promise me

[SFDanny]

7 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

So my only point in the KG at the ToJ having information from outside is that it means they made a conscious decision to stay and wait for Ned (or someone) to show up. (bold emphasis added)

 

4 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I'm not sure what's unclear... 

The first quote above is what is unclear. How does any of this mean the KG "made a conscious decision to stay and wait for Ned (or someone) to show up"? How does the Kingsguard having information about what is going on outside the Tower mean they are consciously waiting for anyone? Much, much more likely they are waiting for Lyanna's condition to resolve itself - either with her return to health enough to travel, or with her death. That Ned shows up before that happens means the Kingsguard must deal with Ned and his party, but it doesn't mean they were waiting for him. Explain to me, please, how you get to "means they made a conscious decision to stay and wait for Ned"?

LiveFirstDieLater, I'm sorry if I come across here as hostile. I'm not. I'm wondering what made you come to the conclusion you did. I referenced before @Black Crow or BC because he has proposed an idea of a prearranged duel at the Tower. Therefore, the KG waiting for Ned to show up for them to fight. I assumed, and it appears now as if I was wrong, that you were referencing that idea. Let me know if you can provide me with any clarification.

4 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

but I'm looking at two senerios and comparing them to the KG behavior we see...

Option 1: Lyanna had one child, Rhaegar must have gotten her pregnant, ordered the KG to stay, and left all likely before knowing Lyanna was pregnant at all (but at least well before knowing a gender). Then the KG stay, even as news of the Rebelion's successes arrive, without knowing the gender of the child (presumably because of an R+L wedding, otherwise I struggle to make their behavior fit their duty).

Option 2: Lyanna got pregnant at Harrenhall, then gives birth to a boy. Rheagar legitimizes him, through decree or marriage, before leaving the ToJ. The KG reasoning becomes pretty clear after that.

My caution here is seeing the members of the Kingsguard as, in effect, functions of their oaths. They are men, and we are given a wide variety of men as examples of people who have worn the white cloak. I don't want to say that it is likely Hightower, Whent, and Dayne were the Ser Boros Blounts of their day, but that does not mean we can just assume we can read the oath and say what they would do. What we think their oaths tell them to do is a separate matter, or at least it can be. Both Whent and Dayne have proven their loyalty to Rhaegar outstrips their loyalty to Aerys. That may or may not tell us something about what this two are doing here, and why they do so. Hightower is a harder read. In my opinion anyway. I wrote of him and what I think of his arc in a post to Ygrain a short time ago, and I've written also an essay about these men and their probable response to the events around them. That, again, is in my signature, so I won't go into restating that all over again. Read it you have the time and inclination.

One small correction here in your option two. Rhaegar cannot issue a decree as crown prince to legitimize anyone. That can only be done by a King. For this child, not Jon btw, to be legitimate he has to born that way. A marriage before the birth.

4 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

As for naming Viserys the heir... Who witnessed that? Or was it just a Worldbook wildcard (honestly I don't remember)? But either way, an heir's heir traditionally comes before a second son... and if these men were willing to depose a mad king, would they recognize his inheritance decrees as valid anyway? 

Viserys is named Aerys's heir after the Battle of the Trident and the death of his brother Rhaegar. We know this from The World of Ice & Fire,

Quote

Birds flew and couriers race to bear word of the victory at the Ruby Ford. When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King's Landing with Rhaegar's children as a hostage against Dorne. (TwoI&F 129) bold emphasis added

Many of us were shocked by this new information and assumed it an error. However, that is not the case. And as Ran states the decrees of the King override custom. Now, we have many examples of conflicts and wars over a King's decrees and custom, and it maybe that this factors into the actions of the three members of the Kingsguard at the Tower. But that places them as acting against their oaths, doesn't it. I think the answer to the why of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent's action lies elsewhere. It is far simpler than that. They gave their lives to protect the innocents in their charge from what they saw as likely death at Robert's hand. That is why Ned admires them so.

4 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Anyway, it's all sort of moot, I have a hard time understanding how the KG's duty could be so clear unless their was already a son of Rhaegar born at the ToJ when Ned arrives.

I agree there is likely at least one son of Rhaegar at the tower when Ned arrives. That would be Jon. Sometimes when I like to wander into my crackpot fantasies I think there might be two. Aegon smuggled out not by Varys, but by Rhaegar and Elia, with Ashara and Wylla's help. But that's another thread.

[HaeSuse]

36 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

One symbolism that I would see happen is this, based on the tempering of Lightbringer.  The first attempt was tempered with Water.  And if Jon is Jon Waters, that would be a sweet end to his story arc as the first victim of the creation of Lightbringer.  

This is precisely the kind of stuff I was getting at. Or maybe he melts the wall, turning "snow" to "ice" as he takes his rightful place as a half targ half stark. etc etc etc. Thank you for getting it.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

8 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

One symbolism that I would see happen is this, based on the tempering of Lightbringer.  The first attempt was tempered with Water.  And if Jon is Jon Waters, that would be a sweet end to his story arc as the first victim of the creation of Lightbringer.  

That would be awesome.  Death by dragon fire would be awesome too.  I think Jon is one of the betrayals and he will burn at the stake for his treason.  He got away with treason against the wall and he got away with desertion.  It's time he paid for his crimes. 

I will say the first attempt to make the sword could involved Gendry and Arya.  Arya will play the role of Nissa Nissa quite capably and Gendry is a blacksmith. 

[SFDanny]

17 hours ago, The Twinslayer said:

I think you are vastly underestimating the importance Northerners (particularly the Starks) attach to their final resting place.  That message is drummed into the books from the very start with Ned's visit to the tombs with Robert.  The fact that all of the dead of House Stark are down there is highly significant.  Robert saying that Lyanna should be buried somewhere brighter is met by Ned's statement that these crypts are her place because she was "a Stark of Winterfell."  And there's the fact that Ned felt it important to bring her bones back when he left the bones of his fallen companions in the south -- which he regrets deeply, as we know from his thoughts on Jory Cassels' death:  

"I gave them over to the silent sisters, to be sent north to Winterfell.  Jory would want to lie beside his grandfather."  It would have to be his grandfather, for Jory's father was buried far to the south.

It is also significant that he has built or designated tombs for each of his children and shown them to Robb.  Even if Sansa marries Joffrey and becomes queen of the seven kingdoms, she is to be buried in the Winterfell crypts, far from her husband and children.  

And you appear to be forgetting how angry Lady Dustin is about the fact that Ned failed to bring her husband's bones back, and that she intends to take revenge on Ned by making sure his bones never make it back to Winterfell.

All of that demonstrates that it would have been very important to Lyanna that her bones be returned to Winterfell, and as I said before, that is the only thing we know for sure that she discussed with Ned on her deathbed (she told Ned that she wanted to be buried beside her father and Brandon).  She would naturally be afraid that Ned would bury her body in the south because he had to deal not only with her body but also with the bodies of 5 dead Northern lords and three Kingsguard.    

If this is the promise Ned made, then we can only speculate as to why it made the fear leave her eyes.  But I can think of several reasons.  One is that there may be a reason the dead Starks are all in the crypts:  if the crypts are warded against the Others, this would prevent the Others from resurrecting them as wights.  That would be a powerful motivation for House Stark to bury all their dead there.  A more mundane explanation would be that Lyanna feels responsible for the deaths of Rickard and Brandon and she is afraid that Ned is going to treat her as an outcast by depriving her of the family burial as a punishment for her role in their deaths.  An alternative (or additional) reason is that if she was kidnapped (or if she went willingly but later became a prisoner), she -- like Sansa later on -- would have spent much of her time in captivity longing to be home.  Ned's promise to take her home would feel like a rescue.

Finally, I think you are shortchanging GRRM a bit here.  If you are correct and the promise has to do with protecting Jon, GRRM intended for that to be a mystery.  In that case, he has heavily implied that the promise related to burying Lyanna in the Winterfell crypts as a red herring.  But if that possibility is really "beyond silly" as you have suggested, then GRRM did a lousy job writing that scene.  

Let me deal with the last first, my friend. I think the scene with Robert in the Winterfell Crypts is wonderfully written. However, the idea that the promise Ned made to Lyanna is limited to where she will be buried lasts about as long as the next time Ned hears Lyanna's voice ringing through his brain with the refrain "promise me, Ned, promise me." An attentive reader notes this as a clue that something else is going on here.

By the time we get to the scene where Ned is riding in the rain from his visit to Chataya's we get this pearl from Ned's wandering mind.

Quote

That was his curse. Robert would swear undying love and forget them before evenfall, but Ned Stark kept his vows. He thought of the promises he'd made Lyanna as she lay dying, and  the price he'd paid to keep them. (AGoT 318) bold emphasis added.

And we know that the promises Ned made to Lyanna on her deathbed were plural in number. We also note that Ned has paid a price to keep them. What price is he talking about? A donation to the Silent Sisters to render her flesh from her bones? I don't think that is the kind of price Ned is thinking of as he remembers Lyanna's last words.

Lyanna may well have asked Ned to bring her bones back to Winterfell. I don't think Ned makes that up. Or she may just have told him to do it. Why would Ned refuse to do so? To hand his sister's remains over to Robert? No. If Lyanna wanted to be buried in the crypts in Winterfell, Ned would honor that request or instruction. That's hardly the point. There are other things going on here than the location of Lyanna's bones.

Now, I appreciate the time you took to note the importance of Northern burial customs. While I don't dispute them, I would also note that there are surely many thousands of Northern war dead buried in fields all over Westeros, and I don't recall any references to massive efforts to bring the bones back home. Lady Dustin aside, mostly the northern war dead lay where they fall. Some like her husband get cairns or markers to them, but mostly others are lucky to get any type of burial.

Of course, Lyanna is a special case, as the daughter of House Stark. She certainly is to her brother, who goes well beyond what would have been seen as the normal burial. We will see if any of that special effort is important to our story. But it clearly isn't the source of Lyanna's fears and Ned's promise that removes those fears. There is no reason to think Ned would have denied this simple request, and, clearly, Lyanna feared her brother would not promise something of significance to her as she lay dying.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

20 hours ago, SFDanny said:

 

The first quote above is what is unclear. How does any of this mean the KG "made a conscious decision to stay and wait for Ned (or someone) to show up"? How does the Kingsguard having information about what is going on outside the Tower mean they are consciously waiting for anyone? Much, much more likely they are waiting for Lyanna's condition to resolve itself - either with her return to health enough to travel, or with her death. That Ned shows up before that happens means the Kingsguard must deal with Ned and his party, but it doesn't mean they were waiting for him. Explain to me, please, how you get to "means they made a conscious decision to stay and wait for Ned"?

LiveFirstDieLater, I'm sorry if I come across here as hostile. I'm not. I'm wondering what made you come to the conclusion you did. I referenced before @Black Crow or BC because he has proposed an idea of a prearranged duel at the Tower. Therefore, the KG waiting for Ned to show up for them to fight. I assumed, and it appears now as if I was wrong, that you were referencing that idea. Let me know if you can provide me with any clarification.

My caution here is seeing the members of the Kingsguard as, in effect, functions of their oaths. They are men, and we are given a wide variety of men as examples of people who have worn the white cloak. I don't want to say that it is likely Hightower, Whent, and Dayne were the Ser Boros Blounts of their day, but that does not mean we can just assume we can read the oath and say what they would do. What we think their oaths tell them to do is a separate matter, or at least it can be. Both Whent and Dayne have proven their loyalty to Rhaegar outstrips their loyalty to Aerys. That may or may not tell us something about what this two are doing here, and why they do so. Hightower is a harder read. In my opinion anyway. I wrote of him and what I think of his arc in a post to Ygrain a short time ago, and I've written also an essay about these men and their probable response to the events around them. That, again, is in my signature, so I won't go into restating that all over again. Read it you have the time and inclination.

One small correction here in your option two. Rhaegar cannot issue a decree as crown prince to legitimize anyone. That can only be done by a King. For this child, not Jon btw, to be legitimate he has to born that way. A marriage before the birth.

Viserys is named Aerys's heir after the Battle of the Trident and the death of his brother Rhaegar. We know this from The World of Ice & Fire,

Many of us were shocked by this new information and assumed it an error. However, that is not the case. And as Ran states the decrees of the King override custom. Now, we have many examples of conflicts and wars over a King's decrees and custom, and it maybe that this factors into the actions of the three members of the Kingsguard at the Tower. But that places them as acting against their oaths, doesn't it. I think the answer to the why of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent's action lies elsewhere. It is far simpler than that. They gave their lives to protect the innocents in their charge from what they saw as likely death at Robert's hand. That is why Ned admires them so.

I agree there is likely at least one son of Rhaegar at the tower when Ned arrives. That would be Jon. Sometimes when I like to wander into my crackpot fantasies I think there might be two. Aegon smuggled out not by Varys, but by Rhaegar and Elia, with Ashara and Wylla's help. But that's another thread.

I enjoy this sort of conversation, so certainly no offense taken... fire away, I consider it friendly debate.

I think you make a good point that the KG are individuals and not just functions of their oaths... but, especially for the White Bull, one would expect these paragons of knighthood to at least have a passable explanation for their behavior so it isn't breaking their oath... this is hammered home by their disdain for Jaime, and seeming certainty that their duty was at the ToJ and not with Willem Darry. I'm just saying that for this to make sense to me I suspect they had to be sure of more than just a prince's pregnant mistress to keep them at the ToJ.

I would debate Rheagar's authority to legitimize his own child. Now, as you point out, he can't name his child heir to the throne per say, only a king can do that. However, he can legitimize his own child, as any lord could legitimize their own bastard (see the Boltons for example).

Since the rest of the possible male family members appear to have died, a legitimized child of his would be the rightful king by default.

Of course, as with any inheritance, the rules aren't always simple or clear and it really comes down to Varys's "power resides where men believe it resides".

The Viserys being declared heir, from the world book, is odd and interesting... of course it's unclear if the narrator of the world book is reliable... but probably more importantly, the KG at the ToJ may never have heard or believed the declaration changing  Aerys's heir. So I'm not sure if it really matters much at the end of the day (especially since he, you know, died).

If i were to wildly speculate, I suspect it will tie into why Viserys treated Dany so poorly. But that's getting into tinfoil territory.

 

[SeaWitch]

...hang on, if the news from the ford was Rhaegar's death, then yeah, Viserys would automatically be Aerys' new heir.  The only way Rhaegar's son gets in is if Aerys predeceased Rhaegar, which he didn't.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

7 minutes ago, SeaWitch said:

...hang on, if the news from the ford was Rhaegar's death, then yeah, Viserys would automatically be Aerys' new heir.  The only way Rhaegar's son gets in is if Aerys predeceased Rhaegar, which he didn't.

Not traditionally...

the eldest son of the eldest son would come before the second son...

So Rhaegar's son Aegon would come before Viserys even if Rhaegar died before  becoming king himself.

But of course inheritance isn't all black and white... and Aerys, as king, could pretty much name his own heir.

[SeaWitch]

16 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Not traditionally...

the eldest son of the eldest son would come before the second son...

So Rhaegar's son Aegon would come before Viserys even if Rhaegar died before  becoming king himself.

But of course inheritance isn't all black and white... and Aerys, as king, could pretty much name his own heir.

I've been thinking that Aerys was an old man when he died. 39!? 

(....off at a tangent, is this just Targaryen, or does that mean if someone turns up with a sprog they claim is Robb Stark's, Bran is displaced? I can see this being a system with Potential Civil War written all over it.)

So, does this mean 'Aegon' is now back as main heir, or did the succession go via Viserys to Daenerys? Or does she go to the back of the queue as a woman? 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

18 minutes ago, SeaWitch said:

I've been thinking that Aerys was an old man when he died. 39!? 

(....off at a tangent, is this just Targaryen, or does that mean if someone turns up with a sprog they claim is Robb Stark's, Bran is displaced? I can see this being a system with Potential Civil War written all over it.)

So, does this mean 'Aegon' is now back as main heir, or did the succession go via Viserys to Daenerys? Or does she go to the back of the queue as a woman? 

If Robb and Jayne had a boy, the baby would be heir...

If Bran had a boy, the child would come before Rickon...

Traditionally at least.

Or if Brandon Stark (eldest son of Rickard) had a legitimate child before he died (I don't think this happened), the bounty would have a better claim than Ned or any of Ned's kids.

Men come before women, and since Viserys had no children, Rheagar's children would appear to have the best claim.

Except for dragons... it seems unlikely to me that many people would argue with ones claim if one has a dragon. 

Fun fact: all the original Male PoV characters appear to be second sons...

[SeaWitch]

 

Stroppy Westrosi Lord: "Give us one good reason why we should have a Queen?"

Daenerys: "I have three. One of them appears to be eating your horse."

 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

12 minutes ago, SeaWitch said:

 

Stroppy Westrosi Lord: "Give us one good reason why we should have a Queen?"

Daenerys: "I have three. One of them appears to be eating your horse."

 

Now, when both claimants have a dragon things are likely to get messy...

[SeaWitch]

I found a little vid that was estimating the size of Balerion, and how large Drogon might get.

>0o<

Big. Very big. You really don't want too many of them having a tantrum in your locality.

[maudisdottir]

4 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

I would debate Rheagar's authority to legitimize his own child. Now, as you point out, he can't name his child heir to the throne per say, only a king can do that. However, he can legitimize his own child, as any lord could legitimize their own bastard (see the Boltons for example).

No, the king still has to legitimise the bastard. Ramsay became a Bolton only when Tommen decreed it. Aegon IV legitimised his own bastards, but regular lords can't do it themselves.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

15 hours ago, maudisdottir said:

No, the king still has to legitimise the bastard. Ramsay became a Bolton only when Tommen decreed it. Aegon IV legitimised his own bastards, but regular lords can't do it themselves.

Given that we only have a handful of examples, most of them royal bastards,  I'm not so clear... but it doesn't really matter. It does seem that Cat seems to think a royal decree is required but somehow can't be undone (makes no sense to me but, ok).

Any lord can name their own heir... including Rheagar, so it's really just a question of semantics. 

[SFDanny]

10 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Given that we only have a handful of examples, most of them royal bastards,  I'm not so clear... but it doesn't really matter. It does seem that Cat seems to think a royal decree is required but somehow can't be undone (makes no sense to me but, ok).

Any lord can name their own heir... including Rheagar, so it's really just a question of semantics. 

Not really, and you are just showing where you were wrong. Yes, any lord can name his heir, and that includes the king. When Aerys names Viserys his heir, following Rhaegar's death at the Trident, he sets aside the customary heir in Aegon in preference to his non-Dornish son. As king, he can do such things. 

[LiveFirstDieLater]

36 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Not really, and you are just showing where you were wrong. Yes, any lord can name his heir, and that includes the king. When Aerys names Viserys his heir, following Rhaegar's death at the Trident, he sets aside the customary heir in Aegon in preference to his non-Dornish son. As king, he can do such things. 

This is just semantics... and flawed anyway.

Cat says a royal decree is needed to legitimize a bastard and that it can never be undone. But our prime examples (bloodraven, bittersteel, blackfyre, and seastar) didn't take the last name or stand in the line of succession. In fact it appears for all intents and purposes this decree was undone. 

Meanwhile, Winterfell openly considered a bastard as the possible heir to an extinguished house.

What matters is who wins.

Any record of Rheagar recognizing a child born at the ToJ, wether legitimizing him or naming him an heir, or just showing the baby was his, would accomplish the same thing.

Think of Robert, win the war first, worry about the bloodline providing legitimacy after.

Not to mention that the Viserys being named heir is completely moot, since he's dead. There's no evidence that Aerys disowned Rheagar or his children, they would still be in the line of succession.

and any male will likely be a better candidate than any female.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

This is just semantics... and flawed anyway.

I don't want to spend much time on this, but we have a different understanding of the phrase "just semantics" and how it would or would not apply here.

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Cat says a royal decree is needed to legitimize a bastard and that it can never be undone. But our prime examples (bloodraven, bittersteel, blackfyre, and seastar) didn't take the last name or stand in the line of succession. In fact it appears for all intents and purposes this decree was undone.

The decree isn't undone, but you have the right of it, in these cases it really doesn't matter. Bloodraven rules the Seven Kingdoms without the crown for most of the time from the death of Daeron to the ascent of Maekar, so whether or not he is a bastard really doesn't matter in the question of where the real power lies. Bittersteel and Daemon are declared legitimate, but their acts of treason robs them of any claim to power except through conquest. And so on.

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Meanwhile, Winterfell openly considered a bastard as the possible heir to an extinguished house.

And what would follow this had Robb made the decision to give the claim to the bastard? A decree of legitimacy from the King in the North.

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

What matters is who wins.

Absolutely. Although arguments over the rightfulness of claims may keep the question of who wins open for generations.

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Any record of Rheagar recognizing a child born at the ToJ, wether legitimizing him or naming him an heir, or just showing the baby was his, would accomplish the same thing.

Not if this is a question of the legal strength of a claim to the throne. With enough power, anyone can win the throne. Gaining that power, sometimes depends on the legal strength of a claim to be king. So, because Rhaegar had no power to declare legitimate a child of his who was born outside of marriage, a claim by a bastard Jon over a legitimate Viserys has no legal weight. Enough swords and shields might win the throne for Jon anyway, but it doesn't strengthen his claim if Rhaegar recognized him as his own son, or if he left a will naming him Rhaegar's heir.

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Think of Robert, win the war first, worry about the bloodline providing legitimacy after.

Actually no, that's not what happened. The rebels decided who would become the new king around the time of the Trident. Martin tells us this. Robert was decided upon, in part, based on having a better legal claim to the throne through his Targaryen grandmother. Once that is decided, after the Trident and Ned's control of the Red Keep, Robert is crowned the new king.

2 hours ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

Not to mention that the Viserys being named heir is completely moot, since he's dead. There's no evidence that Aerys disowned Rheagar or his children, they would still be in the line of succession.

and any male will likely be a better candidate than any female.

Again no, if we are talking about the legal claim to the throne. For instance, Viserys is crowned king on Dragonstone, and he then gets to name his heir. Everything points to Daenerys is named that heir. That would take precedent over any claim Aegon could put forth - legally. Of course, if it come so war over these legal questions, then it maybe the power of the dragons, or the power of Aegon's armies that determine the right of it.

[LiveFirstDieLater]

55 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I don't want to spend much time on this, but we have a different understanding of the phrase "just semantics" and how it would or would not apply here.

I agree let's not get too sidetracked... but if we aren't disputing parentage and just wether someone is "legitimate" or not is the definition of semantics.

The whole point is that there is a much larger practical difference between having a claim, or not, than there is between the strengths of various claims.

58 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Bittersteel and Daemon are declared legitimate, but their acts of treason robs them of any claim to power except through conquest.

This is a great example. Blackfyre really did have the best legal claim to the throne... it's only treason because they lost. What about Blood Raven?

What matters is that you have a claim, look at Aegon the Unlikely (egg). Not the best claim, but the best option with a claim.

In fact where a legitimized bastard ends up in the line of succession is totally unclear. Shouldn't Blood Raven have come before Egg?

The point is, having proof that Rheagar is your dad would give you a claim. It would be even stronger if Rhaegar named the child as his heir, or even as an heir. Stronger still if Rheagar married Lyanna or if he declared the child legitimate (regardless of propriety).

But the fact is, it's all academic... winner takes all and can just rewrite the rules if they want (not to mention the history).

[SFDanny]

26 minutes ago, LiveFirstDieLater said:

But the fact is, it's all academic... winner takes all and can just rewrite the rules if they want (not to mention the history).

I agree with you about the effects of winning, but in determining who wins it is possible who has the better claim - say, between Aegon, Jon, and Daenerys - could have an effect on who actually wins the Iron Throne. Then it wouldn't be just academic, would it?

[LiveFirstDieLater]

18 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

I agree with you about the effects of winning, but in determining who wins it is possible who has the better claim - say, between Aegon, Jon, and Daenerys - could have an effect on who actually wins the Iron Throne. Then it wouldn't be just academic, would it?

Oh I hear you, and it can still be a fun question if it's academic...

Aegon for instance, does he have a better claim as Rheagar's son, or if he returns with the sword Blackfyre? Honestly I think it's debatable...

 I think there are some major twists left before the end, and not just R+L=J, which will mix this all up anyway...

and who has the best claim is not at all the same question as who I think will end up on the Iron Throne. Not to mention that there aren't many Lords left I'd expect to care more about the intricacies of inheritence traditions then they do about practical gain.

so ya, I'd say it's pretty academic.