Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DarkSister1001

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 02/08/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,156 profile views
  1. Regent? We have text that outright says that there were rumours that Rhaegar was planning to call a Great council in order to arrange a regency / a forced abdication / depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself. make changes. Yes. But these stories aren't addition. They fn advanced Allegra. Council, in general, just means a group of people that come together to discuss, deliberate or make decisions. Rhaegar did not specify general, war, small or grand. Therefore all are possibilities. He might have wanted to get his Lords together for advice/guidance before taking the next step. Here is where we are disagreeing. It seams like a lot of us think that a GC is possible, perhaps even likely. You are saying that it was 100% going to happen. The text supports the possibility but not the guarantee. From the WB: Right there we have 2 situations stated to us.
  2. Your point is that if Aerys had a regency he would be rendered impotent and no longer be king bc he only wanted to do dumb shit and his regents wouldn't allow it. Right? I am saying that it is no different than when a boy king has a regency. If you accept that a boy king with a regency is still king than ipso facto a king with a regency is still a king. And let's not ignore the fact that Joff had a regent and still committed atrocities and still managed to get the throne in to trouble with Great Houses and commons. Exactly. And bc we don't know it's erroneous to call it "fact". There are other possibilities. I am not arguing that Rhaeger may or may not have wanted to get everyone together at Harrenhal. I am arguing that the only facts we have are a statement that he made only to Jaime. And that statement is open to interpretation. Textually, the small council, war council...do you want those quotes? There's a ton! Joking! I'd also like to point out that a Grand Council is a proper noun whereas council is simply a noun. If we're paying attention to ellipses than we must pay attention to capitalization as well. Negative. I am keeping in mind the author of TWoIaF. Well that's simply not the case. I'm referring to one sentence and have quoted it at least twice in this thread. I also quoted the only other time in the series (companion book aside) in which a Grand Council was discussed and it was stated differently than Rhaegar did leading to the POSSIBILITY that he MIGHT have been wanting something other than a GRAND COUNCIL. Then stop replying to me.
  3. An of-age, reasonable king would not need a regency. If a king is too young, he has regents and isn't disposed, just restricted. That's assuming the Great Council, if in fact that's what he was calling for, named Rhaegar as his successor. They may have named Viserys and given him a regency. Or a different House altogether consider the ill feeling towards House Targaryen at that point. It's incorrect to state that Rhaegar was going to call a Great Council to replace his father as fact. It's possible, but other situations are just as possible, based on textual facts. The only facts are that Aerys was not well-liked or even capable at the end of his reign. Rhaegar told Jaime that he planned to call a council to make changes.
  4. I disagree. Restricting is not deposing. He'd still be king but more importantly his House would maintain the throne.
  5. I was just typing up almost the exact same sentence. A child king has a regent until he's 16 since it's assumed he's too young to be an effective leader and there are concerns about the damage he could do to the realm. That's not treason. With the same logic a sick king could have a regent until he gets better (or dies) for the sake of the realm. Aeyrs could no longer be trusted to pick his own Hand. Something had to be done. A council could be a means to protect the realm, the royal family and the king. ETA: Since Rhaegar didn't say "Great Council" it's open to being either way. Cat did not leave it open when a new king needed to be chosen.
  6. Evil is the exact word for someone who burns a person and gets so aroused he rapes his sister/wife. Evil is perfect for someone who intends to move forward with mass genocide. Nah, Aerys was evil. But it isn't mutually exclusive. Just bc Aerys was evil doesn't mean that Robert didn't do evil things, like excusing the murder of children. A villain is a monster and that's exactly what Aerys was at the beginning of RR. I disagree. Her POVs read more and more disturbed to me. Exactly.
  7. How do you figure? Westeros is literally the ones telling us he was nuts...by their standards. And? I never said they were. I said they were not villains. Not villains doesn't equal good guys. In fact, I'm certain that's what George has been teaching us for the past few decades. Context. Rhaegar planned to "call a council". In response to his bat-shit crazy father. Not bc he was in cahoots with Jon, Robert or Ned. In fact, he was off to fight them first. It's possible but the "evidence" is flimsy and, IMO unlikely. Not yet. It didn't start that way but she's heading that direction. Don't you recall her burning the Tower of the Hand? Even Jaime compares it to Aerys. I think you're just arguing to argue. Obviously I know the Trell's wanted to set Joff aside bc he was cruel. Kevan wants Cersei to leave KL bc she's not the Queen and is doing more harm than good. The Faith manipulated her to get the Warrior Sons back. But the point is that she is still surrounded by lickspittles and fools. Just like Aerys. They're attracted to the crown, the power, not the person.
  8. Aerys was crazy. His court is made up of lickspittles and fools. Jaime, IMO, was only one there that had the guts to stand up to him. And it took Aerys trying to burn down the whole city for Jaime to grow a pair. It's clear that Aerys wasn't always like this and his paranoia grew over the years. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. Look at the insane stuff that Cersei does and she still has "followers". Typically someone who is guilty of an action or has a particular trait tends to project that on to others. In Aerys' case he was always coming up with schemes and then accused others of doing the same. I agree that's odd and I don't have an answer for it But I don't think that and Bars comment are enough to rely on. But again, you're looking for logic from an illogical person. It's possibly, even likely that Aerys didn't have a good reason. Perhaps by the time he got to the squire he had sated his blood lust and wasn't interested. Or perhaps he thought something was going on up North and hoped freeing him might keep some of the Northmen loyal.
  9. "Yes they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell!" Couldn't resist. So far as the text tells us, only Rhaegar for sure was planning on "making changes". We can assume that Tywin would have been fine with a regime change. But there is not enough textual evidence to support a conspiracy for Jon Arryn, Bobby B and Neddard prior to the onset of the war. There is, however, oodles of flat out canonical evidence to support that Aerys was an unfit, unjust, cruel ruler and managed to alienate more than half of his Great Houses.
  10. Yes, that's what Robert meant. But that's not why Ned reacted that way.
  11. I'd like to add that Aerys killed the father and brother to one of Jon Arryn's wards, AND called for the heads of his wards (which he is honor bond to protect), AND Jon's heir/nephew Elbert Arryn AND his vassel's kin Kyle. Ned just lost his father, brother, his brother's fiance's bannerman, doesn't know WTF is going on with his sister and was just told the king wants his head. Robert lost his betrothed and is on the king's shitlist too. That's a LOT of death around these 3 to consider them villains instead of victims. Rhaegar has pissed off the Dorne and Aerys has pissed off the North, the Westerlands, the Riverlands, the Vale and the Stormlands. RR was BOUND to happen.
  12. I'd be pissed off too if someone was talking about my BFFs SO being dishonorable. His sister. Speculation. "I heard it once too" - Harwin. Heard isn't the same as knowing and only once. Oberyn heard Tyrion had a tail. Of course! But some have more to back them up than others. That's why I said degrees. If it's something you're interested in there are a few threads out there. Look at the way Howland described her eyes to his children. That's not the way you describe your best friend's wife's eyes, that's the way you describe your wife's eyes. Especially to your children. Cat knows she's pretty but refers to her eyes as "haunting"...memorable. Which leads me back to this thread. If someone had the Targ eye color of purple (in any variation) it would surely be remarked upon. It's a staple of their appearance. If Lemore had Targ eyes, we'd know it. Barristan's comment about "kitchen drab" makes me think that even though Elia was pretty she was not nearly as pretty as Ashara and probably had the more common brown or black hair/eyes. You don't have to be gorgeous to marry in to a great or noble house. And, if your not walking around with remarkable eyes and drop-dead gorgeous, it might be easier for you to hide on something like a pole boat. Especially if you grew up in a castle on a river. Regarding Elia's health, she may have been delicate but not so much that she couldn't travel. In early 280 AC she went to KL to marry Rhaegar, then they moved to Dragonstone. Later that same year, she gave birth to Rhaenys then she was bed-ridden for half a year (bringing to just shy of mid-281 AC, the year of the False Spring) then she went to Harrenhal for the tourney, after that she traveled back to Dragonstone. Keep in mind the storms that rack that area, traveling to and from there would have been hard on anyone yet she survived it, even as delicate as she was. Aegon was born shortly thereafter, she was possibly pregnant at the Tourney. That is a LOT on a body so I think she may have been stronger than she appeared.
  • Create New...