Loyalists and Aegon´s disinheritance

[Protagoras]

Have been running short with time recently so I will just say this about the Riverlands.

The Tullys were never that big in the first place, they have been lords paramount for only 300 years, and their authority during this period seems to be lacking. They also have very powerful bannermen. Furthermore, they are in a tough spot atm, few and removed from power. Why would other Riverlords risk their own money and power to win him back Riverrun when they can take it for themselves or someone connected to them?

But lets say that Edmure or someone else survive (or the Stark kids for that matter) - who will relegitimize house Tully? Who will give them back their lord paramountship? Who will return them Riverrun? Holding it with a ragged BWB host is not "return them Riverrun". Not when the dragons arrive.

And the dragons have no reason to restore that traitorous family that helped the rebels crush their dynasty. They might not hate them, but why raise them up. Even if an alliance with the North makes it politically possible why not give it directly to Sansa, with whatever House name she prefer. And even they somehow get the Riverrun back - why a lord paramountship? Is Jon that good at oral sex so he can convince Daenerys into this? Because this certainly needs alot of convincing.

From a Targaryen perspective - They have rebelled twice against the crown, why give them a third chance? The Tullys are history and who is the Lord of Riverrun might not be relevant at all. Who cares which Stark kid that is next in line after Edmure? That inheritance simply wont happen. Even if Jon is king he is going to give it to the persons he trust the most at that position and that can´t be the Tullys.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I was talking about a Jon who was raised knowing that he is Rhaegar's son. If you are a prince you are entitled and what to take what is yours unless something is clearly wrong with you. And nothing is wrong with bastard Jon. He wants to win glory and praise just like every other (noble-)boy playing at arms. Just recheck his memories of his friendly contests with Robb.

Not to mention that he most certainly would want to avenge his father if he knew what had happened to him.

Well, he certainly might have felt better about his heritage, but I'm still not sure whether he would have been as ambitious as to want the throne itself. First of all, it remains to be seen whether the union of R + L  was indeed legitimate and whether Howland has proof (such that everyone believes it beyond a doubt). That's the only way he would legally be able to stake some claim to the throne. Second, polygamy is questionable in the North, if I am not wrong. Thus it's very likely he would still see himself as a bastard, just not Ned's bastard. (It's very likely Ned has this view, actually, even though he knows the truth of Jon's parentage. Otherwise he shouldn't have allowed him to go to the NW either, right?)

Second, if he ever learnt the truth of his parentage, I don't know if he would want to avenge his father. Anyone hearing the story of the Rebellion would know what happened to Brandon and Rickard Stark, and it would be easy to understand that the rebels had the right of it. 

To even put forward a claim for the throne, he'd have to first convince his family to be on his side - and that would require Ned going against his best friend Robert and surrogate father Arryn, which won't happen. He'd have been smart enough to see that, and not so power-hungry that he'd stake a claim despite that.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

re, the way things have been set up in the books now the revelation of his parentage should be completely irrelevant to him and actually more of a distraction or blow to his identity - he sees himself very much as Eddard Stark's son. He has no reason to want to be Rhaegar Targaryen's son by Eddard Stark's sister.

But that is mainly because of the threat of the Others and him being at the Wall. If he had learned about his parents at Winterfell from Ned and Howland he might have had rather different intentions thereafter. Certainly not something like joining the NW - that he only did because he was a bastard and had no chance to make a name for himself elsewhere. If he had known he wasn't a bastard he would never have joined the NW in the first place.

True. In this case I think it's more likely he would have asked his father to make him a good marriage, and probably give him a castle to rule in Robb's name (a la what Ned had planned for Bran and Rickon). I'm inclined to believe he'd have been satisfied with this. 

 

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I know about that. But how do you know that those people are intending to do something about that? Howland Reed would be a very weird guy if he allowed Robb's will to legitimize and anoint Jon Snow as Robb Stark's heir when he knows that Robb Stark had no idea who Jon Snow actually was.

Howland could only allow Jon to become Robb's successor if he continued to suppress the knowledge about Jon's true ancestry. 

This comes back to the point of whether Howland believes that Jon's true parentage is realistically worth staking a claim to the throne over. If the man has some plans to eventually reveal Jon's parentage and it's legitimacy and then urge him to make the most of it, sure, he wouldn't allow the will. But otherwise, in a practical, sensible scenario, it makes far more sense to go ahead with legitimizing him as a Stark.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-09-22 at 11:02 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, Aegon II would have demanded it, and he would have used force if necessary. But whoever crowned Daeron wouldn't necessarily have wanted the cripple back nor allowed Daeron to abdicate. Thus it would have come down to violence. Unwin Peake most certainly would have forced Daeron to murder his own brother if that had enabled him to control the crown.

And Aemond made it clear to everyone that his brother sucked as king. Had Aemond retaken KL from Rhaenyra he would have taken the throne and the crown and ensured that Aegon II remained dead.

Of course Aegon II would demand his brother would remove his crown and odds are that Daeron would happily do so and like I think someone said, its really hard to bully someone who rides on a dragon unless you've got a dragon yourself. I see no reason why Unwin Peake or any man or woman like him would be able to forced a dragon riding Daeron to fight his brother for a crown.

How did Aemond make it clear that Aegon II sucked as a king? When Aegon II was gone and Aemond did have the biggest dragon he didn't try to crown himself, but rather fought on in Aegon II's name. Beyond fan fiction there's no reason to think that Aemond ever wanted to take the crown from Aegon II and certainly not that he would have killed the brother he fought in the war for.

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Protagoras said:

But lets say that Edmure or someone else survive (or the Stark kids for that matter) - who will relegitimize house Tully? Who will give them back their lord paramountship? Who will return them Riverrun? Holding it with a ragged BWB host is not "return them Riverrun". Not when the dragons arrive.

Edmure should be able to pull it off. He has a many friends among the younger Riverlords/heirs and they have been targeted all by the Lannisters, not just the Tullys. The Red Wedding also affected them all.

Thus they should rally around Edmure should he live. And if he doesn't Catelyn might do the same thing to a greater extent. She has returned from the dead after she was brutally killed by the Freys, and they all want revenge for the people that were killed at the Twins. Not only the lords but mostly, I think, the smallfolk who must have lost thousands of sons, brothers, and fathers there.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Well, he certainly might have felt better about his heritage, but I'm still not sure whether he would have been as ambitious as to want the throne itself.

Well, I'd expect that of him. If he didn't want to rule despite the fact that he was (sort of) the heir then he would completely fail at being a (noble-)man in this society. It would also be very odd if Robb would not want to become Lord of Winterfell.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

First of all, it remains to be seen whether the union of R + L  was indeed legitimate and whether Howland has proof (such that everyone believes it beyond a doubt).

I'm working under that assumption. If there was no marriage then this whole plot line should be completely ignored insofar as politics and claims are concerned. Jon Snow could then still be a prophesied hero but he wouldn't be a prince.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

That's the only way he would legally be able to stake some claim to the throne. Second, polygamy is questionable in the North, if I am not wrong.

We don't know anything about that. What we do know is that there are precedents for First Men kings (Gardener and Durrandon) having multiple wives at the same time. In Andal days this kind of thing wasn't practiced in Westeros anymore and we have no idea whether the First Men in the North ever did it. But the only precedents we have where polygamy was sort of accepted was when kings did it (even among the wildlings only chieftains do it). The sons of kings are another matter. Maegor the Cruel had to claim the throne before he could force the Realm to (sort of) going along with it. When he married Alys Harroway he was kicked out of the kingdom, dragon or not.

That does not make it very likely that Aerys, the Faith, and the lords accepted Rhaegar's marriage to Lyanna if there was such a public marriage.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Thus it's very likely he would still see himself as a bastard, just not Ned's bastard. (It's very likely Ned has this view, actually, even though he knows the truth of Jon's parentage. Otherwise he shouldn't have allowed him to go to the NW either, right?)

Or he deliberately chose to never tell Jon the truth anyway. And actually thought it was better to rid himself of the boy this way than to have to face him once he finally had gathered enough courage to tell him the truth.

I don't think Ned would have thought he had to disguise Jon as his bastard if there was no proof for a Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage. Ned could have just told Robert and the Realm that the child was her bastard. The idea that Ned would have believed Robert would have killed Lyanna's bastard doesn't make any sense to me, nor the idea that the Lannisters or others would have been interested to do it for Robert. A bastard had pretty much no claim and was essentially no danger if raised by Eddard Stark.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Second, if he ever learnt the truth of his parentage, I don't know if he would want to avenge his father. Anyone hearing the story of the Rebellion would know what happened to Brandon and Rickard Stark, and it would be easy to understand that the rebels had the right of it.

Well, that depends. A nobleman is expected to settle the scores with people who harmed their families, is he not? And the female line doesn't really matter. If Jon is Rhaegar's son he is a Targaryen just as Egg's, Maekar's, Daeron II's children were. Jon never knew Brandon and Rickard but his parents certainly would matter to him.

It would all depend when and how Jon learned the truth. Assume he was raised as a bastard the way he was up until the age 13-14, right before the beginning of the series. Then Ned suddenly tells him the truth when he is an adolescent teenager. That should hurt on so many levels that he might very well decide he has had enough of his so-called father and his family.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

To even put forward a claim for the throne, he'd have to first convince his family to be on his side - and that would require Ned going against his best friend Robert and surrogate father Arryn, which won't happen. He'd have been smart enough to see that, and not so power-hungry that he'd stake a claim despite that.

He could have left Winterfell to seek out some Targaryen loyalists. Or, more likely, he could have gone to White Harbor to take a ship to Pentos to pay a visit to his uncle Viserys and his aunt Daenerys.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

True. In this case I think it's more likely he would have asked his father to make him a good marriage, and probably give him a castle to rule in Robb's name (a la what Ned had planned for Bran and Rickon). I'm inclined to believe he'd have been satisfied with this. 

I see no reason why. Jon is ambitious at heart. What keeps him sort of in check is merely the whole bastardy issue. He believes he is not good enough to deserve a lordship or a castle or the throne. But if he knew the truth that would definitely change. Just think about the concept you are suggesting: A royal prince serving a mere lord as his vassal? That isn't very likely. If the truth were out Jon would outrank all the Stark children and that would have its effect on things.

You see this line of thinking/reasoning in Arianne's mind in the sample chapters. She is not liking the idea that Quentyn is going to be Daenerys' king/prince consort because that would mean he would outrank her.

Robb could never again play the lord with Jon, and Jon would have great difficulties getting along with the fact that his advice/suggestions could be dismissed rather easily because - thanks to his surrogate father - his title and rank were essentially meaningless. That would gnaw at him and should eventually drive a wedge between him and the other Starks. And we haven't even mentioned Catelyn yet.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

This comes back to the point of whether Howland believes that Jon's true parentage is realistically worth staking a claim to the throne over. If the man has some plans to eventually reveal Jon's parentage and it's legitimacy and then urge him to make the most of it, sure, he wouldn't allow the will. But otherwise, in a practical, sensible scenario, it makes far more sense to go ahead with legitimizing him as a Stark.

Well, that is a really strange scenario. Howland Reed has of yet demonstrated by his absence that he couldn't care less about the Stark cause. No crannogmen we know of joined Robb's army to free/avenge Eddard Stark, nor did he make any move to stabilize the regime in the North in Robb's absence. Jojen and Meera went to Winterfell to take Bran to Bloodraven. But instead Reed could have sent, say, 200-500 armed men to prevent the fall of Winterfell to Theon Greyjoy.

If Howland Reed does anything at all then it has to do with the threat the Others pose. And like Bloodraven he goes subtly about that. For some reason it was good for the plan that Brandon Stark is presumed dead. That's why he allowed Winterfell to fall. There is also a reason, presumably, why he only reached out to Bran and never even made an attempt to contact Robb.

The idea that Howland suddenly reveals himself to be a man motivated by a strong political loyalty to the Starks isn't very likely. While Stannis is still alive the will would only add to the confusion and prevent a united front against the Others. And when he is dead, well, I'm not sure that there will be enough men left in the North to make it worthwhile to confront the Others there. Then they should try to make an alliance with the people down south - and that should work much better with the Targaryen card than the Stark card (assuming that a Targaryen sits on the Iron Throne at that time).

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

Of course Aegon II would demand his brother would remove his crown and odds are that Daeron would happily do so and like I think someone said, its really hard to bully someone who rides on a dragon unless you've got a dragon yourself. I see no reason why Unwin Peake or any man or woman like him would be able to forced a dragon riding Daeron to fight his brother for a crown.

Again, Tessarion died. Daeron was as dragonless as Aegon II. Not to mention that Daeron was pushed around even while he was a dragonrider. It wouldn't have been his decision to be crowned king and thus it wouldn't have been his decision to abdicate. Kings can be used as pawns by other people. And Daeron would be ideal for this kind of thing.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

How did Aemond make it clear that Aegon II sucked as a king? When Aegon II was gone and Aemond did have the biggest dragon he didn't try to crown himself, but rather fought on in Aegon II's name. Beyond fan fiction there's no reason to think that Aemond ever wanted to take the crown from Aegon II and certainly not that he would have killed the brother he fought in the war for.

Are you reading the books? He made it clear that the crown looked much better on his head when he wore at as Prince Regent than it ever looked on Aegon's.

Aemond stayed true his brother while the man was recovering. But there is no textual evidence that he did whatever he did when he parted ways with Cole (and effectively abandoned all political or military power) in the name of Aegon II.

If Aemond had retaken KL from Rhaenyra and crowned himself king he would not have stepped down for the cripple. He could very well have claimed that Aegon II lost his claim when he fled the city rather than stand and fight. Aemond would have taken the Iron Throne by conquest and it is not likely that Aegon would have been able to take it from him with some crippled dragon and some traitors at his back. Borros Baratheon would have stood with Aemond, due to their marriage alliance, that much is clear.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, that is a really strange scenario. Howland Reed has of yet demonstrated by his absence that he couldn't care less about the Stark cause. No crannogmen we know of joined Robb's army to free/avenge Eddard Stark, nor did he make any move to stabilize the regime in the North in Robb's absence. Jojen and Meera went to Winterfell to take Bran to Bloodraven. But instead Reed could have sent, say, 200-500 armed men to prevent the fall of Winterfell to Theon Greyjoy.

If Howland Reed does anything at all then it has to do with the threat the Others pose. And like Bloodraven he goes subtly about that. For some reason it was good for the plan that Brandon Stark is presumed dead. That's why he allowed Winterfell to fall. There is also a reason, presumably, why he only reached out to Bran and never even made an attempt to contact Robb.

That's because the crannogmen are guerilla fighters and cannot fight in Robb's wars. Robb orders them to defend the Neck, and they do. The state in which Theon finds Moat Cailin in ADWD is proof of that - the Crannogmen have almost finished the IB inside. 

And how could Howland have known that Winterfell was going to fall? That was a ludicrous plan, btw, which only worked by sheer luck. Was Howland to imagine that only 50 guards were left in Winterfell? Or that Theon was going to plan a night-time attack on a castle which involved them scaling two 80 feet walls and swimming a moat in between undetected? Or the fact that miraculously, not a single person was on watch, which would have effectively been the end of such a plan, as they could have cut the ropes of the guys. Not to mention the direwolves being confined to the godswood.

That entire plan required readers itself to suspend disbelief. The idea that Howland would anticipate something like that makes no sense.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that Howland suddenly reveals himself to be a man motivated by a strong political loyalty to the Starks isn't very likely. While Stannis is still alive the will would only add to the confusion and prevent a united front against the Others. And when he is dead, well, I'm not sure that there will be enough men left in the North to make it worthwhile to confront the Others there. Then they should try to make an alliance with the people down south - and that should work much better with the Targaryen card than the Stark card (assuming that a Targaryen sits on the Iron Throne at that time.

Howland is the one guy who would be loyal to Starks beyond everyone else. He's essentially sent his own children off to what is very likely their death for Bran and the realm's sake.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He could have left Winterfell to seek out some Targaryen loyalists. Or, more likely, he could have gone to White Harbor to take a ship to Pentos to pay a visit to his uncle Viserys and his aunt Daenerys.

With Robert on the throne? Against his own foster father Ned?

The question in this scenario is not whether Jon would have felt like claiming his rights - he would have, but I disagree with you that he is so power-crazy that he would do so beyond all sense, a la the Blackfyres. Ned would have still been the one to bring him up, after all. He would have ultimately given up the idea of such a thing - just like he rejected Winterfell when Stannis offered it to him.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think Ned would have thought he had to disguise Jon as his bastard if there was no proof for a Rhaegar-Lyanna marriage. Ned could have just told Robert and the Realm that the child was her bastard. The idea that Ned would have believed Robert would have killed Lyanna's bastard doesn't make any sense to me, nor the idea that the Lannisters or others would have been interested to do it for Robert. A bastard had pretty much no claim and was essentially no danger if raised by Eddard Stark.

Impossible. Robert wanted to kill all Targs. If Ned had said Jon was Lyanna's bastard, everyone would know the father would be Rhaegar. Robert's hatred towards him knew no bounds.

Effectively, with the introduction of Young Griff into the plot, a guy styling himself as the long-lost son of Rhaegar Targaryen, engineered to be the perfect Targ prince restoring his dynasty, and with the backing of people like Jon Con and possibly Doran, the idea of Jon claiming the throne on the basis of R + L = J is ended, IMO. YG is essentially taking the place of Jon here. In a standard fantasy story, this is exactly what Jon would have done. However, ASOIAF is not a standard fantasy story, and I suspect GRRM is trying to make a point here that people don't deserve thrones on the basis of having the right parents. Jon will have to earn his throne.

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

That's because the crannogmen are guerilla fighters and cannot fight in Robb's wars. Robb orders them to defend the Neck, and they do. The state in which Theon finds Moat Cailin in ADWD is proof of that - the Crannogmen have almost finished the IB inside.

So what? It is strange that Robb took none of them with him as far as we know when Eddard Stark took at least Howland Reed with him when he rode to war back in the day.

The Neck lies on the way and the crannogmen owe fealty to House Stark. I see no reason why some of them could not have bolstered the ranks of the army. Not 1,000 or so but, say, a few hundred.

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

And how could Howland have known that Winterfell was going to fall? That was a ludicrous plan, btw, which only worked by sheer luck. Was Howland to imagine that only 50 guards were left in Winterfell? Or that Theon was going to plan a night-time attack on a castle which involved them scaling two 80 feet walls and swimming a moat in between undetected? Or the fact that miraculously, not a single person was on watch, which would have effectively been the end of such a plan, as they could have cut the ropes of the guys. Not to mention the direwolves being confined to the godswood.

That entire plan required readers itself to suspend disbelief. The idea that Howland would anticipate something like that makes no sense.

Jojen had green dreams, had he not? Could be that he only had the sea devouring Winterfell dream after his arrival but if Howland had come himself to Winterfell or had sent some trusted and powerful adult (or a few men-at-arms) those people could have helped to convince the men in charge at Winterfell to heed Jojen's words. Not to mention that they could have helped to arrange Bran's journey to Bloodraven had Winterfell not fallen.

If we assume Winterfell had not fallen - and Howland did not foresee or allow that to happen - then Bran would never have been allowed to undertake that fool's errand to the lands beyond the Wall.

We also have no idea what Howland Reed learned from the Green Men. The man actually could be among the most powerful sorcerers/seers/whatever in the entire series.

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

With Robert on the throne? Against his own foster father Ned?

Not necessarily against Robert and Ned but perhaps against Joffrey? If would depend how this new situation would have changed Jon's feelings about Ned. The idea that everything would have been fine doesn't make much sense to me. Just imagine what you would think if you parents basically told you that they lied to you your entire life and made your life miserable by doing so. Being raised as Ned's bastard was not that bad but compared to what Jon's life could have been had he known who he actually was it was very bad indeed.

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

The question in this scenario is not whether Jon would have felt like claiming his rights - he would have, but I disagree with you that he is so power-crazy that he would do so beyond all sense, a la the Blackfyres. Ned would have still been the one to bring him up, after all. He would have ultimately given up the idea of such a thing - just like he rejected Winterfell when Stannis offered it to him.

Jon only rejected Winterfell because it came from Stannis and was a conditional offer including the public rejection of the old gods and the burning of the godswood of Winterfell. And he was convinced that as a Stark bastard he had no right to it while Sansa (and possibly Arya) yet lived.

As Rhaegar's son Jon could make a completely different claim not necessarily overshadowed by the specter of bastardy. 

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Impossible. Robert wanted to kill all Targs. If Ned had said Jon was Lyanna's bastard, everyone would know the father would be Rhaegar. Robert's hatred towards him knew no bounds.

That is not true. If you carefully reread AGoT then you realize that Ned feared Robert might kill Cersei's children the same way he did not punish/look the other when Tywin had Rhaegar's children killed. But that is not the same as wishing the death of every Targaryen descendant, legitimate or illegitimate.

Elia and her children were nothing to Robert. But Lyanna was the love of his life and Lyanna's son her son as well as Ned's nephew. Do you think Robert would have allowed anyone to treat Lyanna the same way Gregor treated Elia? Do you think he would have wanted to smash the head of Lyanna's son against a wall? I don't think so. And I don't think Ned truly believed any of that. I think Ned feared that Robert might look the other way if there was another Targaryen prince out there, fathered by Rhaegar.

But if there was just some bastard out there is no reason to believe Robert would have hunted them all down. Aerys II could have had dozens of bastards from all those mistresses he had yet there is no mentioning of Robert ever searching for them.

Finally there is the fact that Ned remained Robert's friend. That makes only sense if Ned never truly believed that Robert would actually kill his nephew. You are not friends with a man who might kill a member of your family.

Ned might have feared that Robert might look the other way/not prevent the murder of his nephew (or only that the child would be taken from him to be raised as a hostage) but he clearly did not expect that Robert himself would kill Jon.

Later in AGoT - after the Lady incident and the Daenerys assassination plan - Ned might have been willing to believe Robert himself might order the murder of Rhaegar's legitimate son (and it is pretty clear, I think, that Ned is defending Dany as fiercely as he does because he very much knows that it could just as well be Jon) but earlier on it makes no sense that he would believe that.

1 hour ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Effectively, with the introduction of Young Griff into the plot, a guy styling himself as the long-lost son of Rhaegar Targaryen, engineered to be the perfect Targ prince restoring his dynasty, and with the backing of people like Jon Con and possibly Doran, the idea of Jon claiming the throne on the basis of R + L = J is ended, IMO. YG is essentially taking the place of Jon here. In a standard fantasy story, this is exactly what Jon would have done. However, ASOIAF is not a standard fantasy story, and I suspect GRRM is trying to make a point here that people don't deserve thrones on the basis of having the right parents. Jon will have to earn his throne.

The world George has created leaves little room for idealistic concepts like that. If a throne could be earned that Hot Pie or Podrick should earn it, not some hidden prince who already has a legal blood claim to it. The society George has created does not care about what you do. It cares about your blood and your ancestry. And if a guy who has the right blood ends up on the throne that's not going to happen because he is a great guy. 

[Dex drako]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The world George has created leaves little room for idealistic concepts like that. If a throne could be earned that Hot Pie or Podrick should earn it, not some hidden prince who already has a legal blood claim to it. The society George has created does not care about what you do. It cares about your blood and your ancestry. And if a guy who has the right blood ends up on the throne that's not going to happen because he is a great guy. 

I think the answer can and will be both.

just because the story started off bad for people who were "idealistic" doesn't mean it ends bad for them. it was always going to be the honorable Ned stark types that win at the end of the story not the backstabbing types that did well at the start

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Dex drako said:

just because the story started off bad for people who were "idealistic" doesn't mean it ends bad for them. it was always going to be the honorable Ned stark types that win at the end of the story not the backstabbing types that did well at the start

It is not that. It is just that the rules of that society don't allow for the election or choosing of a man as king who basically hasn't any real base of power or isn't particularly interested in being king. Saving the world isn't the kind of thing that would lead to Jon being acknowledged as king if he wasn't also trying to be king or effectively already king when he used an army to save the world.

Stannis only can intend to win the throne by saving his people because he has already made a claim.

If things unfolded in a way in which Jon just became a Frodo-like character defeating the Others with the help of a few trusted companions then he wouldn't be king thereafter unless George suddenly changed the rules of the society he has created. That is not likely to happen.

But then, I expect Jon to end up in 'team Targaryen' thanks to his heritage. With that as basis he could become king. But it isn't going to be the reward the lords bestow on him on some Great Council in the end. He will just take the torch from Dany or continue to rule Westeros at her side.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

on Howland Reed and the crannogmen

AGoT, Bran VI (Maester Luwin is speaking to Bran.)

Quote

"He must march soon, or not at all," Maester Luwin said. "The winter town is full to bursting, and this army of his will eat the countryside clean if it camps here much longer. Others are waiting to join him all along the kingsroad, barrow knights and crannogmen and the Lords Manderly and Flint. The fighting has begun in the riverlands, and your brother has many leagues to go."

Apparently the crannogmen were in fact expected to join Robb's army. (It would be interesting to know if a force of crannogmen fought with Ned during Robert's Rebellion.) The only reason they didn't was that Robb assigned them another task.

AGoT, Catelyn VIII

Quote

"If he comes so far, but no one thinks he will," Robb said. "I've sent word to Howland Reed, Father's old friend at Greywater Watch. If the Lannisters come up the Neck, the crannogmen will bleed them every step of the way,

Robb favors heavy horse in his battle tactics. His tactical plans depend on mobility and surprise. He prefers to lead his cavalry himself, and leaves command of the infantry to a subordinate.

ASoS, Catelyn II

Quote

"You think we stayed for plunder?" Robb was incredulous. "Uncle, I wanted Lord Tywin to come west."

"We were all horsed," Ser Brynden said. "The Lannister host was mainly foot. We planned to run Lord Tywin a merry chase up and down the coast, then slip behind him to take up a strong defensive position athwart the gold road, at a place my scouts had found where the ground would have been greatly in our favor. If he had come at us there, he would have paid a grievous price. But if he did not attack, he would have been trapped in the west, a thousand leagues from where he needed to be. All the while we would have lived off his land, instead of him living off ours."

Crannogmen aren't good riders, and have few, if any, of their own horses. Robb didn't feel that they would be useful in relieving Riverrun, and that they are especially well-suited to cover his rear.

ASoS, Catelyn V

 

Quote

Galbart Glover rubbed his mouth. "There are risks. If the crannogmen should fail you . . ."

 

"We will be no worse than before. But they will not fail. My father knew the worth of Howland Reed."

 

Robb considers Howland Reed to be one of his most loyal and most useful bannermen.

 

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-09-24 at 0:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

Again, Tessarion died. Daeron was as dragonless as Aegon II. Not to mention that Daeron was pushed around even while he was a dragonrider. It wouldn't have been his decision to be crowned king and thus it wouldn't have been his decision to abdicate. Kings can be used as pawns by other people. And Daeron would be ideal for this kind of thing.

Are you reading the books? He made it clear that the crown looked much better on his head when he wore at as Prince Regent than it ever looked on Aegon's.

Aemond stayed true his brother while the man was recovering. But there is no textual evidence that he did whatever he did when he parted ways with Cole (and effectively abandoned all political or military power) in the name of Aegon II.

If Aemond had retaken KL from Rhaenyra and crowned himself king he would not have stepped down for the cripple. He could very well have claimed that Aegon II lost his claim when he fled the city rather than stand and fight. Aemond would have taken the Iron Throne by conquest and it is not likely that Aegon would have been able to take it from him with some crippled dragon and some traitors at his back. Borros Baratheon would have stood with Aemond, due to their marriage alliance, that much is clear.

Problem is that if Daeron survived the battle odds are that he could make a shot at claiming one of the riderless dragons that Unwin Peake failed to find a rider for. And whoops, Daeron has a new dragon. And Unwin Peake can do about thing about it.

Aemond has cocky attitude. Having a cocky attitude is different from disloyalty as proven by the fact that he never crowned himself as is evident by Rhaenyra Targaryen, Daemon Blackfyre and his descendents and Robert Baratheon who were all crowned queen or king well before they entered, or failed to enter, King's Landing. If someone wants to take a crown, they usually take it to make their claim before the fighting begins, and Aemond does not strike me as the subtle schemer. So I naturally reject all this talk of Aemond ever wanting to usurp his brother or that the sons of Alicent were in danger of clashing with each other.

 

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Problem is that if Daeron survived the battle odds are that he could make a shot at claiming one of the riderless dragons that Unwin Peake failed to find a rider for. And whoops, Daeron has a new dragon. And Unwin Peake can do about thing about it.

That is a possibility. But dragon or not, Daeron was a weak follower and would be easily dominated by a man like Peake. He even allowed some bastard and a sot to push him around, after all.

14 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Aemond has cocky attitude. Having a cocky attitude is different from disloyalty as proven by the fact that he never crowned himself as is evident by Rhaenyra Targaryen, Daemon Blackfyre and his descendents and Robert Baratheon who were all crowned queen or king well before they entered, or failed to enter, King's Landing. If someone wants to take a crown, they usually take it to make their claim before the fighting begins, and Aemond does not strike me as the subtle schemer. So I naturally reject all this talk of Aemond ever wanting to usurp his brother or that the sons of Alicent were in danger of clashing with each other.

That is just willful ignorance on your part. Aegon II fed his own sister to his dragon. What makes you believe Aemond or Daeron are exempt from such a treatment assuming they displeased him?

We are talking here about a scenario in which Aemond Targaryen defeats Rhaenyra and retakes the Iron Throne before Aegon II's fate is revealed to the public. If he believes his brother dead and has won the loyalty of the remaining Green lords he would be their king, not some guy who they presume dead. And should that man then turn up dragonless and in a bad shape he would be a threat to King Aemond's reign, not the king anybody wanted to restore. Why the hell should anyone prefer Aegon the Cripple to Aemond the Great?

[Little Scribe of Naath]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

So what? It is strange that Robb took none of them with him as far as we know when Eddard Stark took at least Howland Reed with him when he rode to war back in the day.

The Neck lies on the way and the crannogmen owe fealty to House Stark. I see no reason why some of them could not have bolstered the ranks of the army. Not 1,000 or so but, say, a few hundred.

He did take a few hundred in his army, 

Quote

"He must march soon, or not at all," Maester Luwin said. "The winter town is full to bursting, and this army of his will eat the countryside clean if it camps here much longer. Others are waiting to join him all along the kingsroad, barrow knights and crannogmen and the Lords Manderly and Flint. The fighting has begun in the riverlands, and your brother has many leagues to go."

 

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jojen had green dreams, had he not? Could be that he only had the sea devouring Winterfell dream after his arrival but if Howland had come himself to Winterfell or had sent some trusted and powerful adult (or a few men-at-arms) those people could have helped to convince the men in charge at Winterfell to heed Jojen's words. Not to mention that they could have helped to arrange Bran's journey to Bloodraven had Winterfell not fallen.

If we assume Winterfell had not fallen - and Howland did not foresee or allow that to happen - then Bran would never have been allowed to undertake that fool's errand to the lands beyond the Wall.

We also have no idea what Howland Reed learned from the Green Men. The man actually could be among the most powerful sorcerers/seers/whatever in the entire series.

That idea does not make sense because the ultimate decision of going to the three-eyed-crow fell on Bran himself. 

Quote

 Jojen gave a solemn nod. “I dreamed of a winged wolf bound to earth by chains of stone, and came to Winterfell to free him. The chains are off you now, yet still you do not fly.”

    “Then you teach me.” Bran still feared the three-eyed crow who haunted his dreams sometimes, pecking endlessly at the skin between his eyes and telling him to fly. “You’re a greenseer.”

    “No,” said Jojen, “only a boy who dreams. The greenseers were more than that. They were wargs as well, as you are, and the greatest of them could wear the skins of any beast that flies or swims or crawls, and could look through the eyes of the weirwoods as well, and see the truth that lies beneath the world.

    “The gods give many gifts, Bran. My sister is a hunter. It is given to her to run swiftly, and stand so still she seems to vanish. She has sharp ears, keen eyes, a steady hand with net and spear. She can breathe mud and fly through trees. I could not do these things, no more than you could. To me the gods gave the green dreams, and to you . . . you could be more than me, Bran. You are the winged wolf, and there is no saying how far and high you might fly . . . if you had someone to teach you. How can I help you master a gift I do not understand? We remember the First Men in the Neck, and the children of the forest who were their friends . . . but so much is forgotten, and so much we never knew.”

    Meera took Bran by the hand. “If we stay here, troubling no one, you’ll be safe until the war ends. You will not learn, though, except what my brother can teach you, and you’ve heard what he says. If we leave this place to seek refuge at Last Hearth or beyond the Wall, we risk being taken. You are only a boy, I know, but you are our prince as well, our lord’s son and our king’s true heir. We have sworn you our faith by earth and water, bronze and iron, ice and fire. The risk is yours, Bran, as is the gift. The choice should be yours too, I think. We are your servants to command.” She grinned. “At least in this.”

    “You mean,” Bran said, “you’ll do what I say? Truly?”

    “Truly, my prince,” the girl replied, “so consider well.”

    Bran tried to think it through, the way his father might have. The Greatjon’s uncles Hother Whoresbane and Mors Crowfood were fierce men, but he thought they would be loyal. And the Karstarks, them too. Karhold was a strong castle, Father always said. We would be safe with the Umbers or the Karstarks.

    Or they could go south to fat Lord Manderly. At Winterfell, he’d laughed a lot, and never seemed to look at Bran with so much pity as the other lords. Castle Cerwyn was closer than White Harbor, but Maester Luwin had said that Cley Cerwyn was dead. The Umbers and the Karstarks and the Manderlys may all be dead as well, he realized. As he would be, if he was caught by the ironmen or the Bastard of Bolton.

   If they stayed here, hidden down beneath Tumbledown Tower, no one would find them. He would stay alive. And crippled.

 Bran realized he was crying. Stupid baby, he thought at himself. No matter where he went, to Karhold or White Harbor or Greywater Watch, he’d be a cripple when he got there. He balled his hands into fists. “I want to fly,” he told them. “Please. Take me to the crow.”
 
 

If Bran hadn't agreed, they would never have taken him there. 

On Jojen's green dreams -  The only dream he has before reaching Winterfell, that we know of, was the one where he saw a 3EC trying to break the chains of a wolf. The sea dream comes much later after reaching Winterfell - IIRC, before that, he has a green dream where he tells them about fresh cut meat/dead meat served to the Freys and Bran/Rickon.

In any case, Jojen is very fatalistic about his green dreams - he does not really try to interpret them or stop them from happening. He has one about Bran and Rickon's death as well at the hands of Reek, but doesn't do anything to prevent it from taking place, because he knows he can't.

So in that sense he and his father may have known they would eventually end up going to the three eyed crow, but the idea that they would have allowed Winterfell to fall and only then Bran could go, doesn't make any sense. It's more like they have the correct approach to prophecy - they know it's going to happen, no need to actively try to make it happen.

Howland is not a seer -  we know that from Meera's story of the KoTLT. But I'm with you that the guy might have been in contact with the Children/BR and hence he felt comfortable sending his kids off on this mission. The idea that he actively tried to make it happen however doesn't fit.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Jon only rejected Winterfell because it came from Stannis and was a conditional offer including the public rejection of the old gods and the burning of the godswood of Winterfell. And he was convinced that as a Stark bastard he had no right to it while Sansa (and possibly Arya) yet lived.

As Rhaegar's son Jon could make a completely different claim not necessarily overshadowed by the specter of bastardy. 

Again, that heavily depends on how he's going to be able to prove to the world he's not Rheagar's bastard. A document signed by parents? A wedding cloak? The possible witnesses to such a wedding are dead too (AD and Whent.) How exactly is he going to get Westeros to believe he is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and thus people should fight for him? (Basically, only the Tyrells and Martells.)

I have real difficulty seeing a realistic scenario where this could happen.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not true. If you carefully reread AGoT then you realize that Ned feared Robert might kill Cersei's children the same way he did not punish/look the other when Tywin had Rhaegar's children killed. But that is not the same as wishing the death of every Targaryen descendant, legitimate or illegitimate.

Elia and her children were nothing to Robert. But Lyanna was the love of his life and Lyanna's son her son as well as Ned's nephew. Do you think Robert would have allowed anyone to treat Lyanna the same way Gregor treated Elia? Do you think he would have wanted to smash the head of Lyanna's son against a wall? I don't think so. And I don't think Ned truly believed any of that. I think Ned feared that Robert might look the other way if there was another Targaryen prince out there, fathered by Rhaegar.

But if there was just some bastard out there is no reason to believe Robert would have hunted them all down. Aerys II could have had dozens of bastards from all those mistresses he had yet there is no mentioning of Robert ever searching for them.

Finally there is the fact that Ned remained Robert's friend. That makes only sense if Ned never truly believed that Robert would actually kill his nephew. You are not friends with a man who might kill a member of your family.

Ned might have feared that Robert might look the other way/not prevent the murder of his nephew (or only that the child would be taken from him to be raised as a hostage) but he clearly did not expect that Robert himself would kill Jon.

Later in AGoT - after the Lady incident and the Daenerys assassination plan - Ned might have been willing to believe Robert himself might order the murder of Rhaegar's legitimate son (and it is pretty clear, I think, that Ned is defending Dany as fiercely as he does because he very much knows that it could just as well be Jon) but earlier on it makes no sense that he would believe that.

 Robert had a visceral hatred for all Targaryens, and especially Rhaegar. He expresses this repeatedly -  he says the war was to put an end to Targaryens, he tells Ned he still kills Rhaegar in his dreams every night, he says Targs have no honour, so on.

And Robert not killing Jon himself by his hands but not caring if someone else does it - typical for Robert. The same thing happened with Lady. Robert did not even bother to punish Gregor and Lorch.  Robert would never have done it himself(he's too much of a coward for that), but would have absolutely no qualms ordering the death of Jon - it's essentially the same thing.  If Cersei/Tywin had needled him to do so, he'd have done it.

The entire reason why Ned guards Jon's parentage so fiercely, even from Catelyn, is out of fear that Jon would suffer the same fate as Rhaegar's other children. ("I see no babes. Only dragonspawn.")

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The world George has created leaves little room for idealistic concepts like that. If a throne could be earned that Hot Pie or Podrick should earn it, not some hidden prince who already has a legal blood claim to it. The society George has created does not care about what you do. It cares about your blood and your ancestry. And if a guy who has the right blood ends up on the throne that's not going to happen because he is a great guy. 

That is not what I said at all. Jon isn't going to get the throne because he is a great guy (we saw how that failed with Dany in ADWD) but because GRRM is going to subvert the trope of the 'hidden prince' earning his throne due to the luck of birth - in this story, the prince has had to learn what leadership is the hard way. 

GRRM gave us through Davos (Arguably the moral compass of the series) what a true king should be doing - "Saving the kingdom to win the throne." That's what Jon has been doing since book 1. It's not a coincidence. It's also not a coincidence that his arc up till now has involved him becoming a reluctant leader to people, not an entitled jackass who's saying "follow me because I have so-and-so blood." (Again, seen through Stannis's arc.) It's not a coincidence that throughout ADWD more and more people kept turning to him as their leader during a troubled time.

Really, at this point in Westeros, the concept of 'rightful king' has been thrown out the window. It's literally 'might is right' at this point. GRRM is clearly trying to tell us something out here.

[Protagoras]

13 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

That is not what I said at all. Jon isn't going to get the throne because he is a great guy (we saw how that failed with Dany in ADWD) but because GRRM is going to subvert the trope of the 'hidden prince' earning his throne due to the luck of birth - in this story, the prince has had to learn what leadership is the hard way. 

Ehmmm...isn´t that what all other fantasy series with a "hidden prince" try to do too? This is not a subversion, but the cliche itself - the hidden, but humble prince that learns the right moral lessons, and what leadership and friendship really is and is rewarded at the end with a kingship due to his good character.  Then the prince either accept it in an Aragorn fashion (invoking a sense of "true heir" - but that was only possible because of those well learned lessons learned earlier) or chooses against, becoming the reluctant hidden prince who believes his task is greater than the throne or "chooses to just be himself".  

If GRRM does this with Jon, he is certainly not subverting anything. 

[Protagoras]

On 2016-09-24 at 0:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

Edmure should be able to pull it off. He has a many friends among the younger Riverlords/heirs and they have been targeted all by the Lannisters, not just the Tullys. The Red Wedding also affected them all.

Thus they should rally around Edmure should he live. And if he doesn't Catelyn might do the same thing to a greater extent. She has returned from the dead after she was brutally killed by the Freys, and they all want revenge for the people that were killed at the Twins. Not only the lords but mostly, I think, the smallfolk who must have lost thousands of sons, brothers, and fathers there.

But this is not really an answer to my thought.

Sure, Edmure and BWB can in support with other riverlords take the region and the castle back. But that doesnt make it legal. The crown have removed the castle from them as well as their old paramountship. Now, of course another king or queen can redo this, but why should the Targaryens let them keep it? To give it back to them? Especially if their hold is tenous and their control is not complete when say Daenerys beat down all competetors and take the throne. 

Again -  the dragons have no reason to restore that traitorous family that helped the rebels crush their dynasty.  Hoster was certainly a large part in that rebellion.  They have rebelled twice against the crown, why give them a third chance? Why not si,ply give it to another Riverlord who is very sympathetic to Targaryen power. Darrys maybe, if some Darry can be tracked. Or any of the other families who stayed loyal towards the crown rather than to follow Hosters personal interests?

[Little Scribe of Naath]

11 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Ehmmm...isn´t that what all other fantasy series with a "hidden prince" try to do too? This is not a subversion, but the cliche itself - the hidden, but humble prince that learns the right moral lessons, and what leadership and friendship really is and is rewarded at the end with a kingship due to his good character.  Then the prince either accept it in an Aragorn fashion (invoking a sense of "true heir" - but that was only possible because of those well learned lessons learned earlier) or chooses against, becoming the reluctant hidden prince who believes his task is greater than the throne or "chooses to just be himself".  

If GRRM does this with Jon, he is certainly not subverting anything. 

Aragorn did not learn leadership - GRRM himself has said that he would have liked to see what Aragorn's rule was like, his tax policy, and stuff. Jon is actually learning what it means to be a leader and how difficult that is. 

I made it pretty clear in my post above that I don't believe Jon is going to earn it because he's a "good guy" or learnt the "right moral lessons" (We've actually seen how that went with Dany.) 

There are specific themes GRRM has been exploring in his work with regards to leadership, right to rule, true king, etc. and I was pointing out how it possibly pertains to Jon's arc. It would be a subversion, in my opinion, if Jon learns about his parentage but eventually gets the throne without using that as a springboard.

[Lord Varys]

35 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

But this is not really an answer to my thought.

Sure, Edmure and BWB can in support with other riverlords take the region and the castle back. But that doesnt make it legal. The crown have removed the castle from them as well as their old paramountship. Now, of course another king or queen can redo this, but why should the Targaryens let them keep it? To give it back to them? Especially if their hold is tenous and their control is not complete when say Daenerys beat down all competetors and take the throne. 

Again -  the dragons have no reason to restore that traitorous family that helped the rebels crush their dynasty.  Hoster was certainly a large part in that rebellion.  They have rebelled twice against the crown, why give them a third chance? Why not si,ply give it to another Riverlord who is very sympathetic to Targaryen power. Darrys maybe, if some Darry can be tracked. Or any of the other families who stayed loyal towards the crown rather than to follow Hosters personal interests?

Right now, the Seven Kingdoms are fracturing. Legal power and rights mean less and less these days. Joffrey gave the Riverlands to Littlefinger but the man failed to consolidate his power there. Aegon most likely would not let that stand.

The Tullys - and the Riverlords in general - are now Aegon's natural allies against the Lannister-Tyrell regime. It would be foolish to antagonize them without good reason. If Edmure died and Littlefinger-Robert-Sansa ended up not supporting (or openly opposing) Aegon I could see him granting the Riverlands to somebody else entirely.

But right now the smart thing to do is to make an alliance with them. And there are hints that this is going to happen with Bonifer Hasty and the Holy Hundred holding Harrenhal right now. They should become a focal point of Targaryen loyalists in the Riverlands. But considering that Hasty is effectively a man of the Faith likely to soon join the Warrior's Sons he would not want a lordship for himself.

In addition, you have to keep in mind that Aegon being seen righting the wrongs done in his Realm in his absence would also help his cause. Meaning him offering assistance to avenge those harmed in the Red Wedding would be a very smart policy. Even if it is just lip service or a formal restoration of House Tully to Riverrun and the Riverlands.

[Protagoras]

2 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Aragorn did not learn leadership - GRRM himself has said that he would have liked to see what Aragorn's rule was like, his tax policy, and stuff. Jon is actually learning what it means to be a leader and how difficult that is. 

I made it pretty clear in my post above that I don't believe Jon is going to earn it because he's a "good guy" or learnt the "right moral lessons" (We've actually seen how that went with Dany.) 

There are specific themes GRRM has been exploring in his work with regards to leadership, right to rule, true king, etc. and I was pointing out how it possibly pertains to Jon's arc. It would be a subversion, in my opinion, if Jon learns about his parentage but eventually gets the throne without using that as a springboard.

Aragon certainly learned leadership lessons (or had all those abilities before). http://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffloftus/2012/07/18/4-leadership-lessons-from-aragorn/#3b09053b1597

Doesn´t matter if you don´t think he will earn it because he is a "good guy". If he earn it, GRRM will still follow the trope.

Same with Jon getting the throne without R+L=J. Indeed its even cheesier and more chiche if he somehow gets it because everyoneone think he is awesome.

[Protagoras]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Right now, the Seven Kingdoms are fracturing. Legal power and rights mean less and less these days. Joffrey gave the Riverlands to Littlefinger but the man failed to consolidate his power there. Aegon most likely would not let that stand.

The Tullys - and the Riverlords in general - are now Aegon's natural allies against the Lannister-Tyrell regime. It would be foolish to antagonize them without good reason. If Edmure died and Littlefinger-Robert-Sansa ended up not supporting (or openly opposing) Aegon I could see him granting the Riverlands to somebody else entirely.

But right now the smart thing to do is to make an alliance with them. And there are hints that this is going to happen with Bonifer Hasty and the Holy Hundred holding Harrenhal right now. They should become a focal point of Targaryen loyalists in the Riverlands. But considering that Hasty is effectively a man of the Faith likely to soon join the Warrior's Sons he would not want a lordship for himself.

In addition, you have to keep in mind that Aegon being seen righting the wrongs done in his Realm in his absence would also help his cause. Meaning him offering assistance to avenge those harmed in the Red Wedding would be a very smart policy. Even if it is just lip service or a formal restoration of House Tully to Riverrun and the Riverlands.

Even if that is true, then maybe Daenerys show up, makes allies of the defeated Westermen and Reachmen and crushes Aegon and remove the castle again.

Also, I don´t see the region being particulary interested to support Aegon - indeed they seems to be busy with their own warfare vs the Freys. And why back the Tullys. Maybe say Bracken or Mallister are the first to swear fealty and in return they are promised Riverrun and the overlordship. I have a hard time to believe that they will say no. 

The scenario you paint doesn´t strike me as the most logical scenario. In fact, Tullys sucking it up to Aegon sounds unlikely. 

[IceFire125]

8 minutes ago, Protagoras said:

Even if that is true, then maybe Daenerys show up, makes allies of the defeated Westermen and Reachmen and crushes Aegon and remove the castle again.

Also, I don´t see the region being particulary interested to support Aegon - indeed they seems to be busy with their own warfare vs the Freys. And why back the Tullys. Maybe say Bracken or Mallister are the first to swear fealty and in return they are promised Riverrun and the overlordship. I have a hard time to believe that they will say no. 

The scenario you paint doesn´t strike me as the most logical scenario. In fact, Tullys sucking it up to Aegon sounds unlikely. 

Aegon will be cheered in the streets.  It will be a day of deliverance and liberation for the people of Kingslanding when he arrives.  He will fulfill the "cloth dragon sways on poles amidst a cheering crowd".

 

[Lost Melnibonean]

1 hour ago, IceFire125 said:

Aegon will be cheered in the streets.  It will be a day of deliverance and liberation for the people of Kingslanding when he arrives.  He will fulfill the "cloth dragon sways on poles amidst a cheering crowd".

 

Not Oldtown?