R+L=J v.124

[RumHam]

3. The only quote I remember in ASOIAF about delegitimization is when Cat tells Robb that once he makes Jon legitimate, he can never undo it. "If you make Jon legitimate, there is no way to turn him bastard again."

Yes, I forgot about that. So that settles that issue.

What about Viserys does seem natural to you?? I ask that jokingly, but seriously. Consider his character. Nothing about Viserys is being patient and logical. He's irrational and loud and entitled and believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the throne is his--but never once mentions, even while he's shouting that Khal Drogo best give him his damn army--that he was made heir.

And like Ygrain says, Dany even talks about Aegon VI if the Lannister's hadn't bashed his head in.

You really don't think it would be weird if he started yelling at Drogo about how even if Aegon was alive he'd still be the rightful king? Or the circumstances of his becoming Prince of Dragonstone shorty before having to flee Westeros?

Daenerys may not have known. Daenerys' statement is a little weird, because he wouldn't have been king anyway if he had survived the sack. He'd be a prisoner. Also Viserys is dead when she says that, so technically yes if Aegon had survived he would have been "Aegon VI" just in exile or in a cell. So her statement is actually consistent with the new information.

Because entitlement. I am the blood of the dragon and the chosen heir, I totally rock! I am a full-blooded Targaryen from both sides, not like Rhaegar's half-Dornish son! I was meant to rule, by the gods and by my father's decree! All bow to me because I am the chosen one!

... would Dany have heard at least ten times an hour because that's what Viserys was like.

I'm still not sold. Is it possible he might have brought it up, sure. But it doesn't seem odd that he didn't. I think it would be stranger if he did. Again why would he be comparing himself to his dead nephew? Why disparage Aegon for being half Dornish? He's the "rightful king" that's all he needs to say. I really can't see him going around explaining "and even if Aegon had lived I'd still be the rightful king."

Also, one more thing: why would Aerys bother proclaiming Viserys a new heir when he had intended for Aegon to burn with the rest of KL? Wouldn't naming Viserys give away that he didn't care for Aegon and thus possibly raise suspicion? Mad or not, he was rather careful about spilling his secret in his paranoia and very few people knew even though the Wildfire plot had been under way well before the Trident.

ETA: Come to think of it: might Pycelle have known about the Wildfire Plot? Would he have kept his mouth shut about it?

When he sent Viserys away he hadn't committed to burning the city down. It was his last resort plan. He only gave the order when Tywin started sacking the city and it was clear all was lost. Until then he still had hope that he could keep the rebels out somehow.

Look at it the other way around. If Aegon is the heir . . . Attention is now focused on what, who, and how. How did the new king, Robert, react to the death of Crown Prince Aegon. Too many embarrassing questions to be answered.

So instead you think he just made something up about Viserys being heir because that would distract people? Wouldn't that also raise embarrassing questions like "hey, why did you make that up?"

He avoids the issue of Robert's reaction and Tywin's involvement entirely. A dead baby is a dead baby whether it was going to inherit next or not. I really can't see this as an attempt to "soften the blow" of Aegon's brutal murder.

[Ygrain]

I'm still not sold. Is it possible he might have brought it up, sure. But it doesn't seem odd that he didn't. I think it would be stranger if he did. Again why would he be comparing himself to his dead nephew? Why disparage Aegon for being half Dornish? He's the "rightful king" that's all he needs to say. I really can't see him going around explaining "and even if Aegon had lived I'd still be the rightful king."

The guy is full of entitlement which he uses as means to stroke his ego poisoned by the years when he was called Beggar King and denied his claim. He is vain and pouty amd blows his importance totally out of proportion. It would be totally out of character to shut up about being the chosen heir instead of boasting about it. It would be inconsistent with his character (and for GRRM to reveal such an information outside the series would be inconsistent with his writing).

[BearQueen87]

bemused theorized Val could be a priestess akin to the Vala.

I knew I had read it somewhere searching for theories one day... Thanks Fire Eater!

(Alia runs to tell Jorah so his heart gets stamped on yet again).

My bear knows he is always first in my heart. Poor boo boo.

[BearQueen87]

You really don't think it would be weird if he started yelling at Drogo about how even if Aegon was alive he'd still be the rightful king? Or the circumstances of his becoming Prince of Dragonstone shorty before having to flee Westeros?

Do I think it would be weird? Yes. But Viserys i like...weird. It fits his character and how George wrote him. I trust George could work it in dialogue wise, but as far as it being OOC--no. That's Viserys to a T.

The guy is full of entitlement which he uses as means to stroke his ego poisoned by the years when he was called Beggar King and denied his claim. He is vain and pouty amd blows his importance totally out of proportion. It would be totally out of character to shut up about being the chosen heir instead of boasting about it. It would be inconsistent with his character (and for GRRM to reveal such an information outside the series would be inconsistent with his writing).

Preeeeeeeetty much this.

[RumHam]

The guy is full of entitlement which he uses as means to stroke his ego poisoned by the years when he was called Beggar King and denied his claim. He is vain and pouty amd blows his importance totally out of proportion. It would be totally out of character to shut up about being the chosen heir instead of boasting about it. It would be inconsistent with his character

I know who Viserys was, I get it I really do. I still don't think it's odd he never brought it up. There's nobody else to challenge his claim as the rightful Targaryen heir. There's just no reason to say "my father named me heir" instead of "I am the rightful heir" (actually he doesn't consider himself the rightful heir but the rightful king.) The issue of him being chosen as heir over Aegon just doesn't matter by the time we meet Viserys. I reject that idea that just because something was never mentioned, it couldn't have happened. As an example, none of you are doubting the "Pact of Ice and Fire" even though this is the first we've heard of it. It just seems very selective.

(and for GRRM to reveal such an information outside the series would be inconsistent with his writing).

I'm not really sure what you mean by this? This is our first companion book for the series, and it contained much information that was not found in the novels. How can you say it's inconsitant when this was really his first opportunity to write about the world of the novels outside the novels?

[RumHam]

This clip from The Big Lebowski is pretty much dead on how I feel when discussing the Viserys as heir issue in this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIv7W7rhx4

[Consigliere]

I know who Viserys was, I get it I really do. I still don't think it's odd he never brought it up. There's nobody else to challenge his claim as the rightful Targaryen heir. There's just no reason to say "my father named me heir" instead of "I am the rightful heir" (actually he doesn't consider himself the rightful heir but the rightful king.) The issue of him being chosen as heir over Aegon just doesn't matter by the time we meet Viserys. I reject that idea that just because something was never mentioned, it couldn't have happened. As an example, none of you are doubting the "Pact of Ice and Fire" even though this is the first we've heard of it. It just seems very selective.

The thing is there is an internal monologue of Dany's where she thinks that Aegon would have been Aegon VI. Why would Dany think that? Where does her info about Westeros and her family come from? If Viserys was Aerys chosen heir there is no reason for Viserys not to have mentioned that and therefore no reason for Dany to think that that Aegon would have been king. Unless 1) Aerys decree was not widely known and not known to Viserys or 2) Aerys never formally disinherited Aegon.

[RumHam]

The thing is there is an internal monologue of Dany's where she thinks that Aegon would have been Aegon VI. Why would Dany think that? Where does her info about Westeros and her family come from? If Viserys was Aerys chosen heir there is no reason for Viserys not to have mentioned that and therefore no reason for Dany to think that that Aegon would have been king. Unless 1) Aerys decree was not widely known and not known to Viserys or 2) Aerys never formally disinherited Aegon.

I addressed this before:

Daenerys may not have known. Daenerys' statement is a little weird, because he wouldn't have been king anyway if he had survived the sack. He'd be a prisoner. Also Viserys is dead when she says that, so technically yes if Aegon had survived he would have been "Aegon VI" just in exile or in a cell. So her statement is actually consistent with the new information.

[Consigliere]

I addressed this before:

I have seen your argument regarding this before. I'm just not convinced by it at all.

[Ygrain]

Besides, whether he would have been prisoner or not, he would still be rightfully Aegon VI.

[RumHam]

I have seen your argument regarding this before. I'm just not convinced by it at all.

Well that's just like...your opinion, man.

Besides, whether he would have been prisoner or not, he would still be rightfully Aegon VI.

Right, once Viserys was dead. She doesn't have that thought until well after Viserys has been "crowned."

[Consigliere]

Well that's just like...your opinion, man.

No different from your opinion, man. ;)

Also the whole Viserys being dead does not hold much weight since Aegon was dead even longer at that point.

[RumHam]

No different from your opinion, man. ;)

I know, I was just running with the Lebowski thing. :)

Also the whole Viserys being dead does not hold much weight since Aegon was dead even longer at that point.

But she's saying that had he not been killed, he would have been Aegon VI.

[IceFire125]

I like where you are going, but tying in the Knight of the Laughing Tree, could mayhaps put a laughing tree on Lyanna's cloak . . .

That's also a good way to tell us, although not directly, that Lyanna was the tKotLT, and it would be so GRRM indeed.

[Consigliere]

But she's saying that had he not been killed, he would have been Aegon VI.

Which to me suggests that the line of succession was not changed, at least as far as Dany is concerned and her info regarding this should have come from Viserys. Obviously you don't see it that way. Bottom line is that as far as this situation is concerned all the arguments (for and against) that could be made has already been made and neither side is willing to budge. Pending new information that isn't going to change.

ETA. The question is whether the KG at the ToJ could reasonably be aware of the decree (if it did happen). If not then this does not really change the situation at the ToJ.

[Ygrain]

The question is whether the KG at the ToJ could reasonably be aware of the decree (if it did happen). If not then this does not really change the situation at the ToJ.

This. Also, I must repeat the question I have already asked (if it has been answered, sorry, I'm bit forgetful these days): What narrative purpose does the change in succession serve? Decree or not, in a fortnight Viserys became Aerys' supposedly last heir, anyway. Now that Viserys is dead, the supposed Aegon, and Jon if legit, inherits before Dany, anyway. What is the gain? It might better explain why Aegon had to stay at KL instead of being sent to safety but keeping him as a hostage against Dorne works, anyway. So, why?

[RumHam]

Bottom line is that as far as this situation is concerned all the arguments (for and against) that could be made has already been made and neither side is willing to budge. Pending new information that isn't going to change.

I agree, however this Viserys was the heir stuff is relatively new information. I don't think the argument has been made to death already, unlike a lot of the other arguments that happen here.

ETA. The question is whether the KG at the ToJ could reasonably be aware of the decree (if it did happen). If not then this does not really change the situation at the ToJ.

Well they apparently got word from after the sack, why would they not have heard of this (incredibly relevant to their duties) development from before the sack?

This. Also, I must repeat the question I have already asked (if it has been answered, sorry, I'm bit forgetful these days): What narrative purpose does the change in succession serve? Decree or not, in a fortnight Viserys became Aerys' supposedly last heir, anyway. Now that Viserys is dead, the supposed Aegon, and Jon if legit, inherits before Dany, anyway. What is the gain? It might better explain why Aegon had to stay at KL instead of being sent to safety but keeping him as a hostage against Dorne works, anyway. So, why?

So now I have to back up every new bit of information in the worldbook with a specific narrative purpose? I did suggest that maybe Martin & co did it because it made sense, and might through some cold water on the "..and so Jon is the rightful king" aspect of R+L=J.

[Consigliere]

Well they apparently got word from after the sack, why would they not have heard of this (incredibly relevant to their duties) development from before the sack?

Well they would not have heard about it if 1) the decree was not widely disseminated knowledge or 2) Aerys never formally disinherited Aegon. The world book also tells us that Aerys had alot of grand plans but he was the sort of person who lost interest very quickly. As such I could easily see a situation where Aerys threatens to disinherit Aegon (but never formally does so) turning into Aerys disinherited Aegon.

[Ygrain]

Well they apparently got word from after the sack, why would they not have heard of this (incredibly relevant to their duties) development from before the sack?

Unless Aerys disinherited Rhaegar's whole line, then legit Jon is ahead of Viserys again, anyway, and if Viserys is still supposed to be the heir, then we have three KG in dereliction of their first duty and we are back at the whole protect vs. obey dilemma and what not, anyway.

So now I have to back up every new bit of information in the worldbook with a specific narrative purpose? I did suggest that maybe Martin & co did it because it made sense, and might through some cold water on the "..and so Jon is the rightful king" aspect of R+L=J.

Getting defensive, or what?

I really don't see the narrative purpose here, rather an attempt to muddy the waters.

[RumHam]

I think that proclaiming an unexpected heir is the kinda thing you don't keep secret. The fact that Yandel mentions it casually in passing and not as some little known bit of trivia supports the idea that it was common knowledge.

There's also this:

“Shall I proclaim a new king as well?” Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain: Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking? He thought for a moment of the boy Viserys, fled to Dragonstone, and of Rhaegar’s infant son Aegon, still in Maegor’s with his mother. A new Targaryen king, and my father as Hand. How the wolves will howl, and the storm lord choke with rage. For a moment he was tempted, until he glanced down again at the body on the floor, in its spreading pool of blood. His blood is in both of them, he thought. “Proclaim who you bloody well like,” he told Crakehall.

He thinks of Viserys first, when normally it should be Aegon.

Getting defensive, or what?

I really don't see the narrative purpose here, rather an attempt to muddy the waters.

I'm not getting defensive, I just think it's silly to selectively discount things because you can't imagine their possible narrative significance. His purpose may well have been to muddy the waters, but it's still there, and totally consistent with what we know about Aerys at that time.