R+L=J v.116

[The Twinslayer]

Maegor the Cruel deliberately and violently deposed Aenys's oldest son Aegon. You're acting as if Maegor's ascension to the throne was something that was done legally and orderly, and it wasn't. He literally had to kill Aegon in order to get there. It's not as if Aenys died and everyone immediately accepted that Maegor was his lawful successor. Visenya called Maegor back from exile and crowned him (because he was her son and she wanted him in power), and people protested and said that that wasn't how the succession worked.

As for Aegon V, as has already been said, the entire reason the council was called at all was because the other candidates were unsuitable. Aemon had recused himself as a maester. Daeron's daughter was feeble-minded and a female, so she'd be behind the males anyway, including Aegon V. And Aerion's son Maegor was an infant and had a father with a history of mental instability. That there was a council at all was pretty serious, and Aegon was chosen literally because no one else was suitable, not because the council was trying to make a point or set a precedent about the succession. If there had been suitable candidates further up the line of succession, one of them would have been named the king and there wouldn't have needed to be a council at all.

For some incomprehensible reason, you're trying to pin both Maegor the Cruel and Aegon V's ascensions as things that happened naturally or without incident, as if they're indicative of some intended precedent. And that isn't the case. Which is why no one but you is buying your argument.

Actually, I was just responding to Mt Lion's suggestion that the oldest son's house always inherits by giving some well-known examples where that did not happen. Hence, my conclusion that Mtn Lion was having a little joke.

My larger point is that, as GRRM has said, succession rules are not clear. So any suggestion that there are rules of succession that say that Jon automatically came before Viserys -- or indeed, any suggestion that the Jon/Viserys question was less complicated than the Maegor/Egg question--rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the story GRRM is telling.

Which is why we have seen no good rebuttal to my post number 231 on page 12 of this thread, where I laid out the larger point that, in turn, elicited Mtn Lion's humourous response.

[sj4iy]

Actually, I was just responding to Mt Lion's suggestion that the oldest son's house always inherits by giving some well-known examples where that did not happen. Hence, my conclusion that Mtn Lion was having a little joke.

My larger point is that, as GRRM has said, succession rules are not clear. So any suggestion that there are rules of succession that say that Jon automatically came before Viserys -- or indeed, any suggestion that the Jon/Viserys question was less complicated than the Maegor/Egg question--rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the story GRRM is telling.

Which is why there is no good rebuttal to my post number 231 on page 12 of this thread, where I laid out the larger point that, in turn, elicited Mtn Lion's humourous response.

Your point is wrong.

Succession rules ARE absolutely clear.

Breaking or bending the rules does not make them "unclear".

This is the flaw in your entire argument. There is nothing in any of the books that gives a king the right to change the line of succession. The only times it has ever been done is when there was a clear problem...and even then, it required more than just the king's word (great council, murder, war) to do it.

You have latched onto this one quote about Aerys naming Viserys heir and have absolutely bent all logic to try to make it sound like this proves your point that Jon isn't legitimate. There are many, many reasons why it doesn't prove your point at all.

But the law is clear- Viserys doesn't come before Aegon by all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms. Ever. Breaking that law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist or is unclear.

[RumHam]

Actually, I was just responding to Mt Lion's suggestion that the oldest son's house always inherits by giving examples where that did not happen.

My larger point is that, as GRRM has said, succession rules are not clear. So any suggestion that there are rules of succession that say that Jon automatically came before Viserys -- or indeed, any suggestion that the Jon/Viserys question was less complicated than the Maegor/Egg question--rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the story GRRM is telling.

Which is why there is no good response to my post number 231 in this thread.

I think the rules are actually generally pretty clear. There are just certain unusual circumstances where things can become less clear, especially if you want them to. For example the Rhaenyra/Aegon situation (though I personally think the fact that she was named heir should have ended it) or if Polygamy is involved or paternity is questioned.

The great council passing over Maegor in favor of Aegon is sort of similar to Aerys passing over Aegon in favor of Viserys. As others have said you are wrong to think that this set some kinda precedent. We don't know exactly why Bloodraven choose to call a great council, but it's likely he did it for political reasons. I don't think he really wanted the opinions of the lords, he just knew that any heir king he proclaimed on his own would be declared his puppet by his enemies. The great council legitimized Egg's rule and made it clear he was not installed by the evil sorcerer Bloodraven while at the same time dismissing the claims of Maegor and the others. AnywayBloodraven didn't call the council because the succession was somehow unclear, it was clear that by custom and law it should have gone to Maegor. He did it for other reasons.

Anyway Aerys didn't need a precedent to name Viserys heir. He was the king.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This is the flaw in your entire argument. There is nothing in any of the books that gives a king the right to change the line of succession. The only times it has ever been done is when there was a clear problem...and even then, it required more than just the king's word (great council, murder, war) to do it.

And the time we do see a king act unilaterally, when Jaehaerys I elevated Baelon above Rhaenys, it was generally a clear case of gender discrimination, which, unfortunately, the men in power (or enough of them anyway) went along with. As in, if Aemon had died and had a son, that son almost certainly would have been named the heir, not Baelon. And even then you have people like the Starks and Baratheons who still supported Rhaenys' claim over her uncle's. Basically, Jaehaerys' choice was an early iteration of the eventual outcome of the Dance: women come last. It, unlike uncles before their nephews, is a precedent that was actually set and became policy because it was put into action.

Even so, Jaehaerys still called the Council of 101 to name Viserys the new heir; he didn't make that call unilaterally. And that Council basically upheld the precedent set with Rhaenys: no women, and in Laenor's case, female-line claims are weaker. So Viserys it was, and it couldn't really have happened any other way, or it would have contradicted what had already happened: Why was Rhaenys' claim not good enough then but it was good enough now, for her or her kids?

But this precedent was about gender discrimination, not uncles over nephews, and more importantly, this was a precedent that was clearly set and maintained.

[Ygrain]

Are you aware of the possibility that there can be more than one of a thing? You seem to be having difficulty with this concept.

Now if you're writing a passage where there are two of a thing and you want to differentiate them, what do you do? You look for synonyms. A crown and a laurel, for example. If it's the same object you're talking about, you'd use a pronoun instead.

There are two people being crowned -- a champion, and a queen of love and beauty. This kind of thing happens all the time. Homecoming, balls, May dances, tournaments, and so on. A symbolic king and queen. It's a thing. Very often one of them wins a crown, and then trots over to a member of the opposite sex and crowns them too. WITH A DIFFERENT CROWN.

You seriously don't know this?

Seems you have chosen to ignore the quotes about the use of crown. Now, can you provide any quotes that a male is crowned, as well, after winning a tourney? Because if you take a look e.g. a Ivanhoe (which was mentioned by GRRM as an inspiration for the HH tourney), there is just one crown, for the Queen of the Tournament, which Ivanhoe gives to Rowena, no crown for himself.

[UVA]

I think the rules are actually generally pretty clear.

Yea, Targaryen succession rules are fairly explicit, the issue has always been to what degree they are enforceable and absolute when challenged in some form or another in-universe. Historically an ad hoc committee, or armies are assembled to settle the specific controversy. And these 'laws' are mutable, but by the same token, a precedent isn't automatically transformed into an objective law going forward.

But in terms of a straightforward interpretation, a legit Jon would come before Viserys. The potential controversy of Aerys subverting tradition, ignoring Rhaegar's line and naming Viserys as his heir faces a number of challenges, not the least of which is getting a (presumably independent) Great Council to sanction a break from tradition. and supporting the desires of an unstable monarch.

[Black Crow]

I suspect this argument over Aerys naming Viserys his heir may be over-analysing things a little.

Rhaegar is the heir to the throne but carelessly goes and gets himself killed and worse still manages to lose a crucial battle in the process. In ordinary circumstances Rhaegar's son Aegon then becomes the heir but these are not ordinary circumstances; he is literally an infant and has a Dornish mother and worse still a Martell mother to boot. Leave him as the heir and you leave the kingdom to the Martells. Far better then to damn precedent and damn the torpedoes and name his own son Viserys, who may be young but is a young man and a Targaryen whom the loyal are more likely to rally around than a Martell babe.

Its therefore perfectly understandable that Aerys should name Viserys his heir and I doubt that any in Kings Landing would gainsay him, although without the sanction of a Great Council he would be storing up trouble for later and the likelihood of another Dance of Dragons between the rival claimants at some point in the future

ETA: The question in any case has no bearing at all on whether or not Jon might be considered the legitimate heir to the throne. It was Jon's presumed elder half brother Aegon who was being passed over as heir

[Kingmonkey]

Seems you have chosen to ignore the quotes about the use of crown.

I haven't seen any that didn't seem to rely on the assumption that two mentions of a particular class of object must necessarily refer to the same object, even when the two mentions have differing descriptions. I didn't ignore anything else intentionally, if you think there's something else there, please do point it out and I'll happily respond.

Now, can you provide any quotes that a male is crowned, as well, after winning a tourney? Because if you take a look e.g. a Ivanhoe (which was mentioned by GRRM as an inspiration for the HH tourney), there is just one crown, for the Queen of the Tournament, which Ivanhoe gives to Rowena, no crown for himself.

Honestly the idea that the "champion's crown" isn't for crowning the champion seems kind of odd to me.

As for Ivanhoe, there is a champion's crown (actually a chaplet, like Lyanna's) there, too. The victor of the first day chooses the QoLaB, who crowns the victor of the tourney in turn on the second day. If you recall Ivanhoe's identity is revealed when his helmet is removed so he can be crowned.

Rowena had no sooner beheld him than she uttered a faint shriek; but at once summoning up the energy of her disposition, and compelling herself, as it were, to proceed, while her frame yet trembled with the violence of sudden emotion, she placed upon the drooping head of the victor the splendid chaplet which was the destined reward of the day, and pronounced, in a clear and distinct tone, these words: "I bestow on thee this chaplet, Sir Knight, as the meed of valour assigned to this day's victor:" Here she paused a moment, and then firmly added, "And upon brows more worthy could a wreath of chivalry never be placed!"

[Ygrain]

I haven't seen any that didn't seem to rely on the assumption that two mentions of a particular class of object must necessarily refer to the same object, even when the two mentions have differing descriptions. I didn't ignore anything else intentionally, if you think there's something else there, please do point it out and I'll happily respond.

Honestly the idea that the "champion's crown" isn't for crowning the champion seems kind of odd to me.

As for Ivanhoe, there is a champion's crown (actually a chaplet, like Lyanna's) there, too. The victor of the first day chooses the QoLaB, who crowns the victor of the tourney in turn on the second day. If you recall Ivanhoe's identity is revealed when his helmet is removed so he can be crowned.

My apologies then, the champion thing in Ivanhoe totally slipped my memory. - But still, do we have any laurels for the victor in ASOIAF?

[Kingmonkey]

My apologies then, the champion thing in Ivanhoe totally slipped my memory. - But still, do we have any laurels for the victor in ASOIAF?

I hate to be repetitive, but "champion's crown". Really, consider that text with substitutions and you'll see what I mean:

...the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the champion's crown. 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. (original)

Let's say replace crown with sword, just for the sake of abstracting the language from any possible preconceptions.

...the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the champion's sword. 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 blade across Lyanna's lap. He could see it still: a sword of valeryan steel, blue as frost. (blades instead of swords)

I've used "blade" instead of sword for the second mention of a sword, just as in the original we have laurel in the second mention, despite the fact that the very next line clarifies that it is indeed a crown. Doesn't this honestly sound like two different swords are being talked about, with the shift to "blade" being specifically intended to differentiate between the two rather than repeating the word "sword"?

Alternatively,

...the prince circled the field after unhorsing Ser Barristan in the final tilt to claim the queen of beauty's laurel. 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 it in Lyanna's lap. He could see it still: a crown of winter roses, blue as frost. (only one crown)

If there's only one crown in play, there's simply no need to name it twice.

Look at the possessives - "champion's", "queen of beauty's" -- in both cases there's a possessive, but there are different possessors. To name one item twice with different possessors would really be a very odd writing choice. The champion is Rhaegar, the queen of beauty is Lyanna. Do the substitutions: " ...to claim the champion's Rhaegar's crown. 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 Lyanna's laurels in Lyanna's lap." Surely these are two different crowns!

It is of course possible that GRRM meant there to be only one crown and wrote the passage oddly. There is, as far as I know, nothing specific in the books apart from this line about the crowning rituals of tourneys, and I agree the wording of the text does not absolutely exclude the possibility. However the writing of the passage makes much more sense if there are two crowns in play, and that is exactly what would be normal for a tourney. It is indeed what there was in the Ivanhoe tourney that was a direct inspiration for Harrenhal.

Case proven? No. But it's comfortably the best interpretation given what we know. If that breakdown doesn't persuade you we'll probably just have to chalk this one down to an agree to disagree thing, unless one of us can find another relevant passage!

[Ygrain]

I meant, except this one occasion. I can see what you mean here - have since the beginning - and the logic of it, but am honestly unsure what exactly GRRM meant here. The champion's crown seems to be such a casual mention, everyone, in every tournament, seems to be intent on the QoLaB one as if it was the prize, no-one seems to be intent on winning one for themselves.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Failproof? Obviously not. Nor was keeping Jaime close to ensure Tywin's cooperation exactly a foolpoof plan either, as it turned out. Aerys went with that, though. This is clearly his modus operandi.

This is the Mad King we're talking about here. I think the "Mad" bit is the giveaway when it comes to whether you expect his plans to be foolproof or not. Remember, if it turns out not to work he can always burn the entire city and everyone in it to the ground and be reborn as Balerion 2.0 any time he likes. It's all good!

Aerys' plan concerning Jaime worked in a way... Tywin was afraid Jaime would die. He just didn't react the way Aerys had thought. Aerys had thought Tywin wouldn't attack, due to being afraid, but in he end, Tywin attacked because he was afraid.

Apart from the references to Lyanna, references to childbirth are "bloody bed" (Mirri Maaz Duur), "birthing room" (Cersei), and "beds of blood and pain" (Damphair).

Aside from birth, imagery around beds and blood seems to be associated with flowering, violent death and the wedding night.

From ACOK:The scene in Feast where Cersei finds Shae's body:From Cersei, about Renly's marriage bed:

No one argued that blood and bed were only used for childbirth. It was argued that "bed of blood", those three specific words in hat specific order, is used only to indicate childbirth..

[Kingmonkey]

I meant, except this one occasion. I can see what you mean here - have since the beginning - and the logic of it, but am honestly unsure what exactly GRRM meant here. The champion's crown seems to be such a casual mention, everyone, in every tournament, seems to be intent on the QoLaB one as if it was the prize, no-one seems to be intent on winning one for themselves.

I can't think of any examples that really say anything much either way. Yes I absolutely agree, in tourneys where there's a QoLaB, that's the big deal. That's the "courtly love" thing, part of the deal with knights wearing ladies' favours and dedicating their victories to some chosen beauty. It's a kind of ritualised inclusion of women in a passive contest. Just as the knight who fights best is the best knight, the lady who's knight fights best for her is the best lady. Jorah's tourney win is all about this -- because he was fighting for Lynesse's love, he was able to defeat the best knights in the land. The victory is shared, as if Lynesse's love has imbued Jorah with greater fighting talent than the love of her rivals has granted their champions. That's very much part of the tradition of courtly love.

As to what exactly GRRM meant? I suspect he's drawing on a very specific symbolism by crowning both Lyanna and Rhaegar at the same time. Think about how Margery gets to wear a crown once she's married Joffrey, for example. It's a symbolic royal marriage between the king and queen of the tourney (one which, in Jorah & Lynesse's case, turned into a real marriage). I'd say that's probably GRRM trying to tell us something.

[BearQueen87]

Your point is wrong.

Succession rules ARE absolutely clear.

Breaking or bending the rules does not make them "unclear".

:agree:

Just because someone can find an example or two of a time when the rules didn't work doesn't mean there aren't rules.

[Ygrain]

I can't think of any examples that really say anything much either way. Yes I absolutely agree, in tourneys where there's a QoLaB, that's the big deal. That's the "courtly love" thing, part of the deal with knights wearing ladies' favours and dedicating their victories to some chosen beauty. It's a kind of ritualised inclusion of women in a passive contest. Just as the knight who fights best is the best knight, the lady who's knight fights best for her is the best lady. Jorah's tourney win is all about this -- because he was fighting for Lynesse's love, he was able to defeat the best knights in the land. The victory is shared, as if Lynesse's love has imbued Jorah with greater fighting talent than the love of her rivals has granted their champions. That's very much part of the tradition of courtly love.

As to what exactly GRRM meant? I suspect he's drawing on a very specific symbolism by crowning both Lyanna and Rhaegar at the same time. Think about how Margery gets to wear a crown once she's married Joffrey, for example. It's a symbolic royal marriage between the king and queen of the tourney (one which, in Jorah & Lynesse's case, turned into a real marriage). I'd say that's probably GRRM trying to tell us something.

That would be a nice symbolism, and if we're right that Rhaegar and Lyanna married, a further parallel to Jorah-Lynesse.

[J. Stargaryen]

As to what exactly GRRM meant? I suspect he's drawing on a very specific symbolism by crowning both Lyanna and Rhaegar at the same time. Think about how Margery gets to wear a crown once she's married Joffrey, for example. It's a symbolic royal marriage between the king and queen of the tourney (one which, in Jorah & Lynesse's case, turned into a real marriage). I'd say that's probably GRRM trying to tell us something.

This could be the case. However, if it's symbolic then a champion's crown isn't necessary. The title should suffice. Though I completely agree about the symbolic marriage of the champion and QoLaB, especially in this case.

Rhaegar won the greatest tourney of them all chose Lyanna as his queen. Their status as 'king and queen' of the greatest tourney in living memory suggests to me that the HH tourney foreshadows an outcome with Jon as the 'winner', since R+L=J. Whether that is the game of thrones portion of the story, the WftD2 or both, I'm not sure.

On the other hand, I suppose one could interpret it differently, arguing that Robert's warhammer changed things. Though I tend to think that is part of the journey. If Westeros does survive as a kingdom, I think it will be on its third ruling dynasty by series' end: Targaryen, Baratheon/Lannister, and Jon Snow. Foreshadowed in part by the Trident river. I'm not sure exactly what name the "Jon Snow" dynasty would take, though I think Stark and Snow are more likely than Targaryen.

Red, green and blue probably also work on different levels; e.g., dragons, CotF, Others.

[The Twinslayer]

No one argued that blood and bed were only used for childbirth. It was argued that "bed of blood", those three specific words in hat specific order, is used only to indicate childbirth..

"Bed of blood" is only used twice in the books -- both times by Ned to refer to the place where Lyanna died. Those three specific words in that specific order are never used anywhere else, by anyone else. So if you are trying to figure out what Ned meant by "bed of blood," you have to look for phrases that are similar but not identical.

The closest anyone else comes to using this phrase is the Damphair, who refers to birthing children in "beds of blood and pain." Which is similar but a little different. (It is also similar to, but different from, the way Barbry Dustin and Lysa Tully describe their youthful experiences with Brandon and Petyr).

The other reference to childbirth is Mirri's. She refers to the "bloody bed." Which is different from "bed of blood" but also somewhat similar (and also similar to Sansa's description of her flowering).

That said, I agree that Ned is probably referring to childbirth. I think some of the other references -- like Theon's dream of a woman spattered in gore, and Shae being found dead in a blood-covered bed -- are intended to reserve a little ambiguity and mystery.

[Erudain]

I suspect this argument over Aerys naming Viserys his heir may be over-analysing things a little.

Rhaegar is the heir to the throne but carelessly goes and gets himself killed and worse still manages to lose a crucial battle in the process. In ordinary circumstances Rhaegar's son Aegon then becomes the heir but these are not ordinary circumstances; he is literally an infant and has a Dornish mother and worse still a Martell mother to boot. Leave him as the heir and you leave the kingdom to the Martells. Far better then to damn precedent and damn the torpedoes and name his own son Viserys, who may be young but is a young man and a Targaryen whom the loyal are more likely to rally around than a Martell babe.

Its therefore perfectly understandable that Aerys should name Viserys his heir and I doubt that any in Kings Landing would gainsay him, although without the sanction of a Great Council he would be storing up trouble for later and the likelihood of another Dance of Dragons between the rival claimants at some point in the future

ETA: The question in any case has no bearing at all on whether or not Jon might be considered the legitimate heir to the throne. It was Jon's presumed elder half brother Aegon who was being passed over as heir

This is a great point and I agree with it.

I'm convinced Aerys and lots of his lackeys would want to name Viserys his heir ahead of Aegon to not leave the kingdom in Martell's hands.

The point is....I don't think Aerys, despite being the king, has the authority to arbitrarily change the succession line and remove Aegon.

He'd need a great council to do so or at least an overwhelming approval from everyone in the kingdom, which Im sure he woudn't get.

So, you don't care and name Viserys your heir all the same?....and what good is that for? to Aerys and his close allies he would be the heir, and to the Martells and other lords Aegon would be the heir = Dance of Dragon 2.0

[UnmaskedLurker]

Your point is wrong.

Succession rules ARE absolutely clear.

Breaking or bending the rules does not make them "unclear".

This is the flaw in your entire argument. There is nothing in any of the books that gives a king the right to change the line of succession. The only times it has ever been done is when there was a clear problem...and even then, it required more than just the king's word (great council, murder, war) to do it.

You have latched onto this one quote about Aerys naming Viserys heir and have absolutely bent all logic to try to make it sound like this proves your point that Jon isn't legitimate. There are many, many reasons why it doesn't prove your point at all.

But the law is clear- Viserys doesn't come before Aegon by all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms. Ever. Breaking that law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist or is unclear.

While I basically agree with this point--I think there are some important qualifiers. Yes, Targ inheritance rules have been set down by GC (IIRC, I think the 101 GC is really the main one that said that females and males through female lines could not inherit the throne). But part of the rules is that there can be exceptions. Various Targ kings have believed that they had the right to name an heir different than the one that would inherit under the typical rules. But this naming of an heir is not always respected by everyone (DoD 1.0 being the biggest example). But the biggest exception is that whenever enough people in power believe that an issue exists regarding the next in line for the throne, a GC can be called. A GC also presumably can alter or clarify rules (as the 101 GC did).

So the example of Maegor really is just someone with enough strength to "steal" the throne, but it is clear that no one considered that reign to set a precedent. The Egg GC could have stated that it was setting a new "rule" that an uncle inherit over a nephew (son of older brother of uncle) if the older brother dies before his father who is king. So that GC could have said that Aegon V inherits over Maegor simply because Aerion died before Maekar. And if the GC set such a rule, I believe it would have been considered a new rule and would have guided inheritance thereafter. But the GC said no such thing. It used particular situation of the kingdom in crisis, a young boy (I think 3 at the time) next in line and the boy's father having been mentally unstable. In no way did the GC announce that a new rule governing the line of succession thereafter was being made. If a precedent had been set, the precedent was that that a GC can be called to pass over a small child who is next in line where the circumstances justify such a passing over.

Now if Aerys named Viserys as the heir, and Aegon had lived and the Targs had won the war, I suspect that a GC would have been called to determine whether Aegon or Viserys would be king. Who knows which would have been chosen.

But without someone taking the throne by force or a GC passing over the person who would have been the rightful heir otherwise, the rules are clear. The Targs use a form of primogeniture in which females and female lines are eliminated (or at a minimum, moved to the "back of the line") for succession. Under primogeniture, Jon (if and only if legit) comes before Viserys. If Jon is a bastard, then of course, Viserys comes before Jon.

As long as the KG had no knowledge that Aerys named Viserys heir, the KG would have had no reason to consider Viserys king if Jon was legit. Unclear what they would have done if the KG had been informed that Aerys named Viserys heir, but that is mere speculation as we have no confirmation that Viserys actually was formally named heir and we have no way to know, if he was named, whether such information would have gotten to ToJ. Certainly, there was no opportunity to call a GC to reconcile competing claims and the KG would have known that Aerys would have had no knowledge of the existence of Jon, so the KG might have believed any naming of an heir by Aerys was not legally recognized (as the naming of Rhaenyra was never recognized).

[sj4iy]

While I basically agree with this point--I think there are some important qualifiers. Yes, Targ inheritance rules have been set down by GC (IIRC, I think the 101 GC is really the main one that said that females and males through female lines could not inherit the throne). But part of the rules is that there can be exceptions. Various Targ kings have believed that they had the right to name an heir different than the one that would inherit under the typical rules. But this naming of an heir is not always respected by everyone (DoD 1.0 being the biggest example). But the biggest exception is that whenever enough people in power believe that an issue exists regarding the next in line for the throne, a GC can be called. A GC also presumably can alter or clarify rules (as the 101 GC did).

So the example of Maegor really is just someone with enough strength to "steal" the throne, but it is clear that no one considered that reign to set a precedent. The Egg GC could have stated that it was setting a new "rule" that an uncle inherit over a nephew (son of older brother of uncle) if the older brother dies before his father who is king. So that GC could have said that Aegon V inherits over Maegor simply because Aerion died before Maekar. And if the GC set such a rule, I believe it would have been considered a new rule and would have guided inheritance thereafter. But the GC said no such thing. It used particular situation of the kingdom in crisis, a young boy (I think 3 at the time) next in line and the boy's father having been mentally unstable. In no way did the GC announce that a new rule governing the line of succession thereafter was being made. If a precedent had been set, the precedent was that that a GC can be called to pass over a small child who is next in line where the circumstances justify such a passing over.

Now if Aerys named Viserys as the heir, and Aegon had lived and the Targs had won the war, I suspect that a GC would have been called to determine whether Aegon or Viserys would be king. Who knows which would have been chosen.

But without someone taking the throne by force or a GC passing over the person who would have been the rightful heir otherwise, the rules are clear. The Targs use a form of primogeniture in which females and female lines are eliminated (or at a minimum, moved to the "back of the line") for succession. Under primogeniture, Jon (if and only if legit) comes before Viserys. If Jon is a bastard, then of course, Viserys comes before Jon.

As long as the KG had no knowledge that Aerys named Viserys heir, the KG would have had no reason to consider Viserys king if Jon was legit. Unclear what they would have done if the KG had been informed that Aerys named Viserys heir, but that is mere speculation as we have no confirmation that Viserys actually was formally named heir and we have no way to know, if he was named, whether such information would have gotten to ToJ. Certainly, there was no opportunity to call a GC to reconcile competing claims and the KG would have known that Aerys would have had no knowledge of the existence of Jon, so the KG might have believed any naming of an heir by Aerys was not legally recognized (as the naming of Rhaenyra was never recognized).

I never said there couldn't be exceptions.

I simply take issue with the fact that twinslayer thinks that succession rules aren't "clear". They are. Very much so. Aegon comes before Viserys. There is nothing unclear about that, no matter what Aerys may or may not have done. And if Jon is Rhaegar's legitimate son, he would come before Viserys, as well.

People can bend, break or ignore the rules- but the rules are crystal clear.

I agree that the KG would have likely had no knowledge of any of this, even if it did happen.