[TWOIAF Spoilers] R+L=J without spoiler tags

[Moondancer]

So, someone who has the book- is there a picture in there with Hyrkoon holding Lightbringer?

Yup. It's shown in i09 article too, in the review for TWoIaF. Or is it from The Vulture? Can't remember. *googling*

[Ibbison from Ibben]

So, someone who has the book- is there a picture in there with Hyrkoon holding Lightbringer?

p301

[Moondancer]

Here it is http://io9.com/george-r-r-martin-reveals-the-worst-fate-that-could-be-1651431666/all

[Marcus Agrippa]

This is great. That means the kg at the tower weren't some honourable super knight's- they choose a favorite. It's satisfying.

[BearQueen87]

This is great. That means the kg at the tower weren't some honourable super knight's- they choose a favorite. It's satisfying.

They wouldn't know that Viserys was named heir, though. I don't think they chose--they simply did what was expected, transferred their loyalty and oath to the next in line: Jon.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

We don't know if they knew or not. The comments of making Viserys heir instead of Rhaegar himself came from before the Rebellion.

[Marcus Agrippa]

Ser Willem Darry is fled to Dragonstone, with your queen and Prince Viserys. I thought you might have sailed with him.”

“Ser Willem is a good man and true,” said Ser Oswell.

“But not of the Kingsguard,” Ser Gerold pointed out. “The Kingsguard does not flee.”

It doesn't mean they knew. ... given the fact their was9 months in between I figured that they would have heard something.

[sj4iy]

So does this mean Lightbringer may not be just a metaphor after all? Or is the information surrounding it vague?

[BearQueen87]

We don't know if they knew or not. The comments of making Viserys heir instead of Rhaegar himself came from before the Rebellion.

Sorry, don't have the book yet so help me out here. This is the passage, yes?

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.

How is this before the Rebellion? "New Heir" reads to me like Aerys made Viserys his heir only following the death of Rhaegar at the Trident. If that's the case, then the KG at the TOJ wouldn't know

[The Twinslayer]

I believe you are 100% mistaken. There is no statement that the GC of 233 set a new precedent going forward. The GC did not say that the rules for the order of succession from then on would be changed. Rather, the GC stated that for that particular circumstance, the kingdom needed an adult king to rule, and so the passed over Arion's son, taking that one individual out of the line of succession. That action is completely different than what you are suggesting--that they changed the rules going forward. They only passed over one individual for one circumstance--and stated why they did so, which was not a statement of changing the general rules.

The statement that Viserys was the new heir after Rhaegar's death suggests that Aerys named Viserys as heir--not that becoming heir would have been automatic under GC of 233. Under the normal rules, Aegon would have been heir, but I suspect that Viserys did not trust Elia (who likely would have been regent if Aerys died while Aegon was still young) or Dorne. But news of this appointment likely would not have reached the KG at ToJ, which is why they treated Jon as King rather than Viserys.

I disagree. The Rogue Prince says that the Great Council of 101 set a precedent under which Viserys I's brother, Daemon, came before Viserys' daughter. Viserys had to set aside that precedent in order to make Rhaenyra his heir.

So why wouldn't the Great Council of 233 set a similar precedent? King's son comes before the King's grandson, just like (sometimes) in the early to middle medieval period in Europe.

[sj4iy]

We don't know if they knew or not. The comments of making Viserys heir instead of Rhaegar himself came from before the Rebellion.

But those were rumors. It doesn't look like Aerys actually made Viserys his heir until after Rhaegar's death- skipping over Aegon. There's nothing that says that Rhaegar was ever disinherited while he lived.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

I was struck (don't worry, I'll be OK) by how short the time interval was between the tourney and Lyanna and Rhaegar's "incident". The timing from the books has always depended on Jaime's stated age - 15 at the tourney, 17 at the sack of KL. This gives us a time interval between the two events at 2 years +/- (1y-1day). The actual interval was very much on the short end of that, apparently. I'm sure some have correctly theorized that before now, but it's confirmed. The tourney took place late in 281 and the sack must have been early in 283, right? (There are many posters here who have spent much effort on working out dates, while I haven't.)

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Sorry, don't have the book yet so help me out here. This is the passage, yes?

How is this before the Rebellion? "New Heir" reads to me like Aerys made Viserys his heir only following the death of Rhaegar at the Trident. If that's the case, then the KG at the TOJ wouldn't know

Nope, before the Rebellion there were comments and rumours about Aerys disowning Rhaegar.

[BearQueen87]

Nope, before the Rebellion there were comments and rumours about Aerys disowning Rhaegar.

Key word there is rumors.

This also doesn't negate RL being married and Jon being legit. It *might* mean that the KG at the TOJ were playing favorites--but that depends on 1) if there were rumors and 2) if the KG heard them.

[sj4iy]

Nope, before the Rebellion there were comments and rumours about Aerys disowning Rhaegar.

But we have this quote from Jaime's dream:

Five had been his brothers. Oswell Whent and Jon Darry. Lewyn Martell, a prince of Dorne. The White Bull, Gerold Hightower. Ser Arthur Dayne, Sword of the Morning. And beside them, crowned in mist and grief with his long hair streaming behind him, rode Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone and rightful heir to the Iron Throne.

Jaime was with Aerys the entire time. If Aerys had disinherited Rhaegar at some point, Jaime would have known about it. The idea that Aerys named Viserys heir while Rhaegar lived doesn't make given the lack of textual support.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I disagree. The Rogue Prince says that the Great Council of 101 set a precedent under which Viserys I's brother, Daemon, came before Viserys' daughter. Viserys had to set aside that precedent in order to make Rhaenyra his heir.

So why wouldn't the Great Council of 233 set a similar precedent? King's son comes before the King's grandson, just like (sometimes) in the early to middle medieval period in Europe.

No. Every decision of a GC is not meant to change the rules going forward. Yes, the GC of 101 ruled against female inheritance. It was clear that such a ruling was meant to change the rules going forward. But I believe the GC of 233 was equally clear that it was a one time exception to the rule--not a new rule. The kingdom needed an adult king and Aerion's insanity made people question whether his son could be a decent king. So the GC used their discretion to make an exception to the rule (which they have the power to do)--not to change the rule going forward.

Nope, before the Rebellion there were comments and rumours about Aerys disowning Rhaegar.

So what if there were rumors. Even if KG knew about those rumors, they also knew that they came to nothing. Hightower knew that at the time he was sent by Aerys to get Rhaegar, that Rhaegar was still considered the heir to the throne. Why would rumors from over a year prior affect the assumption by the KG that the legit son of Rhaegar came before Viserys? Unless they knew that the rumors came to fruition--that Aerys actually named Viserys to be the heir after Rhaegar's death--the KG would be obligated to treat the legit son of Rhaegar as heir. The rumors would be old and irrelevant news.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Sorry, don't have the book yet so help me out here. This is the passage, yes?

How is this before the Rebellion? "New Heir" reads to me like Aerys made Viserys his heir only following the death of Rhaegar at the Trident. If that's the case, then the KG at the TOJ wouldn't know

No, it's in the World Book, I don't think there was such a mention in the main series. Because the relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar was so bad, there was talk that Aerys was going to name Viserys his heir..

I was struck (don't worry, I'll be OK) by how short the time interval was between the tourney and Lyanna and Rhaegar's "incident". The timing from the books has always depended on Jaime's stated age - 15 at the tourney, 17 at the sack of KL. This gives us a time interval between the two events at 2 years +/- (1y-1day). The actual interval was very much on the short end of that, apparently. I'm sure some have correctly theorized that before now, but it's confirmed. The tourney took place late in 281 and the sack must have been early in 283, right? (There are many posters here who have spent much effort on working out dates, while I haven't.)

I'd say the tourney took place mid-281AC.. Elia and Rhaegar married in 280AC and had their daughter born that same year, so obviously, the marriage was early in the year, the birth late. Then follows the six month (ish) recovery period for Elia. Yet by the end of the year/early next year, Elia is giving birth to Aegon.. Which means that very shortly after her "half a year" recovery period, she became pregnant again.

As Elia had such a frail health, IMO, she wouldn't have been allowed near the tourney should she have been multiple months pregnant.. Perhaps they didn't know yet that she was pregnant, or hadn't told anyone yet.. So I'd guess around the half of the year, the tourney.

The Sack, I am starting to doubt now.. Though I don't see why mid 283 wouldn't be possible?

[BearQueen87]

No, it's in the World Book, I don't think there was such a mention in the main series. Because the relationship between Aerys and Rhaegar was so bad, there was talk that Aerys was going to name Viserys his heir..

I'd say the tourney took place mid-281AC.. Elia and Rhaegar married in 280AC and had their daughter born that same year, so obviously, the marriage was early in the year, the birth late. Then follows the six month (ish) recovery period for Elia. Yet by the end of the year/early next year, Elia is giving birth to Aegon.. Which means that very shortly after her "half a year" recovery period, she became pregnant again.

As Elia had such a frail health, IMO, she wouldn't have been allowed near the tourney should she have been multiple months pregnant.. Perhaps they didn't know yet that she was pregnant, or hadn't told anyone yet.. So I'd guess around the half of the year, the tourney.

The Sack, I am starting to doubt now.. Though I don't see why mid 283 wouldn't be possible?

Are we sure Elia was in such "frail health" if the timeline is really that condensed?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Are we sure Elia was in such "frail health" if the timeline is really that condensed?

That's what JonCon tells us, isn't it? And others in the main series, IIRC.

[BearQueen87]

That's what JonCon tells us, isn't it? And others in the main series, IIRC.

Right, I know. It's just that the time seems to have shrunk (if I'm reading your analysis correctly) and makes me wonder how frail frail really is in this case.