Ser Leftwich Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I believe, Aerys orders Hightower to find Rhaegar and along with him is the legitimization of Rhaegar's marriage with Lyanna in a form of a document w/his seal, to convince for Rhaegar's return and lead the royal army. For me, personally, it is the only way to explain Hightower's staunch defense of Aerys still being king and resolved Rhaegar's order upon his death (to carry on and still protect Lyanna and the recent birth of Jon). For when Aerys died, the actions of the KGs (especially Hightower) still at the tower, speaks volume of their purpose. And upon Ned's arrival, it shows in Hightower's tone of his continuing stance and defense of the baby boy in Lyanna's arms... who he and the other 2 Kingsguards see as the legitimate and rightful heir to the throne, not Viserys--when Ned press the issue for the KGs to go to Dragonstone and protect him. This holds with the theory of last year, or from some point, of Rhaegar demanding a boon, the Protector of the Realm title, if not the Handship. When Rhaegar convinced Aerys to send for Tywin, did the request include a promise of the Handship for Tywin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 This holds with the theory of last year, or from some point, of Rhaegar demanding a boon, the Protector of the Realm title, if not the Handship. When Rhaegar convinced Aerys to send for Tywin, did the request include a promise of the Handship for Tywin? Given that the world book makes it sound like Tywin has a preference of Rhaegar over Aerys as early as Duskendale...then possibly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 But the point I was trying to make, is that the fact that Daeron refused Daemon, shows that it was still legal.. Though, perhaps, as you say, it couldn´t be done whenever someone felt like doing it. I really don't see it that way. The king is not really bound by the laws, he is the ultimate authority. If the king gives you special permission you can do whatever you want. The king can even change the laws. That Daemon needed this permission seems to indicate that it was not legal. Well, think about it. The news of Aerys' death, and Aegons death, would be spread immediately. That's the news that could get the remaining loyalists to surrender. If Aerys made Viserys his heir, it would have been known only to those in the Red Keep. There weren't many people left in the Red Keep, and most of them either died, or went over to the Lannisters/rebels, it seems. Their priority wouldn't be sending out the message over all the realm that Viserys was named King (if indeed he had been named, and this isn't just Yandels wording). Why do you think it would only be known in the Red Keep? The people on Dragonstone would learn from Rhaella, Viserys and their escort. It's possible ravens were sent, or at least that word got further than the Red Keep and into the city itself. There was time between the Trident and the Sack. (You probably have a better idea of how much time than I do.) Naming someone heir to the throne, especially when passing over someone else, is something you'd want to proclaim as wide an audience as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnLion Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Why do you think it would only be known in the Red Keep? The people on Dragonstone would learn from Rhaella, Viserys and their escort. It's possible ravens were sent, or at least that word got further than the Red Keep and into the city itself. There was time between the Trident and the Sack. (You probably have a better idea of how much time than I do.) Naming someone heir to the throne, especially when passing over someone else, is something you'd want to proclaim as wide an audience as possible. Then you need to explain why no one seems to mention it, or take note of it. I think it is far more likely that Pycelle is making that part up for Yandel. By the bye, the king disregards the laws at his own peril. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmonkey Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Not necessarily, if its a test of loyalty. Aerys does have his hostages and Rhaegar has been conspicuously absent while the rebellion was getting out of hand. He has to command the army - or else. Same goes for Lord Tywin. He needs now to prove his loyalty and Aerys, as we're told, has his son not as a guard but as a hostage. On a slight tangent, given that Tywin did take King's Landing we have to wonder how confident he was that Jaime would deal with Aerys. I think it's notable that the Lannisters took no part in the rebellion on either side until after Rhaegar had died. Rhaegar tells Jaime with some confidence that there will be changes after the rebellion. I think it's a fair bet that there was an understanding between Rhaegar and Tywin. As for Aerys trusting Rhaegar with leadership of the army, it should be remembered that losing the war would not benefit either of them. Rhaegar's line would not inherit of Aerys is deposed. Aerys needs Rhaegar, but Rhaegar needs Aerys, at least for now. My guess is that Rhaegar persuaded Aerys that he should call Tywin because Rhaegar wanted Tywin there to provide a united front in the aftermath, and that Aerys, mad but not stupid, had come to the point where he was willing to compromise because he could see that it was the only alternative left to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 And Rhaegar would marry Cersei to Viserys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Then you need to explain why no one seems to mention it, or take note of it. I think it is far more likely that Pycelle is making that part up for Yandel. The fact that it's not mentioned is not evidence that it didn't happen or wasn't widley known, because it ended up being a moot point when Aegon died at the same time as Aerys. Why should anyone bring it up? Can you point me to one place in the text where it seems odd that it wasn't mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 I think that the question I have been wrestling with is why did GRRM include the reference to Viserys being the new heir at all? What message was GRRM sending to the reader? Is it meant to suggest that Aerys did actually name Viserys as the new heir, and if so, does this fact have any other significance to the plot (i.e., Jon as the "real" heir during battle of ToJ)? I am not someone who just dismisses evidence because it does not support my preferred theory (I support legit J). I agree that it might just be the maesters conflating the situation because from their point of view Viserys became the heir shortly thereafter when Aegon was apparently killed. But we cannot assume that is the reason. So back to my original question, what clue, if any, was GRRM telling the readers with this information? I still cannot decide for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Af the point that having to ask the king for permission means that the action is illegal: total nonsense. By this logic, monogamous marriage would be illegal, as well, because if a prince wants to get married, he has to ask the king's permission first... or go ahead and marry without the permission and face the consequences, which, however, doesn't make the marriage illegal. Daemon and Rhaenyra as well as a couple of spoilers say hello here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Af the point that having to ask the king for permission means that the action is illegal: total nonsense. By this logic, monogamous marriage would be illegal, as well, because if a prince wants to get married, he has to ask the king's permission first... or go ahead and marry without the permission and face the consequences, which, however, doesn't make the marriage illegal. Daemon and Rhaenyra as well as a couple of spoilers say hello here. Indeed. Look at Aegon V's kids (who I'm fairly sure are your spoiler). They married without Aegon's permission and that didn't make them any less legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Creighton Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 What kind of witness do you think Pycell is? I mean would you consider him biased or unbiased? Would you consider his claims used to support lies to paint a Lannister in a brighter light? Or is he just giving an unbiased opinion for history? This is in regards to Vis.Would a person who helped to generate a rift wish to place the blame someplace else so history does not remember him as a giant ass tool bag? Or would said person get in line to be histories tool bag? If I recall I didn't read in there where Tywin ordered the brutal murder of Rhaegars children and yet he did. I guess I assume that they lied, so not only unreliable because of bias, but proven liars as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 —¡Soy el príncipe Aemon, el Caballero Dragón! —gritaba Jon. I was just re-reading. So, yeah. I'm kinda convinced that Jon's name was going to be Aemon. /end of random thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted November 15, 2014 Share Posted November 15, 2014 Indeed. Look at Aegon V's kids (who I'm fairly sure are your spoiler). They married without Aegon's permission and that didn't make them any less legal. Yep :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.