R+L=J v.116

[markg171]

Then what does it mean? And keep in mind HOW that crown was given to Lyanna. Placed in her lap by Rhaegar's lance point.

The crown means Lord Whent spent a lot of money on his tournament. Which we already know. Blue roses are the rarest and most precious prize in Westoros. A crown of them showcases your wealth, same as offering huge rewards to the champions does. We know Whent threw the tournament in an extravagant fashion. He didn't skip on anything, so why would he cheap out on the queen of love and beauty's crown?

Again, all I said was the fact that the crown was made of blue roses and that Rhaegar gave it to Lyanna has no metaphorical significance. Whoever the champion was would have been giving their queen the same crown. If you choose to find meaning in anything else or in the fact that he choose Lyanna over Elia, then that's something completely other than what I'm saying.

[Kingmonkey]

The prize for winning the joust was a crown. The queen of love and beauty's laurels were a crown. Rhaegar gives Lyanna a crown. Are you daft?

You guys love to make seemingly unrelated connections when it suits your purposes, but when anybody else makes a connection you dismiss it at once

Do you think when a king and queen of (of a kingdom, of May, of the ball, whatever) are crowned, they normally share the same crown? Clue: no, they don't. They have separate crowns.

I'm dismissing your connection because it's contradicted by what GRRM actually wrote. Why would GRRM use different noun phrases for the champion's crown as for the queen of beauty's laurel if he intended them to be the same thing? Doesn't make sense.

[markg171]

Do you think when a king and queen of (of a kingdom, of May, of the ball, whatever) are crowned, they normally share the same crown? Clue: no, they don't. They have separate crowns.

I'm dismissing your connection because it's contradicted by what GRRM actually wrote. Why would GRRM use different noun phrases for the champion's crown as for the queen of beauty's laurel if he intended them to be the same thing? Doesn't make sense.

How is it contradicted, when GRRM specifically describes it as a crown in the next sentence (and then again in the paragraph immediately proceeding). They're the same damn thing.

The passage says Rhaegar wins a crown and then trots over and hands Lyanna a crown. If you can't see that it's the same thing, then it's you who don't know how to read, not me.

[BearQueen87]

The crown means Lord Whent spent a lot of money on his tournament. Which we already know. Blue roses are the rarest and most precious prize in Westoros. A crown of them showcases your wealth, same as offering huge rewards to the champions does. We know Whent threw the tournament in an extravagant fashion. He didn't skip on anything, so why would he cheap out on the queen of love and beauty's crown?

Again, all I said was the fact that the crown was made of blue roses and that Rhaegar gave it to Lyanna has no metaphorical significance. Whoever the champion was would have been giving their queen the same crown. If you choose to find meaning in anything else or in the fact that he choose Lyanna over Elia, then that's something completely other than what I'm saying.

Have you read the World Book?

[Greymoon]

Theon's used because he's the closest thing to kin available. He's the only person who could with her family dead and the king in the south.

With Lyanna that's not true at all. There are people who can give her away. None would however. You can't just go grab anybody who's slightly close to kin unless there isn't anybody else. If they got anybody other than Rickard, Ned or Aerys when they were alive and able, then the marriage would not be valid.

Jon's a bastard whether he's Ned's or Lyanna's.

Jon could give Alys away, although it was against her uncle's wish and her brother Harrion was still alive. True, it wasn't exact the same type of ceremony -- but come on. Sansa was given away by Joffrey, her family was absolutely not involved in the marriage. Why would you assume that Lyanna's potential marriage would require the participation of her father or close kin any more than other sorts of marriages?

In any case, it seems to me that Kings and Lords have the authority to marry off young high born girls under their jurisdiction. The Crown Prince could probably enforce such privileges, if need be. Lord Whent could have, too, if it was necessary.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I'm also not sure how the Great Council making a decision on succession supports the idea that a king can unilaterally pass over the rightful heir.

This, and..

What I don't get is why this guy thinks the Great Council that picked Aegon V set some unarguable precedent about brothers coming before their nephews. That a council was called at all was pretty extraordinary. It was because the candidates were a girl (who'd be dead last anyway) and the infant son of a nutcase that the council had to pick Aegon. They weren't trying to rewrite succession law; they picked Aegon because there were no other suitable candidates. If Aerion's son had been older and/or someone else's son, or Daeron's daughter had been a son, they would have been the one that was chosen.

But using the council as evidence of some intended permanent change in the succession rules is just nonsense and undermines why the council had to be called in the first place.

...this. This is exactly why I asked!!

The council made a decision.. nowhere is it stated that the Council created a new precedent by naming Aegon over Maegor.

Immediately before heading to the Trident, Rhaegar spoke to Jaime about a council, which I guess most of us think means a Great Council. Previous Great Councils were called to determine succession. In the case of the first Great Council, the King was still alive and the council held to determine the succession over the King's head. Rather suggestively, the first Great Council was held at Harrenhal. Rhaegar had been meaning to do something about the situation for a while, but other things seem to have got in his way. Was he planning to call a Great Council during the Tourney at Harrenhal?

So why would Aerys have trusted Rhaegar more towards the end, enough even to give him an army? I doubt Aerys did actually trust him. Aerys had leverage over Rhaegar -- Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys as hostages. It might have occurred to Aerys that further leverage could be applied by disinheriting Rhaegar (or at the least Rhaegar's children) in favour of Viserys. That would help ensure that no little accidents happen to Aerys.

It's possible that if Viserys was indeed named heir, it was intended to be a temporary thing, a guarantee of Rhaegar's good behaviour. "Start doing what I tell you and I'll re-inherit you". I don't entirely like that idea because of the council thing.

It's also, I suppose, possible that Aerys did not disinherit Rhaegar, but rather declared Aegon and Rhaenys out of the succession. Perhaps a stretch, but an interesting one in the context of Rhaegar having another son about to be born that Aerys doesn't know about (keep in mind here that Elia was said to be unlikely to be able to have any more children).

In that case, you'd have everyone thinking the line went Aerys>Rhaegar>Viserys ( TWOIAF calls Viserys Aerys' "new heir" immediately after reporting on Rhaegar's death) apart from the few privy to what was going on at the ToJ who'd know that it was actually Aerys>Rhaegar>Jon. Neat enough answer to why Viserys might have been said to be the heir yet the 3KG weren't heading to Dragonstone, I suppose.

Then do explain... By giving Rhaegar 40.000 men, whilst knowing that he kidnapped a girl (and being able to know his son well enough to know that would not have been without a reason), a girl young enough to birth more children, (and if not, there are other women in the Kingdom), how did Aerys ever think that holding Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon was a failproof plan?

It would be a rather cold thing to do, sacrifice your wife and children, but if Aerys truly had believed that Rhaegar wanted to overthrow Aerys, how would keeping Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon have stopped Rhaegar from taking KL? As seen with Tywin's plan, get your army into the city, then attack. In Rhaegar's case, all he had needed to have done, was arrest Aerys upon return to the city. When Tywin attacked, there was barely any time to send anyone to Elia and the kids... Why would it have been different if Rhaegar took the Red Keep?

GRRM has indicated (in The Rogue Prince and in an SSM) that precedents matter. But they are not set in stone. Sometimes the precedents conflict, and sometimes they are overturned by a king, by a Great Council or by force. The point here is that there is a good precedent for Viserys coming before Aegon. There is also general recognition that a king can name his own heir. Consider this: does anyone on this thread believe that Robb lacked the authority to pass over Sansa in favor of Jon Snow? Robb certainly thought he had that authority, and when he commanded his lords to bear witness to his will, they obeyed.

But the Great Council of 233 AC is never stated to have set a precedent. They made a decision, at that moment, because a new King was needed. Did Aerys need a new King? No, he was the King!

A King can name his own heir... But we've never heard about Aerys doing so, and suddenly Yandel would know? Why? How?

Robb wrote an official document stating who his heir was. We never hear about Aerys doing such a thing..

[Ygrain]

Read the passage you've quoted. "champion's crown" "queen of beauty's laurel". It doesn't say they're the same thing at all. GRRM utilises entirely different noun phrases, which would be a bizarre choice if they're intended to be the same thing. Why would he call it a laurel in one sentence and then describe it as a crown in the next? To differentiate it from the previously mentioned crown. Your inference is unsupported in the text, and contrary to the way GRRM has chosen to write the passage.

Do you think when a king and queen of (of a kingdom, of May, of the ball, whatever) are crowned, they normally share the same crown? Clue: no, they don't. They have separate crowns.

I'm dismissing your connection because it's contradicted by what GRRM actually wrote. Why would GRRM use different noun phrases for the champion's crown as for the queen of beauty's laurel if he intended them to be the same thing? Doesn't make sense.

Here you go all the quotes for the QoLaB crown:

“Promise me, Ned,” Lyanna’s statue whispered. She wore a garland of pale blue roses, and her eyes wept blood.

Ned remembered the moment when all the smiles died, when Prince Rhaegar Targaryen urged his horse past his own wife, the Dornish princess Elia Martell, to lay the queen of beauty’s laurel in Lyanna’s lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost.

Ned Stark reached out his hand to grasp the flowery crown, but beneath the pale blue petals the thorns lay hidden.

But there were others with faces he had never known in life, faces he had seen only in stone. The slim, sad girl who wore a crown of pale blue roses and a white gown spattered with gore could only be Lyanna.

In short, GRRM uses garland, laurel and crown interchangeably.

[markg171]

Jon could give Alys away, although it was against her uncle's wish and her brother Harrion was still alive. True, it wasn't exact the same type of ceremony -- but come on. Sansa was given away by Joffrey, her family was absolutely not involved in the marriage. Why would you assume that Lyanna's potential marriage would require the participation of her father or close kin any more than other sorts of marriages?

In any case, it seems to me that Kings and Lords have the authority to marry off young high born girls under their jurisdiction. The Crown Prince could probably enforce such privileges, if need be. Lord Whent could have, too, if it was necessary.

Joffrey is the king. The Father of the realm. That's explicitly stated why he can give her away.

Jon and Alys is a different thing, but the only explanation I can think of is that the laws of gods and men end at the Wall. It could be that Jon, being the Lord Commander of the Watch, and therefore the "king" of that realm is able to marry whoever he wants within the lands of the Night's Watch. He'd serve the same purpose as Joffrey did. I'm currently re-reading Dance though so when I get to that section hopefully there'll be more information or something that says why he could.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Wasn't there some SSM about a son of a House being free to marry whatever girl he wanted, but that, if his father disagreed with the match, there would be serious consequences..?

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

Princess Shaera wasn't given away by her father Aegon V (who was also her King) when she married her brother Prince Jaehaerys. Shaera and Jaehaerys specifically sneaked off to get married in secret without their parents' permission. I suppose Jaehaerys was Prince of Dragonstone, though. Of course, Rhaegar was also Prince of Dragonstone.

[The Twinslayer]

But the Great Council of 233 AC is never stated to have set a precedent. They made a decision, at that moment, because a new King was needed. Did Aerys need a new King? No, he was the King!

A King can name his own heir... But we've never heard about Aerys doing so, and suddenly Yandel would know? Why? How?

Robb wrote an official document stating who his heir was. We never hear about Aerys doing such a thing..

When I say precedent, and, I believe, when GRRM used the term precedent in the link below, what I mean is that unusual circumstances arose which had not previously been confronted. It is, literally, "unprecedented."

Then, a resolution is reached. The dispute or conflict is resolved, one way or another.

Then, the same situation, or a similar one, arises again. It is no longer "unprecedented," because it has happened before, and the precedent that was set last time is remembered.

GRRM likes to set up these murky situations that can lead to conflicting claims. He is well aware that inheritance rules are pretty easy when the king has living children. "A man's eldest son was his heir. After that, the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age."

So far, so good, right? Aerys' heir is Rhaegar. After that, Viserys.

"After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence?" This does not apply here directly, but it serves to illustrate the point that succession rules were unsettled.

Then, GRRM says: "What if there are no children, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle?" Here, "precedence refers to the more senior line, while proximity refers to the person who is from the generation closes to the king. So GRRM asks a few more questions and then says "There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases . . . but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims."

So here is what GRRM is alluding to. What if Aerys is alive, Rhaegar and Aegon are dead, but Aegon leaves a son. And what if Viserys is also dead, but he leaves a son, too. Aegon's son has "precedence", i.e., he comes from the senior line (he is descended from Aerys' oldest son). But Viserys' son has "proximity", i.e., he is one generation closer to Aerys. This sets up conflicting claims and "there are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history." While this is not precisely the same, it is very similar to the actual situation facing Aerys. The only difference is that there is just one extra generation -- in other words, instead of Rhaegar's grandson vs. Viserys' son, you have Rhaegar's son, Aegon (or Jon, if you like) vs. Viserys himself. Aegon (or Jon) has "precedence" but Viserys has "proximity." Now you have conflicting claims. So, how do you resolve them?

One way is to look to precedent. The only (or at least, the most recent) precedent in Targ history is the Great Council of 233. There, Maegor was the son of Prince Aerion. Maegor had precedence over Aerion's younger brother, Egg. Egg, however, had proximity. He was the son of the most recent king while Maegor was just a grandson. Proximity prevailed. So now we have a precedent. If you apply it to Viserys vs. Aegon, Viserys will prevail. Is that conclusive? Maybe not, but it certainly helps Viserys and provides no help to Aegon.

The second way is for the king to issue a decree. Did Aerys issue a decree? We don't know, and it wasn't actually necessary, since he was planning to kill Aegon while sparing Viserys. But given the statement in the world book, he probably did. If not, this means a royal decree was unnecessary because, in the eyes of the maesters, Viserys was the heir even without a decree. If Aerys did issue a decree, Viserys' claim just got even stronger.

I suppose a third way would be for the Lord Commander of the kingsguard to say "hmm, we have the precedence versus proximity problem. Viserys and Rhaella are on Dragonstone with Willem Darry and the remaining Targaryen loyalists. But I think I'll go ahead and choose the new king without consulting any of them. After all, our knees don't bend easily." That final scenario, however, just does not seem very likely to me.

ETA: here is the link:

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Hornwood_Inheritance_and_the_Whents

[RumHam]

Wasn't there some SSM about a son of a House being free to marry whatever girl he wanted, but that, if his father disagreed with the match, there would be serious consequences..?

It sounds familiar, but all I could find are these:

1) Can a woman marry without someone (father, king or anyone) that stands for her? Or they are passed from hand to hand like horses as Cersei showed to Sansa, and that's it?

Well, the truth is somewhat in between. But yes, fathers have a lot to say about who a girl marries... a widow, however, especially an older one with property or a title, might have a deal more say.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/A_Myriad_of_Questions

"I was his lord...My right, to make his match" says Lord Hoster about Brynden. Does it mean that the lord can force anyone under his rule to marry whomever he wishes? Can the people in question legally break the commitments made for them by the lord (i.e. promises, betrothals) and what penalty can the lord visit on them for this? What if they just refuse to exchange the marriage vows, etc?

They can indeed refuse to take the vows, as the Blackfish did, but there are often severe consequences to this. The lord is certainly expected to arrange the matches for his own children and unmarried younger siblings. He does not necessarily arrange marriages for his vassal lords or household knights... but they would be wise to consult with him and respect his feelings. It would not be prudent for a vassal to marry one of his liege lord's enemies, for instance.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Some_Questions

[The Twinslayer]

Princess Shaera wasn't given away by her father Aegon V (who was also her King) when she married her brother Prince Jaehaerys. Shaera and Jaehaerys specifically sneaked off to get married in secret without their parents' permission. I suppose Jaehaerys was Prince of Dragonstone, though. Of course, Rhaegar was also Prince of Dragonstone.

I think the key there is that Aegon V ratified the marriage after the fact.

Aegon had three sons. The first, Prince Duncan, married without Aegon's consent. This provoked a rebellion by Lord Barratheon and ultimately Duncan was given a choice between setting his wife aside and losing his claim to the throne. He chose to lose his claim. The third son was unlikely to marry (and, indeed, never did).

The middle son was Prince Jaehaerys. If Aegon wanted the Targs to survive in the male line, Jaehaerys was the last chance. In the female line, he had two daughters, Princess Rhaelle (who was married to Lord Barratheon) and Princess Shaera. So for House Targaryen to survive through the female line, Shaera was the last chance.

Then, Jaehaerys and Shaera married each other. I would say that Aegon V had no choice but to ratify the marriage after the fact.

Contrast that with Aerys. He did have a choice, because he had another son (whom he favoured) and his wife was still of childbearing age.

[MtnLion]

<snip>

So far, so good, right? Aerys' heir is Rhaegar. After that, Viserys.

<snip>

Aerys' heir is Rhaegar, and Rhaegar's children, and Rhaegar's eldest child's children . . . The house of the eldest heir inherits first, always.

[sj4iy]

Call this crackpot if you wish but;

Rhaegar decided one day that he needed to be a warrior...

Why?

He needed to win that tournie, he needed to crown Lyanna the QoLaB with the crown of blue winter roses.

Totally reaching, I know. But possible.

It did say that he read something and THEN decided he needed to be a warrior.

I have a feeling that it's directly related to TPTWP prophecy (which may also be the same as AAR).

[Greymoon]

Joffrey is the king. The Father of the realm. That's explicitly stated why he can give her away.

Jon and Alys is a different thing, but the only explanation I can think of is that the laws of gods and men end at the Wall. It could be that Jon, being the Lord Commander of the Watch, and therefore the "king" of that realm is able to marry whoever he wants within the lands of the Night's Watch. He'd serve the same purpose as Joffrey did. I'm currently re-reading Dance though so when I get to that section hopefully there'll be more information or something that says why he could.

Yes, but you did not read the entirety of the post. Kings and Lords. Not just Joffrey because he is king has the right to give Sansa away. Lords have the right to give their 'wards' away in marriage, too.

Jon is the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch and Alys became a 'ward' of the Night's Watch when she sought refuge there... Hence, Jon had the right to give Alys away. In a way, what Alys did was to submit herself to Jon's authority and to reject her grand-uncle's authority....

In any case, Lyanna was Rhaegar's 'prisoner' whether she agreed to be or not; and that made her Rhaegar's 'ward'; or Lord Whent's 'ward'; and imo, that made their authority the only one required to seal the marriage. Young high born girls have no legal authority over themselves, after all, even if their consent is preferable.

Nothing says that a marriage sealed in the absence of the bride's father/kin would be invalid, or that no one could give the bride away. It's just that without their consent, a marriage is likely to be contested -- and that's probably going to happen to Alys when she return to Karhold.

Contesting a marriage that has been consummated, seems rather difficult in Westeros and is certainly more complicated than to marry -- or prevent a marriage altogether.

[Greymoon]

I suppose a third way would be for the Lord Commander of the kingsguard to say "hmm, we have the precedence versus proximity problem. Viserys and Rhaella are on Dragonstone with Willem Darry and the remaining Targaryen loyalists. But I think I'll go ahead and choose the new king without consulting any of them. After all, our knees don't bend easily." That final scenario, however, just does not seem very likely to me.

The issue of precedence vs proximity only becomes an issue if objections are raised concerning the 'heir apparent', if his/her claim is contested or the heir apparent was unable to rule; or if say, there was no heir apparent, at all.

It would probably have been an issue between Jon and Viserys, but it wasn't for the Kingsguard to deliberate the finer points of inheritance and decide who was best suited for the throne. Jon was the heir apparent, Viserys was only the heir presumptive until Jon was born. And that's what mattered to the Kingsguard.

People might have contested Jon's claim but since no one was given the opportunity to do it the question is rather irrelevant. To the Kingsguard the answer was straightforward...

[markg171]

Princess Shaera wasn't given away by her father Aegon V (who was also her King) when she married her brother Prince Jaehaerys. Shaera and Jaehaerys specifically sneaked off to get married in secret without their parents' permission. I suppose Jaehaerys was Prince of Dragonstone, though. Of course, Rhaegar was also Prince of Dragonstone.

That marriage is valid though because the King accepted it. He validated it.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

To be fair, we don't really know if the Bael story has any traction south of the wall. This may be a case of a story that was reasonably widespread but not reported in Winterfell (see KotLT), but we just don't know.

In fact - given what we do know, it sounds like the Song of the Winter Rose is not frequently repeated south of the Wall - at least not within the hearing of House Stark. And considering the way Jon reacts upon hearing it for the first time, it does seem to strike a nerve for the son(s) of Winterfell:

Jon had never heard this tale before... "It never happened," Jon said... "Your Bael was a liar," he told her. (2.51, JON)

With respect to the question of whether the story was widely known, and where - Ygritte and Maester Yandel (of the World book) both seem to affirm that it was commonly told among the wildlings north of the Wall. According to Ygritte, the Song of the Winter Rose is so familiar and so oft-repeated that she considers it a nursery rhyme, or a fairy tale told to children by their mothers:

Ygritte: "Who was your mother? ...she never sung you the song o' the winter rose?"

Maester Yandel: "[bael's] songs are still sung beyond the Wall ... the wildlings... credit many songs to his name.... [though] the old chronicles of Winterfell say nothing of him."

But the fact that it's a wildling story, and not retold in Winterfell, does not necessarily mean it's not known south of the Wall or, specifically, by the Starks themselves. In fact, a particular Winterfellian dislike of the tale (and of Bael himself) is alluded to in the World book, and suggests that Bael's story may be quite well known to Winterfell. In the words of Maester Yandel:

After [the Horned Lord], centuries later, came Bael the Bard, whose songs are still sung beyond the Wall ... but there are questions as to whether he truly existed or not. The wildlings say he did and credit many songs to his name, but the old chronicles of Winterfell say nothing of him. Whether this was due to the defeats and humiliations he was said to have visited upon them (including, according to one improbable story, deflowering a Stark maid and getting her with child) or because he never existed, we cannot truly say.

The complete absence of Bael the Bard from "the old chronicles of Winterfell," and the fact that Jon himself had never heard the story (despite his ability and willingness to recite "the Brandons") suggests that House Stark may suppress transmission of the song, and considers any reference to this wildling hero to be shameful, or insulting. And Jon's response to Ygritte's moral of the story supports the notion that, from a Winterfellian perspective, there is something intrinsically belittling, or mocking, in the parable:

"[W]hat's certain is that Bael left the child in payment for the rose he'd plucked unasked, and that the boy grew to be the next Lord Stark. So there it is—you have Bael's blood in you, same as me."

"It never happened," Jon said.

And later:

"The song ends when they find the babe, but there is a darker end to the story. Thirty years later, when Bael was King-beyond-the-Wall and led the free folk south, it was young Lord Stark who met him at the Frozen Ford… and killed him, for Bael would not harm his own son when they met sword to sword."

"So the son slew the father instead," said Jon.

"Aye," she said, "but the gods hate kinslayers, even when they kill unknowing. When Lord Stark returned from the battle and his mother saw Bael's head upon his spear, she threw herself from a tower in her grief. Her son did not long outlive her. One o' his lords peeled the skin off him and wore him for a cloak."

"Your Bael was a liar," he told her, certain now.

"No," Ygritte said, "but a bard's truth is different than yours or mine. Anyway, you asked for the story, so I told it."

What are the lessons communicated through this wildling tale (be it song or history), that Jon rejects so firmly out of hand? I see at least three. The first (1) is that Starks are no better than wildlings - they share the same blood. The second (2) is that Starks are kinslayers, and hated by the gods. And the third (3) is that the rivalry of House Bolton was justifiably inflicted on the Starks by the old gods, as punishment for their kinslaying. Given that House Stark traces its family history and identity back 8,000 years, to the founding of the Wall and the Night's Watch... and given that Starks have, for long years, forgotten the original purpose of the Wall and the Night's Watch, instead identifying the wildlings as their true and despised enemy... blood drinking "slavers and slayers and thieves... [whose] women lay with the Others in the Long Night to sire terrible half-human children" etc., I'd say it's more than reasonable to think Winterfell might take offense to the Song of the Winter Rose.

Clearly, the Starks themselves have an interest in discouraging repetition of this tale (and all that it implies) south of the Wall. A public performance of the tale by the crown prince, of all people, at the greatest tourney in living memory, during a time when House Stark sought to increase its standing among the noble houses of Westeros... well, that might come across as particularly insulting. No wonder "all the smiles died" (including, one must assume, Lyanna Stark's).

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure where you go from there. Why would Rheager want to symbolically hint at Lyanna being queen of the wildlings, or insult the Starks? My take is that the blue roses ARE a pointed choice, in that by making the crown something specific to Winterfell, Rhaegar is making it personal. If he had crowned Lyanna with some random crown, it would be easier to dismiss as a gesture of the moment. In that context, and indeed the notion of "the moment that all smiles died", political statement seems very plausible, but what? Can you expand on your thoughts a bit? I'd be interested to hear where you can take this in terms of what Rhaegar was trying to achieve.

A good question, I think, and worth pursuing rather than dismissing. Given the above (and assuming that Rhaegar knew the song) I find it terrifically difficult to think that - when he dumped this blue rose crown in Lyanna's lap - Rhaegar could have believed he was communicating something pointedly personal to Lyanna, without also communicating something pointedly political to House Stark (and its allies) that would completely overshadow and taint that personal message.

Also, in this context, I think it's worth highlighting the fact that we have no evidence Rhaegar himself had any choice in the matter of which flowers were used for the making of the QoLaB's laurel. We can only assume, I think, that had Barristan Selmy won the tournament, then whoever he'd named QoLaB would have received the same crown. The only choice we know was Rhaegar's to make was the choice he faced after the blue rose crown was his to give away. It's possible that the crown prince simply chose that public moment to declare his personal affection for a betrothed woman who was not his wife - because he'd heard she loved the scent of winter roses, and he was throwing his cares to the wind. But if we recognize that the purpose of the Harrenhal tourney was political to begin with, and we suspect that Rhaegar was in the thick of negotiations and arguments taking place behind the scenes over issues of power and political alliances... then prioritizing the personal, romantic aspect of the blue rose crown - as if all he'd done was to hand the Stark girl a flower - starts to look a little naive.

Now, that said... perhaps Rhaegar simply had no clue about Bael the bard and the Song of the Winter Rose. He'd never heard of it - knew nothing at all of the history of House Stark or how it might look, politically, giving that blue rose crown to Lyanna. Maybe he wasn't really that into politics, and was in over his head. His dad ended up coming to the party, which was a total bummer, and Lord Tywin wasn't around to help him sort things out - so things weren't going his way, and he decided maybe he'd just hand the Stark girl a flower. His wife was alright, but Lyanna had a wild beauty he kind of fancied and girls always like a crown prince... so hey, why not give it a shot?

[finger]

Considering Aegon died pretty much at the same point in time as Aerys, that's not really a new revelation, tbh.

Ah, the same old row!

That corpse wasn't Aegon's.

And you know it.