it. The succession is not really discussed during the books. We don't know who was supposed to come after Joffrey and Tommen, either. Stannis/Renly or Myrcella? Nor have we any clue who is considered to be next in line after Tommen/Myrcella.

Why do you expect the characters should discuss or think about a trivial detail like that fifteen years after the fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Why do you expect the characters should discuss or think about a trivial detail like that fifteen years after the fact?

Because they would had proved it. 

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Maester Yandel mentioned it.

And? Did he ever said that Aerys had formally named Viserys his heir? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Because they would had proved it. 

Why should that have to be proved? We know that it is the case.

Just now, Jon's Queen Consort said:

And? Did he ever said that Aerys had formally named Viserys his heir? 

He said Viserys was Aerys' new heir. And he is a historian. He is not calling somebody someone's heir when he hasn't been officially named that person's heir.

Recounting who was the king's heir is an important part of the accounts of the various king. Just check how Yandel lists the successive three heirs of Aerys I. The idea that this is his private opinion makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Why should that have to be proved? We know that it is the case.

No we don't. 

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

He said Viserys was Aerys' new heir. And he is a historian. He is not calling somebody someone's heir when he hasn't been officially named that person's heir.

That has nothing to do with something being formal. From all we know he could just had read a letter that Aerys wrote and had mentioned that Viserys was the new heir, which wouldn't had been formal. We know from TPATQ how a King choses his heir formally and we have never heard anything like that being mentioned about Viserys. So Aerys could had said what he wanted to do but hadn't done it at the end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

No we don't. 

That has nothing to do with something being formal. From all we know he could just had read a letter that Aerys wrote and had mentioned that Viserys was the new heir, which wouldn't had been formal. We know from TPATQ how a King choses his heir formally and we have never heard anything like that being mentioned about Viserys. So Aerys could had said what he wanted to do but hadn't done it at the end.

That is a mistake. Only Princess Rhaenyra got such a lavish ceremony including an oath of obeisance. And the reason for this was that Prince Daemon was considered the heir presumptive at this point. The idea that this is the standard procedure is backed by the text at all.

Yandel treats the Viserys thing as an established fact, not something that might have been in doubt. He is a scholar and a historian. If Viserys hadn't been named Aerys' heir in a way that would convince some maester who should actually have been biased in favor of primogeniture then Yandel would have been more precise, speaking about 'the boy Aerys II considered his heir at this point'. Just as he and Gyldayn make a difference between 'Rhaenyra, the Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne' after 105 AC and 'Princess Rhaenyra, the beloved child of Viserys I and Queen Aemma whom they informally considered to be the king's heir in 103-105 AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Only Princess Rhaenyra got such a lavish ceremony including an oath of obeisance.

And this is the only time we have seen that a King has chosen his heir. He needed to have a ceremony like that in order to make his choice formal. If Aerys had changed the line of succession he needed a ceremony like that to make his choice formal.

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yandel treats the Viserys thing as an established fact, not something that might have been in doubt.

Yet there is nothing in the books to point at that. Not even Jaime or Barristan have ever mentioned that Aerys named Viserys his heir. Is thare anywhere in the ASOIAF books that someone has mentioned that Aerys had changed the line of succession or the only time that it was mentioned was at the same book that it was told that Elia might had killed her own children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

And this is the only time we have seen that a King has chosen his heir. He needed to have a ceremony like that in order to make his choice formal. If Aerys had changed the line of succession he needed a ceremony like that to make his choice formal.

Your mistake is to assume that there is a formal line of succession at all. There is no such thing else there wouldn't have been any uncertainty. There are just different opinions.

49 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yet there is nothing in the books to point at that. Not even Jaime or Barristan have ever mentioned that Aerys named Viserys his heir. Is thare anywhere in the ASOIAF books that someone has mentioned that Aerys had changed the line of succession or the only time that it was mentioned was at the same book that it was told that Elia might had killed her own children?

So what? Those things have nothing to do with each other.

And it is nowhere stated in the books that Aegon was Aerys' heir after Rhaegar's death. The boy is only referred to as Rhaegar's heir which is an entirely different thing. Prince Maegor also didn't become Maekar's heir after Aerion's death - else there wouldn't have been a Great Council to settle the succession.

It was just an assumption that Aegon would be the next in line after Rhaegar's death. As it turns out that's up to the king to decide. If Rhaegar had ruled as Rhaegar I his eldest son would have been his heir. But if the son dies before the father the king can choose whether another son or his grandchild is going to succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was there to discuss about Aerys naming Viserys as his heir after Rhaegar's death? Aerys and Rhaegar's children were brutally murdered during the sack, and Robert seized the throne. Viserys was Aerys’s heir whether he was named or not, at least as far as everybody outside of Pentos was concerned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

With the wildlings, even if you leave the humanitarian argument aside, you have the practical argument  that leaving 100000 people on the wrong side of the Wall directly increases the Others' army by that very number. So even a LC of the Watch who was not particularly sympathetic to the Wildlings would have to consider letting them in through the Wall if he was bothered about the real fight.

Sure, that is a fact Marsh and the old guard actually understood and conceded, too. But they disagreed on the 'We are going to feed, cloth, and arm the wildlings' policy. They could have just allowed them to pass. There was no need to keep them close and try to fraternize with them the way Jon did.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Why? Why should the LC of the Watch do this? The business of duty to the realm is a two-way street, you know. 

No, it isn't. The NW has a duty stipulated by their oaths whereas the Lords of the Seven Kingdoms (and their king) have no stipulated duty whatsoever towards the NW. And the NW are subjects of the Iron Throne like anybody else. They are not a legal body outside the law.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

If the LC of the Watch sends a letter asking for help, it is the duty of the Lord of Winterfell to take it seriously if he expects the Watch to protect his lands. If we're going to expect Jon Snow to put aside his hatred and send a letter to Roose, then we should apply the same standards to Roose as well, right - that he should have put aside all his other business and immediately marshalled the North towards the Watch? Why does the LC have to grovel at his feet - that too when another much more pliant option is available?

Since Jon never wrote such a letter to Roose we will never know what his response would have been.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Your scenario also assumes that the LC of the watch would have so much sway over both Stannis or Boltons that he would be able to get them to ally so easily. That seems like a very unrealistic scenario to me.

I never said Jon would have had success. But he didn't even try. Nobody did. The argument 'nobody believes in the Others' isn't a very good one. There is proof that the Others exist and we are talking about a world where magic and monsters actually exist. If you tell a convincing story about the Others (let it be Sam, Jon himself, or any of the other survivors from the Fist or some of the wildlings encountering them) then quite a few people might listen. Stannis never saw an Other, either, yet he believes that they exist.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Let's look at it from the POV of the NW commander. He knows that the Boltons have suddenly become the Lords of the North, with their army mysteriously untouched. The previous King, from the family who had ruled the North for centuries and who, everyone knows, had the steadfast loyalty and love of most of the Northern houses during that time - has been just killed brutally. Does it take a genius to put two and two together from this and figure that the Boltons may possibly have been involved in all this, and that the North may not accept their rule?

The North already accepted their rule. We are talking about the beginning of ADwD. And Bolton being spared in the Red Wedding isn't proof that he was involved. Perhaps Roose was taken hostage and eventually agreed to serve the Lannisters in exchange for his life? Jon cannot be sure about any of that.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

And from this, can the LC not extrapolate that the Boltons wouldn't care about his cause any more than they cared about their king? How do you think it would have looked like to the rest of the North when Ramsay Bolton - rapist, flayer, monster extraordinaire became acting Lord of Winterfell? The story of Lady Hornwood was very well known, as also Roose's raping of Ramsay's mother.

This is all irrelevant. If the Others are a real threat then making common cause with some rapist and torturer shouldn't be a problem. Neither for the Northmen nor for Jon Snow. If you have to choose between getting your hands dirty by association and the end of your race.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

On top of that, the enemy you are seeking help against are the Others, "half forgotten ice demons of legend" gone 8000 years ago.   The LC doesn't even have actual evidence, just a few accounts from some NW men and the wildlings (which the North hates anyway). 9 times out of 10, people are not going to take this seriously.

If we take that as an argument then mass suicide would be a better option. You cannot be more fatalistic than not trying to win allies by arguing that nobody would believe you.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

On the other hand you have Stannis Baratheon, one of the more powerful Lords of Westeros,  who's actually taken your cause seriously, helped you when you needed it the most, and plans to restore the rightful (in the eyes of the Northerners) ruler to Winterfell, thus bringing political stability back to the North to some extent. Following which he is sure to marshal more men and resources your way for the real fight. He'll even do most of the legwork and canvassing for the cause, sparing you from sending men to grovel at all the Lords' feet. You know that he is a man of his word.

Stannis was done at this point. He is the beaten pretender and thus unlikely to win the support of anybody in Westeros.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Seriously, why should he choose the Boltons? Even if you didn't have Jon's own personal issues in the mix, it's very likely an LC of the Watch would still take a similar decisions to him of supporting Stannis.

It is not necessarily wrong to support Stannis - but not in fighting in a war against potential allies. Jon made peace with the wildlings because of the Others. The Boltons are not different in principle.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

My argument refers to a pre-Daenerys' arrival scenario -  basically the time of ADWD. But even with regards to her, I don't share your certainty that all three dragons will make it out alive and under her control from the DotD.

That has nothing to do with Dany. I just think Westeros as a whole has little chance to stand against the armies and magics the Others can muster. They fight dirty, after all.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

I recall you saying on another discussion of ours that in the feudal system, the son is expected to avenge his father. In the North, by all accounts, the LC would have the knowledge that Eddard Stark was a man of honour. So it's entirely possible that he suspects that Ned was executed unfairly. Certainly nobody in the North believes Robb was a traitor, why should the LC?

The king of the LC sits on the Iron Throne not in Winterfell.

Robb might have an obligation to avenge his father to avoid losing face but what has that to do with the LC of the Night's Watch? Harren Hoare's brother might have loved him as well yet he did not forsake his vow and marched against Aegon Targaryen to avenge him.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

You are assuming an extremely idealistic scenario that people are actually even going to take this threat of ice demons seriously.

In a world where those ice demons actually exist this is not an extremely idealistic scenario.

15 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

The entire reason the Others are such a massive threat is because their enemy doesn't even believe they exist. The idea that everyone is all of a sudden going to put everything aside and listen to the LC of the Watch proclaiming that ice spiders and ice demons are on their way is very unlikely. Until the Wall falls or something drastic happens, the South is never going to take this seriously. GRRM has clearly set it up that way.

Why do you think the the fall of the Wall is going to change anything, by the way? All the people in the south will get is rumors and reports that the Wall has fallen, they won't see the actual fallen Wall.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Lord Varys,

None of the wildling leaders has betrayed their liege lord and king, in the way that the Boltons did. 

Again, Robb Stark also betrayed his liege lord and king, Joffrey Baratheon, when he marched against him. That he failed to kill him doesn't mean he didn't have the intention to do so. You cannot fault Roose for killing Robb when he finally remembered where his true loyalties lie - with the Iron Throne, not this self-proclaimed king he never chose.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

The wildlings may or may not turn out to be treacherous, but the Boltons have already proved to be treacherous. 

The Boltons did not betray the NW. What they did to other people doesn't count. And as I've outlined above this is only treachery from the Stark perspective. That is not the only perspective you can take.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

I wouldn't expect such people to hold to any bargain I reached with them, and I wouldn't expect Jon to believe that they would.  We never get to see Jon's reaction to news of the Red Wedding, but he was plainly aware of it by the time he got elected.  It wouldn't be hard to determine the essentials of what took place in succeeding weeks, even if he doesn't have all of the details.

He cannot have any good information because we know that the Walder and Roose didn't send letters or envoys disclosing the entire story. And we don't know what Jon believes.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

In addition, there are pragmatic reasons for negotiating with the wildlings (as Little Scribe of Naath has suggested) that don't apply to the Boltons.  The wildlings are coming to the Wall anyway.  Either they'll come as wights, or they'll come potentially as allies.  They may turn out to be treacherous enemies, but there doesn't seem anything to lose at this point, by treating them as allies.

I'm not faulting them for trying to work with the wildlings. I'm faulting Jon for not trying to work with the Boltons, the Lannisters, the Tyrells, everyone, basically.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Then there is Stannis.  He came to the rescue of Castle Black.  The Night's Watch owes him a huge debt.  What's more, he outnumbers them three to one.  He can, if he chooses, take what he is asking for.  Anything that Jon gives Stannis makes him an enemy in the eyes of Kings Landing, whether he likes it or not.  I think it is hugely unlikely that Jon could broker any peace agreement between Stannis and Roose Bolton.  I don't think he has any choice but to pick a side.  If I have a criticism of Jon, it's that once he decided to back Stannis, he should have been whole-hearted about it.

Yeah, Stannis could have put down the leadership of the NW, that's true. But so what? After he left the pressure was gone, too, and Jon could have reaffirmed his neutral stance by contacting the Iron Throne and Roose telling them about his plans. That way the victorious faction might send him some real help and not just take the food and clothes of the NW (which is all what Stannis did in ADwD).

Jon playing at politics led the Pink Letter and essentially a war between the NW and the Boltons which the NW can only lose if it ever comes to that.

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

Finally, Ramsay.  Ramsay's recreational activities are well-known throughout the North.  As is his treatment of Lady Hornwood.  Again, I wouldn't expect anyone to just shrug if their sister was being forcibly married to a man with a record of inflicting rape, torture, starvation and forcible bestiality on women.  In fact, I'd despise Jon if he was okay with this. 

Ramsay is an extreme case but he has no right to interfere there. And it is not that there is law or anything that a man has to treat his wife kindly or anything. Mistreating and beating of wives is perfectly fine by Westerosi law. And Jon has no neither proof nor knowledge that Ramsay is mistreating his sister. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

What was there to discuss about Aerys naming Viserys as his heir after Rhaegar's death? Aerys and Rhaegar's children were brutally murdered during the sack, and Robert seized the throne. Viserys was Aerys’s heir whether he was named or not, at least as far as everybody outside of Pentos was concerned. 

We are talking about Viserys being Aerys' 'new heir' during the short time between Rhaegar's death and the Sack. Yandel tells us in TWoIaF that Viserys was Aerys' new heir when he sent him and Rhaella to Dragonstone.

Thus Viserys did not just become Aerys' heir after Aegon was killed but was already his heir since the king learned that Rhaegar was dead. In fact, Aerys might even have named him Prince of Dragonstone. He even sent him there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We are talking about Viserys being Aerys' 'new heir' during the short time between Rhaegar's death and the Sack. Yandel tells us in TWoIaF that Viserys was Aerys' new heir when he sent him and Rhaella to Dragonstone.

Thus Viserys did not just become Aerys' heir after Aegon was killed but was already his heir since the king learned that Rhaegar was dead. In fact, Aerys might even have named him Prince of Dragonstone. He even sent him there.

Dang, you even argue when people agree with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lost Melnibonean said:

Dang, you even argue when people agree with you. 

I didn't argue. I honestly thought you didn't know what we were talking about.

People are somewhat invested in this thing because it might have 'meaning' for the interpretation of the thoughts of the knights at the tower of joy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If there had been a fixed line of succession then there wouldn't have been a debate or uncertainty who would be next when Aemon and Baelon died - and even less uncertainty after the deaths of Daeron and Aerion. Yet this was clearly not the case.

That much agreed.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But nobody did deny that he had the right to do so, right? Nobody even said Viserys I did not have the right to name Rhaenyra his heir in 105 AC. People later said the king should change the succession in favor of Aegon the Elder, they never said the king did not have the right to rule on his own succession.

Jasper Wylde did not expand on that point, but sounds like this.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not true. Not every lord swore allegiance to Rhaenyra but that's just because not all the lords went to KL for that ceremony. The leader of the Green party, Otto Hightower, was the first man to do homage to Rhaenyra, after all.

Then what was the position of Jasper Wylde?

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That would be a weird view because the first Great Council openly discussed the succession. If a majority had supported Laenor then he would have been the 'right heir'. The idea that you only discuss the succession under the condition that your claimant/legal view is the right one means that there is no real discussion.

Besides, if such a view had been prevalent among the lords then there would have been no need for a Great Council in the first place because nobody would have supported Rhaenys/Laenor.

Just because you agree to argue with a fool does not mean you agree to be outvoted by him. Jaehaerys made a point of appointing Viserys his heir separately, and Baelon had been appointed with no council. And during the council itself, there were rumours of Corlys collecting armies and Daemon actually did collect an army. Neither Jaehaerys nor Baelon were going to follow the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Jasper Wylde did not expand on that point, but sounds like this.

Then what was the position of Jasper Wylde?

Jasper Wylde wasn't the Master of Law when Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone. Lord Lyonel Strong was. Wylde might have later held the view that Viserys I should have changed the succession but that doesn't mean he held the belief Daemon should have come before Rhaenyra while Viserys I had no sons.

The idea that a son should come before a daughter was a widespread belief in Westeros. Nobody doubts that. But that doesn't mean that the same people did not think the king could rule on his own succession.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Just because you agree to argue with a fool does not mean you agree to be outvoted by him. Jaehaerys made a point of appointing Viserys his heir separately, and Baelon had been appointed with no council. And during the council itself, there were rumours of Corlys collecting armies and Daemon actually did collect an army. Neither Jaehaerys nor Baelon were going to follow the vote.

The thing is that Jaehaerys I most likely favored Baelon over Rhaenys not just because he got along well with his son but also because he was aware of the reservations his lords had for a female monarch. In addition it seems to be rather likely that he favored Viserys over Rhaenys/Laenor in 101 AC just as he favored Baelon over Rhaenys in 101 AC. Thus it is not unlikely that the Great Council was just the sneaky way the king used to ensure his favored heir would succeed him without a civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Your mistake is to assume that there is a formal line of succession at all. There is no such thing else there wouldn't have been any uncertainty. There are just different opinions.

There is a formal line. 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

So what? Those things have nothing to do with each other.

If you trust something that someone said with no proofs either from the other books or even from the same books there is no reason to not believe that everything that are mentioned in this book are real, like the rumor that Elia killed her children. Also in the same book it implies that a Targ woman cannot take the Throne, so by what you say the Targs are extinct.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And it is nowhere stated in the books that Aegon was Aerys' heir after Rhaegar's death. The boy is only referred to as Rhaegar's heir which is an entirely different thing. Prince Maegor also didn't become Maekar's heir after Aerion's death - else there wouldn't have been a Great Council to settle the succession.

It was just an assumption that Aegon would be the next in line after Rhaegar's death. As it turns out that's up to the king to decide. If Rhaegar had ruled as Rhaegar I his eldest son would have been his heir. But if the son dies before the father the king can choose whether another son or his grandchild is going to succeed.

Utter nonsense. I don't know how you don't know how the line of succession works. We don't know why Maeglor was disinherited, which most likely had something to do with the fact that Aerion was mad, he was named after Maeglor and Westeros was in turmoil and needed a grown up as their King. But we do know that after Maeglor's death it wasn't his chosen heir Aerea that became the Queen but the one who was next to the line of succession, Jaehaerys. As Westerosi history proves a King cannot change his heir without a formal ceremony, like what happened in Rhaenyra's case, and a Great Counsil like Great Council of 101 AC and Great Council of 233 AC.

In the end of the day even if Aerys had expressed his choice who would care? If Rhaegar had won the battle but Aerys would had made Viserys his heir do you think that anyone would had agreed with Aerys' choice? Also if Rhaegar was disinherited why everyone seem to believe that he would had been the next King?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22.9.2016 at 10:22 PM, Protagoras said:

I assume Robbs will gives him power, but the same time they find out that he is a Targ and not Ned Starks son (aka the reason he was in that will in the first place) he should replaced with Rickon, or more likely Sansa or Arya.
 

That would actually be a really good twist. Jon finally becomes a legitimized Stark through Robb's will. Then L+R=J is revealed (by Bran/ Bloodraven) but not to his advantage - the typical fantasy trope - but to his (personal) disadvantage. He's a bastard again, though a Targaryen Bastard and not a Stark Bastard. He gets delegitimized as Ned's heir and is sent back where he belongs - the wall where he dies fighting the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Land's End said:

He's a bastard again, though a Targaryen Bastard and not a Stark Bastard

What if it is proved that he is a trueborn?

50 minutes ago, Land's End said:

 He gets delegitimized as Ned's heir and is sent back where he belongs - the wall where he dies fighting the others.

If he should go where he belongs he will end up on the Throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...