R+L=J v.116

[sj4iy]

. I don't think Aegon was disinherited. I think he came after Viserys. Either because (1) Targaryen succession follows real-life Norman succession (Aegon the Conqueror being based in part on William the Conqueror) such that the son of a king (Viserys) comes before the son of a dead prince (Aegon); (2) the Great Council that installed Egg (King Maekar's son) before Maegor (Maekar's grandson by Egg's older brother, Aerion Brightflame) set a precedent that placed Viserys ahead of Rhaegar's sons, once Rhaegar predeceaced Aerys; or (3) Aerys proclaimed Viserys to be his heir, without disinheriting Rhaegar's children, which would just mean that Rhaegar's children were behind Viserys and anyone Viserys named as heir.

That's just my point. We don't know anything at all about this apparent action on Aerys' part. No one has ever spoken of it, or said anything about Viserys being Aerys' heir. You would think such a declaration would be common knowledge, but we've never seen anyone other than this Maester (who is very obviously not a reliable source in everything), so it's hard to take it at face value.

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

. I don't think Aegon was disinherited. I think he came after Viserys. Either because (1) Targaryen succession follows real-life Norman succession (Aegon the Conqueror being based in part on William the Conqueror) such that the son of a king (Viserys) comes before the son of a dead prince (Aegon); (2) the Great Council that installed Egg (King Maekar's son) before Maegor (Maekar's grandson by Egg's older brother, Aerion Brightflame) set a precedent that placed Viserys ahead of Rhaegar's sons, once Rhaegar predeceaced Aerys; or (3) Aerys proclaimed Viserys to be his heir, without disinheriting Rhaegar's children, which would just mean that Rhaegar's children were behind Viserys and anyone Viserys named as heir.

Scenario 1 can be ruled out. Aerys I's heir was Prince Aelor, Rhaegal's son, ahead of Maekar, himself the son of a King.

Anyway talks of "claims" regarding Targaryens and the Iron Throne is completely academic. The Targaryens do not hold the Iron Throne. Any future Targaryen who takes the Iron Throne will not do so by virtue of inheritance. They will either take the throne through conquest or, conceivably, will be awarded the Iron Throne through a Great Council. At any such Council, whose "claim" is the best will be a factor, perhaps, but it will not make the decision on its own. Even then, one would think that primogeniture would likely win more support than a claim based on being the designated heir of someone who never actually held the throne. Dany's advantage comes not from her claim, it comes from her dragons.

[BearQueen87]

Did I miss anything important or are we still doing blue roses and polygamy?

Blue Rose= Jon

Polygamy = not illegal

R+L = J

[The Twinslayer]

Scenario 1 can be ruled out. Aerys I's heir was Prince Aelor, Rhaegal's son, ahead of Maekar, himself the son of a King.

Anyway talks of "claims" regarding Targaryens and the Iron Throne is completely academic. The Targaryens do not hold the Iron Throne. Any future Targaryen who takes the Iron Throne will not do so by virtue of inheritance. They will either take the throne through conquest or, conceivably, will be awarded the Iron Throne through a Great Council. At any such Council, whose "claim" is the best will be a factor, perhaps, but it will not make the decision on its own. Even then, one would think that primogeniture would likely win more support than a claim based on being the designated heir of someone who never actually held the throne. Dany's advantage comes not from her claim, it comes from her dragons.

Didn't Maekar succeed Aerys I directly?

The relevance of Viserys coming before Rhaegar's children, for purposes of this thread, is that there is a theory that the 3KG who were guarding the TOJ were there to guard Jon, thus proving that Jon was legitimate and was born a king. Otherwise, the theory goes, those 3 KG would have left to guard King Viserys.

Now that it is confirmed that Viserys had a better claim than Rhaegar's children, the theory that Jon was legitimate has considerably less support--because the KG must have been at the TOJ for some other reason.

[markg171]

Didn't Maekar succeed Aerys I directly?

The relevance of Viserys coming before Rhaegar's children, for purposes of this thread, is that there is a theory that the 3KG who were guarding the TOJ were there to guard Jon, thus proving that Jon was legitimate and was born a king. Otherwise, the theory goes, those 3 KG would have left to guard King Viserys. Now that it is confirmed that Viserys had a better claim than Rhaegar's children, the theory that Jon was legitimate has considerably less support--because the KG must have been at the TOJ for some other reason.

Hence why they were outside the TOJ. They were gaolers and Lyanna was there prisoner.

[The Twinslayer]

Hence why they were outside the TOJ. They were gaolers and Lyanna was there prisoner.

Maybe. They say they were there because they swore a vow. It is either the vow to protect the king or the vow to obey orders. We can now confirm they weren't defending the king, because Aerys' heir, Viserys, was on Dragonstone. So it must be the vow to obey orders. Specifically, Rhaegar's orders. We don't know exactly what the order was or why it was given, but whatever it was it required the KGs to stay and fight when Ned arrived.

[sj4iy]

Maybe. They say they were there because they swore a vow. It is either the vow to protect the king or the vow to obey orders. We can now confirm they weren't defending the king, because Aerys' heir, Viserys, was on Dragonstone. So it must be the vow to obey orders. Specifically, Rhaegar's orders. We don't know exactly what the order was or why it was given, but whatever it was it required the KGs to stay and fight when Ned arrived.

No, you absolutely cannot confirm anything of the sort.

You can't prove:

1. That this is truthful information;

2. That anyone else knew about it;

3. Or that, even if this is true, 3 KG stuck in a tower out in the middle of nowhere would know about it;

You have latched onto this as if it has changed everything when it has changed nothing of the sort. Until you can prove that those 3 KG knew that Viserys was named heir by Aerys, the situation is as it was before.

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

Didn't Maekar succeed Aerys I directly?

The relevance of Viserys coming before Rhaegar's children, for purposes of this thread, is that there is a theory that the 3KG who were guarding the TOJ were there to guard Jon, thus proving that Jon was legitimate and was born a king. Otherwise, the theory goes, those 3 KG would have left to guard King Viserys.

Now that it is confirmed that Viserys had a better claim than Rhaegar's children, the theory that Jon was legitimate has considerably less support--because the KG must have been at the TOJ for some other reason.

Maekar did succeed Aerys I. However, that was because Prince Aelor predeceased Aerys. Maekar became Aerys's heir after Aelor's death. Aelor, the son of the deceased Prince Rhaegel (I referred to him as Rhaegal earlier, but that was my mistake; Rhaegal is of course Dany's dragon) was the Prince of Dragonstone (and heir) ahead of Maekar, a son of Daeron II.

I assumed by you referring to Viserys's designated heir, you might be referring to something else since Viserys certainly didn't designate Dany as his heir when he was sent to Dragonstone prior to the sack, since he had no idea his mother was even pregnant.

Regarding the Tower of Joy scene and how it relates to legitimate Jon, I think you would need to establish that, even if Aerys did explicitly designate Viserys as his heir, the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy knew about it or could reasonably be expected to have known about it. It seems that the Kingsguard were privy to a fair amount of news regarding the goings on around the Seven Kingdoms. That said, it also does not seem at any instance during the Tower of Joy showdown, do the Kingsguard reference any factual matter about Robert's Rebellion except in response to Ned. There does not seem to be any indication that they know any fine details of what's been going on (for example, Ned refers to Willem Darry by name before Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower point out he is not of the Kingsguard)

[JonSnow4President]

Didn't Maekar succeed Aerys I directly?

The relevance of Viserys coming before Rhaegar's children, for purposes of this thread, is that there is a theory that the 3KG who were guarding the TOJ were there to guard Jon, thus proving that Jon was legitimate and was born a king. Otherwise, the theory goes, those 3 KG would have left to guard King Viserys.

Now that it is confirmed that Viserys had a better claim than Rhaegar's children, the theory that Jon was legitimate has considerably less support--because the KG must have been at the TOJ for some other reason.

Of course, this is also the world of literature, so it would seem very odd do romanticize the kingsguard's final defense at the ToJ if they were doing something particular ignoble. Is it definitive, drop the mic proof? Hell no. But it's yet another indicator of R+L=J, particular a legitimate J.

And of course, anyone pretending they are there on orders to guard a rape prisoner doesn't even try to explain why Ned thinks of them as shining examples to the world. This is a man who we have seen consider his "duties" to his king to be subordinate to the well being of the weak and innocent, so it would certainly be odd for Ned to consider them (or at least Dayne) as shining examples of knighthood if they are merely guarding Lyanna so Rhaegar can have a good rape.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Didn't Maekar succeed Aerys I directly?

Yes, because both Rhaegal and his son were already dead.

You also still need to show that the Kingsguard at the Tower would or could have known that Aerys named Viserys as his heir. If you want to argue that the Kingsguard knowingly flouted Aerys's succession decision, you need to show evidence that they knew that decision had been made.

(Assuming that he actually explicitly did so and that what's in the World book isn't just shorthand given that Aegon died so soon after Rhaegar did.)

ETA:

"Which King Aegon?" Dany asked. "Five Aegons have ruled in Westeros." Her brother's son would have been the sixth, but the Usurper's men had dashed his head against a wall.

Why does Dany think of her nephew as the would-have-been Aegon VI if Viserys had actually been designated the heir above him while Aegon was still alive?

[J. Stargaryen]

I can only conclude that you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say, because otherwise none of this makes a lick of sense. I'll try to clarify what I'm saying.

There are two possibilities.

1. Lyanna liked roses before Harrenhal.

2. Lyanna didn't like roses before Harrenhal.

Agreed?

Ok. My claim is that neither case is proven because there is no firm evidence for either case.

Further I claim that there is some slender evidence for case 1, but none for case 2.

On this basis, I suggest it is more likely that case 1 is true than that case 2 is true.

There is no logical fallacy in this. It's a very simple proposition. It can be countered by showing evidence for case 2. That would be expanding the evidence to draw a new conclusion, but relying on the same logic.

Laid out that way, it is fine.

When do we ever hear anything of Lyanna at all before Harrenhal? We hear that she loved horses. We know from Bran's vision that she had a play fight with Benjen (probably). That's it, I think. That we don't see her with flowers before Harrenhal is utterly meaningless because we basically hear zero about her before Harrenhal. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You might as well say that we don't hear of Lyanna talking before Harrenhal so she'd previously been mute.

As for tomboys, well we have an example of another Westerosi tomboy who's a very close parallel to Lyanna - Arya. Arya collects flowers for Ned, and talks about how she's recognised 36 types of wildflower around the Trident that she hasn't seen before. But yeah, totes nothing there.

I don't agree with this. Quoting Ygrain: whether she liked them before HH or not is really not that substantial. What matters is that the imagery and situations connecting her to them are post-HH.

I'm familiar with the Arya example, and it's a fair counter. However, though I agree that GRRM is probably drawing a (subtle?) parallel with Lyanna there, I'm not sure if it's to pre- or post-HH Lyanna. That is, does GRRM mean that Lyanna was the same when she was Arya's age, or is he drawing a more general connection, as in Arya + flowers to make you think of Lyanna?

A couple of other points. It's worth considering that Ned and Lyanna likely didn't spend a whole lot of time together pre-HH, either. Ned was fostered in the Eyrie since age eight, and was still there during 281, when he was eighteen. So, the arguments that flow from that idea are probably not as substantial as they would appear to be, at first blush.

Also, regarding Ned's line about Lyanna being "fond... of flowers." There's a linguistic parallel to a conversation between Ser Barristan and Dany in ADwD.

The old knight [ser Barristan] hesitated. “Princess Elia was a good woman, Your Grace. She was kind and clever, with a gentle heart and a sweet wit. I know the prince was very fond of her.”

Fond, thought Dany. The word spoke volumes. I could become fond of Hizdahr zo Loraq, in time. Perhaps. - ADwD, Daenerys IV

Quoting myself: Rather than tell outright lies to their lieges, Ned and Ser Barristan prefer to tell as little truth as possible. Softening the potential blow as best they can.

That is, Ned can't quite say to Robert that Lyanna really loved those winter roses Rhaegar gave her. Also note that the Barristan-Dany convo is about Rhaegar and Elia, which also ties it to the passage from Eddard I.

It's endorsed by GRRM. He's the one telling us this story, and he chose to tell us a tale in that story that involved a kidnapped daughter of Winterfell associated with Blue Winter Roses. It's not a coincidence.

I'm not quite sure exactly what we're arguing about here. I believe the point I made in my last post was that Starks probably wouldn't consider their daughters to be winter roses; do not endorse. Clearly it's something that exists in universe, though.

No, I do not think it makes sense. As I keep telling you, such an interpretation can be ignored because it doesn't make sense. It's over-stretching the metaphor. That was the entire point of bringing it up, it was a warning against over-stretching the metaphor. That's why I said right at the beginning that it could be safely ignored.

You're tilting at windmills. The very first thing I said on this topic is "He placed a crown in her lap, isn't that enough?" Yes, Rhaegar symbolically placed Jon in Lyanna's lap. Not because the crown was made of blue winter roses, but because it was a crown placed in her lap. Isn't that enough? Blue winter roses = Jon is entirely unnecessary for this symbolism to work.

I have to confess that I misunderstood you from the start, on this. I thought you were claiming something akin to a cigar is just a cigar; or, not everything has to be a metaphor, etc. My apologies. Now that I do understand you though, I still don't agree. Heh. I think it's difficult to separate the crown from the winter roses, since it's a crown of winter roses. In fact, at this point it might be you who is over complicating the metaphor. I think my case would look a whole lot weaker were it not for Dany's vision in the HotU, but since I'm pretty sure that blue flower is supposed to be Jon, then it makes sense that the crown of blue roses can also be him. At least that's how I see it.

I also think, as Alia was stating in the previous thread, that we're not necessarily dealing with an either or issue, here. And it might be that the blue rose represents a special circumstance involving a Stark maiden, outsider male, and their son.

[Kingmonkey]

I think my case would look a whole lot weaker were it not for Dany's vision in the HotU, but since I'm pretty sure that blue flower is supposed to be Jon, then it makes sense that the crown of blue roses can also be him. At least that's how I see it.

I also think, as Alia was stating in the previous thread, that we're not necessarily dealing with an either or issue, here. And it might be that the blue rose represents a special circumstance involving a Stark maiden, outsider male, and their son.

I'm not going to go over much of your post because honestly I think we've got to the stage where we understand each other and have a couple of very minor disagreements on emphasis and importance that are more about stating a personal opinion than anything else. That's all for the good, and it's a relief we're not arguing cross-purposes any more! I will briefly cover this point though.

I do agree with Alia that it's not an either/or case, and I would say that there's a very simple reason for that. A personal symbol can, by extension, indicate the people who are connected to that person. If we were to see a dream in which someone is pecked to death by a mockingbird, it would not necessarily indicate that Littlefinger is going to kill them. It might foreshadow an assassin hired by Littlefinger, for example.

Similarly, I see the BWR as being a symbol for Lyanna rather than a symbol for Jon or Rhaegar. Because of their connection to Lyanna, it can also be used to indicate them by extension, when the circumstances suit. Thus I'd say the BWR in the wall of ice indicates Jon not because BWRs symbolise Jon himself, but because they are a symbol of his mother. If the BWR represents Lyanna, and Jon is the scion of Lyanna at the Wall, then when we see a BWR associated with a wall of ice it's a fair bet it represents Jon.

In terms of where we get to in the story, this isn't an important distinction -- it's just a matter of breaking down the semiotics of the storytelling. If you're not interested in semiotic precision, you can give this distinction a pass. It's a symbol of Lyanna, but in this case it is used to represent Jon. If I wanted to do a graphical representation of the 100 most influential people on the Internet, I might use a white f on a blue background to represent Mark Zuckerberg. It would be incorrect to call it the symbol of Mark Zuckerberg, it's the symbol of Facebook. Nevertheless in that context it would clearly represent Zuckerberg.

[Kingmonkey]

Maybe. They say they were there because they swore a vow. It is either the vow to protect the king or the vow to obey orders. We can now confirm they weren't defending the king, because Aerys' heir, Viserys, was on Dragonstone. So it must be the vow to obey orders. Specifically, Rhaegar's orders. We don't know exactly what the order was or why it was given, but whatever it was it required the KGs to stay and fight when Ned arrived.

Actually at this point, the king was in King's Landing, not on Dragonstone. His name was Robert Baratheon.

The point is that whether they intended to or not, the 3KG were making a choice over who is King. If they knew Viserys had been made heir and rushed to Dragonstone, they would be making a choice to accept Viserys over Robert. They might not know that Viserys had been named king, but alternatively they might have known and chosen not to recognise that fact, just as they chose not recognise that Robert had been named king.

We simply do not know enough about what choices the 3KG had made and what their reasons were for being at the ToJ to declare on "protect vs. obey". Either option is entirely possible with the information we have thus far.

[Alia of the knife]

So nice and new.

Anyway, if Aerys thought Rhaegar was up to treason, then he could disinherit him for Viserys. It did happen in real history.

Treason is the one sin against a king that even a son can't get away with.

Even Ivan the Terrible slew his own son and heir for the "sin" of the sons wifes supposed immodest dress.

[sj4iy]

So nice and new.

Anyway, if Aerys thought Rhaegar was up to treason, then he could disinherit him for Viserys. It did happen in real history.

Treason is the one sin against a king that even a son can't get away with.

Even Ivan the Terrible slew his own son and heir for the "sin" of the sons wifes supposed immodest dress.

But that's not applicable here because he didn't disinherit Rhaegar- he supposedly named Viserys heir after Rhaegar's death. I don't think Aegon was old enough to plot treason ;)

[The Twinslayer]

Maekar did succeed Aerys I. However, that was because Prince Aelor predeceased Aerys. Maekar became Aerys's heir after Aelor's death. Aelor, the son of the deceased Prince Rhaegel (I referred to him as Rhaegal earlier, but that was my mistake; Rhaegal is of course Dany's dragon) was the Prince of Dragonstone (and heir) ahead of Maekar, a son of Daeron II.

I will need to take another look at that, but even so, that happened before the Great Council that chose Egg. In my view, the GC set a precedent under which Viserys came before Rhaegar's children. The 3KG would have known that and thus would have known that Viserys was Aerys' heir. Or at least, there was a strong argument that Viserys was the heir.

I assumed by you referring to Viserys's designated heir, you might be referring to something else since Viserys certainly didn't designate Dany as his heir when he was sent to Dragonstone prior to the sack, since he had no idea his mother was even pregnant.

I am referring to the fact that the Targs designated their heirs as Prince or Princess of Dragonstone and that Daenerys is introduced in AGOT as Princess of Dragonstone. Thus, Viserys named her heir to the throne. Otherwise, she would just be The Princess Danaerys.

Viserys could not proclaim an heir until he was king. He was crowned King on Dragonstone as soon as Aerys died, which was 8 months or so before Dany was born. That means he named Dany his successor at least 8 months after he was crowned.

Regarding the Tower of Joy scene and how it relates to legitimate Jon, I think you would need to establish that, even if Aerys did explicitly designate Viserys as his heir, the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy knew about it or could reasonably be expected to have known about it. It seems that the Kingsguard were privy to a fair amount of news regarding the goings on around the Seven Kingdoms. That said, it also does not seem at any instance during the Tower of Joy showdown, do the Kingsguard reference any factual matter about Robert's Rebellion except in response to Ned. There does not seem to be any indication that they know any fine details of what's been going on (for example, Ned refers to Willem Darry by name before Oswell Whent and Gerold Hightower point out he is not of the Kingsguard)

In order for them to believe that Jon was the king, they would have to know:

*Aerys was dead

* Rhaegar was dead, and

*Aegon was dead

The only reason to think they believed that Aerys and Rhaegar were dead is that they discussed it with Ned. But they never mention Aegon's death.

They would also have to believe that:

* Viserys (son of the king) did not come before Rhaegar's children

*Aerys did not name a new heir (despite the common Targ practice of naming heirs) after Rhaegar died

I just don't think all of those things could be true. For example, let's assume that Viserys did not automatically become Aerys' heir, and instead proceed on the assumption that Aerys proclaimed Viserys to be the new heir a couple of weeks before the Sack. How could the KG not know that fact, but still know that Aegon died 2 weeks later?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

But that's not applicable here because he didn't disinherit Rhaegar- he supposedly named Viserys heir after Rhaegar's death. I don't think Aegon was old enough to plot treason ;)

I really do think that Viserys being Aerys' heir in WOIAF is a function of Rhaegar and Aegon dying so closely together. Namely, the maester is writing in hindsight with the knowledge that Aegon was a goner anyway and Viserys survived. Ergo, from the current perspective, Viserys was essentially Aerys' heir.

But as I pointed out above, Dany takes Aegon's ascension to the throne as a given if he had lived. That wouldn't have been the case if Viserys had been designated the heir. I also think that Viserys would have known if he had been designated the heir over Aegon, and would have conveyed this to Dany. But that doesn't jibe with Dany's understanding of the succession, which is basically how succession normally works: Aegon, as Rhaegar's son, comes before Viserys.

[J. Stargaryen]

snip

Just a couple of things. I don't think the roses are a symbol of Rhaegar. Rather, it's that I don't think you can disentangle him from the symbolism of Lyanna's roses. It ends up being a pretty important clue about the identity of her baby's father.

Blue roses as Lyanna's symbol strikes me as a text-only interpretation. That is, ignoring the subtext and what it is telling us. In my experience with this series, that's not the best way to understand what you're reading. And it seems clear to me that the blue rose subtext hints at R+L=J. Therefore, I reject the notion of blue roses (solely) as a symbol for Lyanna in favor of blue roses as a symbol for R+L=J. (You can have a look at a thread of mine on the topic, here, if you're interested.)

Then again, there may be some grey area here, and all of the interpretations are correct; a symbol for Lyanna, R+L=J, and subsequently Jon. Further, a bit of speculation for fun: A blue rose, or a crown of blue roses, as a sigil, or personal device, would likely go a long way toward symbolizing to Westeros exactly who Jon really is.

[sj4iy]

I really do think that Viserys being Aerys' heir in WOIAF is a function of Rhaegar and Aegon dying so closely together. Namely, the maester is writing in hindsight with the knowledge that Aegon was a goner anyway and Viserys survived. Ergo, from the current perspective, Viserys was essentially Aerys' heir.

But as I pointed out above, Dany takes Aegon's ascension to the throne as a given if he had lived. That wouldn't have been the case if Viserys had been designated the heir. I also think that Viserys would have known if he had been designated the heir over Aegon, and would have conveyed this to Dany. But that doesn't jibe with Dany's understanding of the succession, which is basically how succession normally works: Aegon, as Rhaegar's son, comes before Viserys.

That's the issue with this new information- it is not at all corroborated by the main series because no one ever mentions it. Everyone takes it as a given that Rhaegar would have been king had he lived. There's never any hint at all that Aerys ever actually did this. So while I can't say for certain that the Maester us jumping to conclusions and making things up, I will seriously doubt the veracity of this statement until the series gives us further proof of it.

Of course, for this to have any impact on this discussion, one would have to further prove that the KG knew about it because all that matters is what they thought at that time, and not what may or may not have been true in KL before the sack. And there isn't any way at all at this point to do so.

Which is why anyone saying that this evidence "confirms" that the KG were obeying orders is absolutely wrong. There's no confirmation at all.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

<snip>

I agree with you. At the absolute least, Dany's thoughts about Aegon VI don't match up with what Twinslayer is trying to get out of the World book. The wording itself is also kind of odd in the World book: Supplanting Aegon son with Viserys would be a big deal, shaking up the succession and possibly even risking being abandoned by the Dornish, who would support Aegon's claim. Yet all we get is a line about Aerys' "new heir"? Nothing about Aerys specifically designating Viserys? That gets glossed over entirely? Not buying it.

Until something in the main series corroborates the theory that Aerys explicitly placed Viserys ahead of Rhaegar's children, I see it as just a slip-up by the maester who probably thought it'd be easier to call the kid who survived the heir rather than the kid who was killed two weeks-ish after Rhaegar died.