Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wia

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, leave it at that, what's the point even. Sooo... the point of having a council would be to... let Aerys do what he wants? Are those the changes to be made by Rhaegar? This is just ridiculous at this point. The point is not what a council would have done, the point is why Rheagar wanted to call it. - 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. We have text where Rhaegar personally says that he meant to call a council long ago and the he will call it once he's back from the Trident to make changes. Normally you put 2 and 2 and get your answer. If you wanna be really thorough, you'd think of what sort of other councils that we know of he could call. Exclude a small council 'cause it's right there in KL with Rhaegar (and it's useless anyway). Exclude a war council 'cause calling it before (long ago) and after (his perceived win at the Trident) war is useless and the time to call a war council is now, during the war. Which leaves us with a Great Council. Which leads us back to the original point. Then, if Rhaegar wants to make changes, and considering his relationship with his dad (on both sides), and considering the situation in the realm, one would think that those changes would not be in favour of his father. 'Cause if they were leaving Aerys in power, those aren't really changes, are they. Nor they are good for Rhaegar, whos wife and children are currently held hostage. But you know, maybe Rhaegar just thought that it wasn't treason and Tywin was joking when he said that king dying is totally ok (he is a funny guy after all) and maybe he just wanted to look cool in a tourney that Lord Whent arranged all on his own and maybe he just wanted to call a council to change the tapestries in the great hall 'cause those were hideous. That is totally supported by the text after all.
  2. So our conversation just went like this: Me: Aerys is mad, he did crazy things, both violent and political. A council would stop him from doing both violent and political things. Therefore he won't be able to do pretty much anything that he did before. You: Banning Aerys from violent acts is not restricting him. Me: He did other stupid stuff too. You: But he was doing violent things. ??? I just really don't get you right now. Let's go again: Aerys was mad and the vast majority of what he did as king is evil and/or stupid. It includes: torturing and executing people, cutting out people's tongues for making accurate, but vexing observations, making political decisions only to spite Tywin (funding Volantis in war, increasing taxes in ports, the Duskendale fiasco), incompetent choice of councillors, etc. Pretty much all of these would not be passed by a reasonable council. And, to our knowledge, that's like 90% of what he was doing as a king. Therefore he wouldn't have any actual power to do what he wants. So a council would not just cut one particular action of his, it would cut the overwhelming majority of his actions, leaving him powerless in his role as a king in practice.
  3. He did stupid stuff that was bad for the realm and had nothing to do with executions. This is a new word in psychiatry: teaching people not to be insane.
  4. Thanks for ignoring my point. Are we taking about what would a Great Council do, should it be called, based on what we know, or about why Rhaegar wanted to call one? - 'Cause those are not the same. What Rhaegar thought a Great Council would do would be why he'd want to call one and possibly why he didn't. We don't have any info on what he thought. But if he wanted to call one, he certainly thought that there is some chance of success. Whether he didn't call it because he though that chance wasn't high enough or because Aerys crashed his Harrenhall party or for some other reasons - we don't know. What other councils could he have called based on textual facts? Now you're ignoring every quote from TWOIAF that I provided. What's the point of this conversation if you refer to 'textual evidence' and not provide it and ignore textual evidence that was provided? - None to me.
  5. Telling someone who only eats food that contains sugar to stop eating sugar is telling them to stop eating. A reasonable council of regents for a reasonable king would not be restricting at all, a reasonable council of regents for a an absolutely crazy king would formally be restricting but in practice would be deposing. A council of regents for Aerys in particular, a king who removed tongues of people who called him a figurehead and made major political decisions to spite his Hand who was better than him at ruling, would effectively destroy him. The House would maintain the throne if Rhaegar formally deposed him and became a king as well, so there's no difference at all.
  6. A council of regents to curb his awful behaviour or announcing limits on the kings ultimate judicial authority is pretty much the same as deposing him in terms of the actual power he'd have since most of his decisions were awful. And, seeing how he was mad, anyone who knows him would be able to predict that he won't take it, will resist it and it will, most likely, ultimately lead to his death or imprisonment. Whether by actually deposing or by a little bit more subtle means, Rhaegar was planning to get rid of Aerys before the war.
  7. I think that we actually disagree on the "much" part with you. You think that "strong" and "loudly and vehemently" are synonymous to "much", I do not. The way I see 'much' in this context is if you offered me a contract and I, without outright refusing or outright accepting, would drag the negotiations out for as long as possible by coming up with excuses, demanding unreasonable compensation, presenting opposite suggestions, requesting clarifications and posing difficult questions in hopes of you giving me up as a candidate for this contract and switching to someone else. Such negotiations might suggest much protest from my side to a 3rd party's point of view. Yandel has an agenda, but not everything in the book is about it. We can't just take any part of it and say "Yandel has an agenda, so it's a lie". If we were to question Yandel, why not question things that he doesn't have a source on like Torrhen's sons wanting to rebel? Anyway we're way OT, so let's just agree to disagree.
  8. I'm confused. So you're saying that: - there are letters - they are not from Lord Stark - they are likely from a maester in KL - but the maester in KL does not have an agenda - maester Yandel does have an agenda So... how do letters from a maester in KL that do not mention Lord Stark protesting (because he doesn't have an agenda) serve maester Yandel and his agenda? The options are: 1. Letters from a 3rd party (let's say a maester in KL) that do mention the protest. In which case Yandel does have an agenda and there was a protest. 2. Stark and/or Targaryen letters that have veiled protest. In which case Yandel does have an agenda and there was a protest. 3. Stark and/or Targaryen letters that have no protest, but things that can be interpreted as one with enough stretching, that Yandel, who has an agenda, has intentionally misinterpreted. Letters from a 3rd party (let's say a maester in KL) that do not mention the protest are useless to Yandel and therefore wouldn't be mentioned. Overall does he even name his sources much? No source: "There are letters preserved at the Citadel" is actually the only sort-of-source cited in 3 paragraphs on the topic. If there are letters, but they don't mention any protesting, why refer to them at all instead of continuing his no source storytelling? Since he goes out of his way to mention the letters, I think it's likely that there is some protest in them.
  9. I don't see that much contradiction there to be honest. The way I see it, those were: - Stark letters - Targaryen letters - letters of 3rd parties who witnessed or claimed to witness Torrhen's protest and brothers refusal to attend the wedding - all/some of the above Though opinions of 3rd parties are usually described as 'it is said' or 'some claimed'. The fact that there are actual letters suggests to me that they were written by either Lord Stark or Targaryens. What would be the agenda of the Grand Maester in writing letters to the Citadel with false claims that Lord Stark has protested the match? Overall, who wrote those letters is anyone's guess. I think that "suggesting much protest" means that Torrhen was using every excuse in the book to get out of this match without outright saying 'no' which isn't something he thought he could afford to say. But again, it's anyone's guess And 'under duress' would depend on the person, wouldn't it? The fact that there is a threat of dragons doesn't mean that everyone will act the same. Some people chose to fight, some chose to show their defiance openly, some chose exile, Torrhen chose peace, Alaric might've chosen to fight for all we know. What I'm saying is that Torrhen was the kind of guy who thought that peace was important and worth more than things like, for example, his title. And as arranged marriages should've been totally normal to him, him protesting over a particular match would suggest that he really didn't like it. To compare, I'm sure that if he died and one of his sons was presented with that match and he pretested, it wouldn't mean anything in particular other than the son hating Targaryens which is something that we already know.
  10. Where does it say that the letters were written by the brothers? It literally says "Stark accepted these arrangements only after much protest" which suggests those were Lord Stark's letters as he was the one to accept or refuse the arrangements. Yet they had no problem marrying the First Men former kings of the Vale. And they had no problem marrying Manderlys, who follow the Faith of the Seven. So, however you look at it, they had no problem with either the Vale or religion. It totally was about Arryns being Andals. Even many years later Ned keeps teaching his children that "The blood of the First Men still flows in the veins of the Starks". Because it's important. Overall I do not disagree with your point that some lords got along and genuinely liked some kings and queens. But it doesn't mean that every lord was full of enthusiasm about every single match that the kings and queens wanted. In particular, the Stark-Arryn one certainly looks forced to me.
  11. Good job on that. I'm with you. Well, seeing how there's no mention of Rhaegar accusing Tywin of treason at that moment, I'd say it does. And there's only one reason to call a council.
  12. Uh... Let's recap? It was believed that Rhaegar tried to depose him. The World of Ice and Fire: Seeing how there's no reason for Robert regime to create and circulate such rumours after their victory, it's safe to assume that those rumours were circulated at the indicated times. Now whether those rumours were true or not is another matter. But seeing how Rhaegar personally confirms to Jaime that he did indeed had planned to call a Great Council long ago... Well, it's pretty clear to me.
  13. I think we can judge the consequences of the actions that are canon. Which is that their disappearance looked very much like a kidnapping and that Rhaegar did not, to our information, ever try to deny anything that he was accused of and was absent for most of the year. However you look at it, if you're accused of kidnapping a girl and that leads to a war, the normal thing would be to do something about it. That is unless you kidnapped her exactly in order to start a war or if you've gone bonkers and do not care about wars in the realm that you're supposed to inherit. All of which does not give Rhaegar any charm points. So yes, we can judge. Ned certainly didn't swear him any fealty. Infact did any of them swear it? Were Lords they required to come to King's Landing and swear their fealty to each new king? - I'm not sure. So they should have Aerys abdicate in favour of Rhaegar the kidnapper or Vyseris, the child who already was showing similar character to Aerys? Clearly they didn't 'cause they're not stupid. What right do Targs have to rule? - None. Anyone has the right to depose anyone. If they can.
  14. A guy who bent his knee to avoid a war with dragons protesting a lot about a marriage arrangement does not sound unforced to me. And, seeing how it was the only Andal marriage for Starks that we know of, they seemingly weren't up for a repeat performance.