R + L = J v. 126

[Ygrain]

Why do you constantly try and say they knew Aerys had 4 KG? It might be true, but they also damn well knew that Rhaegar was riding off to war and would be taking the KG with him. So they knew that Aerys would be left unprotected or understaffed. Hell you even say right there that they could be assigned other tasks (I. E that Rhaegar told them to do something). So they were told to do something, otherwise the most logical thing that would have happened when Hightower summoned Rhaegar to court to go fight Robert, would be for the KG to go to KL knowing that Aerys' KG would be leaving him. Unless they couldn't which is exactly what they mention.

Because up till the moment Rhaegar left for the Trident, he did have four KG. Claiming that Aerys would be left without any KG is BS and "understaffed" is purely your construct, it has no textual basis. There is no requirement for a minimum number of KG greater than one.

And no, the only epic fail here is you guys. Jon is not described as having a black heart there. Bastards are described as having a black heart. Jon is described as having black blood that's as dark as a bastards heart. The conversation is about Jon's blood not his heart. So if you try and link Robert's comment of Rhaegar's black heart to this sentence, you are linking him to being a bastard, not Jon.

Bastards have black hearts.

Jon is (supposedly) a bastard.

-------

Jon has a black heart.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Robb looked relieved. “Good.” He smiled. “The next time I see you, you’ll be all in black.”

Jon forced himself to smile back. “It was always my color.”

--

Once (Jon) had said the words his blood was black. Black as a bastard’s heart.

“I was always strong … no one could stand before me, no one. How do you fight someone if you can’t hit them?” Confused, the king shook his head. “Rhaegar … Rhaegar won, damn him. I killed him, Ned, I drove the spike right through that black armor into his black heart, and he died at my feet. They made up songs about it. Yet somehow he still won. He has Lyanna now, and I have her.”

Rhaegar fought in his black armour (at at least one tourney, and in the war)... Jon will fight the upcomming battles in the blacks of the Night's Watch, most likely.

And no, the only epic fail here is you guys. Jon is not described as having a black heart there. Bastards are described as having a black heart. Jon is described as having black blood that's as dark as a bastards heart. The conversation is about Jon's blood not his heart. So if you try and link Robert's comment of Rhaegar's black heart to this sentence, you are linking him to being a bastard, not Jon.

That bastards have black hearths (or so it is said), doesn't mean that all people who have black hearths are bastards..

Take @Mithras Stoneborn's post for example:

I am thinking of the Hoares.

Archmaester Hake tells us that the kings of House Hoare were, “black of hair, black of eye, and black of heart.” Their foes claimed their blood was black as well, darkened by the “Andal taint,” for many of the early Hoare kings took maidens of that ilk to wife. True ironborn had salt water in their veins, the priests of the Drowned God proclaimed; the black-blooded Hoares were false kings, ungodly usurpers who must be cast down.

The dragonflame that destroyed Harrenhal put a fiery end to King Harren’s dreams , the domination of the riverlands by the ironborn, and the “black line” of House Hoare.

Qhorin Volmark , a minor lord on Harlaw, was the first man to claim the kingship. His grandmother had been a younger sister of Harwyn Hardhand. On the basis of that tie, Volmark declared himself the rightful heir of “the black line.”

Interesting that here also black blood is described. Jon mentions black blood for himself as well, without association to bastardry.

[Kingmonkey]

"But not of Kingsguard." This sentence speaks volumes - it means that Willem Darry is not subject to the same set of rules or high standards as KG.

Nor were any of the three men guarding Tommen. That's not important, because Darry isn't standing in front of Ned, the 3KG are. Hightower is saying that Darry might flee, but Kingsguard don't. Yet we know that in the past Kingsguard have indeed fled -- when accompanying a fleeing king. Arthur follow up with "Then or now" -- in other words no Kingsguard fled then (Not that they couldn't, as TPaTQ shows, but that they didn't have to because of the presence of a good man and true to guard the king), and none will flee now. It's a warning to Ned.

See above - they are actually not validating him, in the sense that they are not putting him on the same level as themselves.

No indeed, but I'm not sure what you're trying to get at there. They're no more putting him on the same level as themselves than during the ritual they put the two Kettleblacks or Garlan on the same level. They're only saying that they are good enough to stand in for them temporarily. They get less validation that Darry does in being named "a good man and true".

Because of the above, an invalid line of reasoning, not to mention that paralelling the ritualisation of the dialogue in the dream with the staff meeting procedure is rather dubious, IMO.

I can't see your justification for claiming any reasoning is invalid. Your objections above were that they didn't put Darry on the same level as a Kingsguard, and that Darry was not subject to the same rules as the KG. Neither of those things are any different from the situation with the two Kettleblacks and Garlan, so what's the problem?

It's true that in this example, the King's safety is best ensured without his KG, but it hardly contradicts anything as it is a very specific situation which does not apply to the end of RR as Viserys' location is known. And your last line does not apply at all - in Aegon's case, they were a KG short and there was exactly one KG assigned to each of the royal children, whereas at ToJ there were actually two KG to spare for the task.

Besides, even though the text said that "Larys decreed", Aegon was still present to condone the decision - again, not the case at ToJ.

It absolutely does contradict the possibility that the presence of the KG alongside the king is in itself a requirement; what is required of the Kingsguard is ensuring the safety of the king and, secondarily, his kin. Fell and Thorne were free to protect the king's kin because they were not needed at the King's side. His safety was assured by stealth. Unlike Aegon II, Viserys was not hiding out in enemy territory at Dragonstone, but rather on home ground, guarded by several thousand men and the Targaryen fleet, out of Robert's reach until a new fleet was built. Viserys was, at least in the short term, considerably safer on Dragonstone without a Kingsguard by him than Aegon II was. Thus the 3KG were not needed at the king's side and were free to protect the king's kin, just as in TPaTQ.

Your objection that with 3KG one of them could be spared from kin-guarding duty unlike the TPaTQ situation with two heirs and 2KG is of course true. However the argument is not that they were unable to go to Dragonstone, but that they were not required to go Dragonstone. Remember the putative scenario of Dayne and Hightower debating what to do next; all Dayne has to do is persuade Hightower that an instant trip to Dragonstone is not required. The question then becomes "do you take very risky journey through rebel held territory to go to the side of the well protected king, or do we keep protecting his barely protected kin here until we can find safe passage?"

Only, Arthur Dayne says it in an entirely different context - they actually say that they would not put the defence of the king's kin on the same level or even above protecting the king.

The line about the king's person and kin is straight from TPaTQ, but nowhere does that -- or I -- say anything about it being on the same level or above. Not sure where you're getting that from? The entire point of the parallel to the ritual and the parallel to the TPaTQ events is that their primary duty is to see to the safety the king, but not always by being in his presence.

Not really sure what you are aiming at here. The TPATQ knights fled KL with the king. The ToJ trio would have fled without the king, in a situation where there was no secrecy vs. safety issue, they would be abandoning the king. What they say is that they wouldn't have abandoned the king then, and they wouldn't abandon him now.

And if Viserys were king, then fleeing to Dragonstone with him would also have been with the king.

(To step out of devil's advocate mode for a moment, this is pretty much the crux of the matter. Keep in mind that the point of the exercise is to explore the possibility of making a coherent narrative if Viserys-as-heir were actually true, not to attempt to definitively exclude the alternatives.)

There are at least two ways of understanding this, two that are particularly relevant to this discussion anyway:

1. Viserys is not the king, that's why they can't flee with him, and they won't be fleeing now either.

2. Viserys is the king, but they didn't need to flee with him because he was under sufficient protection, and they won't be fleeing now either.

In the case of 1. we can argue that "do not flee" means "that would have meant leaving the REAL king, nudge nudge" which is a nice touch. In the case of 2, we can argue that "a good man and true" means that "then" was covered for them by Darry, rather than being a pretty random interjection into the conversation, another good touch.

These are both perfectly solid readings.

Conclusion: the TPATQ parallel is invalid because of the vastly different circumstances. Plus, if you also arrive at the conclusion that Jon must have been legitimate, it brings us back to the question I poised some time ago: what is the narrative purpose of naming Viserys heir when it virtually affects nothing?

TPaTQ parallel is a parallel, not a mirror. There are differences, but that's what makes it a parallel. Nobody would claim that the Bael parallel is invalid because Lyanna wasn't in Winterfell at the time Rhaegar made off with her. Details do not a literary parallel make. In the TPaTQ story you have a Targaryen claimant fleeing King's landing to hide in Dragonstone without Kingsguard protection, while the Kingsguard are off defending his kin (and heirs). In the Viserys-as-heir scenario, you have a Targaryen claimant fleeing Kings Landing to hide in Dragonstone without Kingsguard protection, while the Kingsguard are off defending his kin (and heir). The details aren't the same, but the thematic parallel is blatantly obvious.

What is the point of making Viserys heir? Good question. What's the narrative purpose of having Yandel tell us he was made the heir if he wasn't as that would affect not just virtually nothing, but literally nothing? The question is applicable on either side of the debate. Not enough info, but one possibility is that as we find out more of the machinations of Dorne, that will be revealed as an important motivation, a final insult to Dorne from the Targ dynasty. Another is that Martin didn't want us to get the entire Rhaegar vs. Aerys picture from the start, but build a gradual realisation that Rhaegar was really not on the side of the Mad King who killed Ned's brother and father, and this is another step of the reveal.

[Mithras]

Interesting that here also black blood is described. Jon mentions black blood for himself as well, without association to bastardry.

I think it is also interesting that while Aegon was burning Harren, his brother was the LC with 10000 men at his command. I think George might be thinking of some parallels here. Dany rides a black dragon, she will defeat fAegon and Jon is a "brother" to fAegon.

[J. Stargaryen]

Rhaegar fought in his black armour (at at least one tourney, and in the war)... Jon will fight the upcomming battles in the blacks of the Night's Watch, most likely.

That bastards have black hearths (or so it is said), doesn't mean that all people who have black hearths are bastards..

Take @Mithras Stoneborn's post for example:

Interesting that here also black blood is described. Jon mentions black blood for himself as well, without association to bastardry.

They had come together at the ford of the Trident while the battle crashed around them, Robert with his warhammer and his great antlered helm, the Targaryen prince armored all in black. On his breastplate was the three-headed dragon of his House, wrought all in rubies that flashed like fire in the sunlight. The waters of the Trident ran red around the hooves of their destriers as they circled and clashed, again and again, until at last a crushing blow from Robert’s hammer stove in the dragon and the chest beneath it. When Ned had finally come on the scene, Rhaegar lay dead in the stream, while men of both armies scrabbled in the swirling waters for rubies knocked free of his armor. - AGoT, Eddard I

[T]he Targaryen prince . . . all in black. Hmm. :)

Btw, in the series, I believe "all in black" is only used to describe brothers of the NW, except on one or two occasions.

The day had been windy when he said farewell to Rhaegar, in the yard of the Red Keep. The prince had donned his night-black armor, with the three-headed dragon picked out in rubies on his breastplate. “Your Grace,” Jaime had pleaded, “let Darry stay to guard the king this once, or Ser Barristan. Their cloaks are as white as mine.” - AFfC, Jaime I

snip

Re: fleeing with Viserys. He wasn't the king yet, when he fled to Dragonstone with his mother.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

[T]he Targaryen prince . . . all in black. Hmm. :)

Btw, in the series, I believe "all in black" is only used to describe brothers of the NW, except on one or two occasions.

Interesting.. :)

[Ladywhiskers]

"What is the point of making Viserys heir? Good question. What's the narrative purpose of having Yandel tell us he was made the heir if he wasn't as that would affect not just virtually nothing, but literally nothing? The question is applicable on either side of the debate. Not enough info, but one possibility is that as we find out more of the machinations of Dorne, that will be revealed as an important motivation, a final insult to Dorne from the Targ dynasty. Another is that Martin didn't want us to get the entire Rhaegar vs. Aerys picture from the start, but build a gradual realisation that Rhaegar was really not on the side of the Mad King who killed Ned's brother and father, and this is another step of the reveal."

(sorry quote function didn't work for me for some reason.)

I think this business of Rheagar vs. Aerys is good. Rhaegar loved Lyanna and didn't want her family slaughtered, and there is a slow reveal in motion here.

As for who was heir once Jaime killed Aerys, and why Jaime thinks of both boys, it seems straightforward to me. As far as Jaime knows, Viserys and Aegon are both in the castle, and they are both fatherless. If Rhaegar had outlived Aeryn, then Rhaegar died a king and Aegon would be the indisputable heir, regardless of age. Viserys was only 5, but he was the second son of Aerys.

When a king is deposed, the succession depends largely on why he was deposed, and by whom. In the cases of Richard II, Richard III, and Charles I, the one who deposed the king made that decision. Jaime deposed Aerys for his own reasons and was in no position to declare for anyone at that moment. He could have set Viserys on the throne. Viserys was not yet mad. He was a 5-year-old learning about dragons and kingship at his father's knee. It was only after the 5-year-old king had to live as a refugee, remembering his "destiny," and thinking of his sister as his ward and his wife, that he became mad. None of that had happened yet. For all we know, Viserys was a sweet kid. And Aegon was an infant--Jaime had no way of knowing what kind of person he'd be. So it wasn't a matter of thinking of the awful Viserys, and then thinking of the probably wonderful Aegon. It was a matter of thinking of the dead king at his feet, that king's living son, then that king's dead OLDER son and grandson by that son, and being briefly flummoxed by which should take precedence over the other. Rhaegar did not die a king, therefore Viserys took precedence, actually.

Jaime was also aware of Ned Stark and Robert's Rebellion, because Tywin was newly loyal to Robert. The wolves would have howled, but Tywin would have held the throne for Viserys or Aegon, if Jaime had declared it.

Jaime was completely unaware of a third heir, in the Tower of Joy. There is absolutely no reason to post THREE king's guards around anyone but the King's wife and his heir. Poor Elia didn't get three king's guards, did she? Some of the Kingsguard seem to have already been treating Rhaegar as king. He was the heir apparent and maybe they thought that Aerys wouldn't last much longer, or maybe they expected a coup, and if the lot of them were off with Rhaegar, it'd happen more easily. It's quite strange the way the King's guard were positioned, at the time of Aerys' death.

None of them seem to have accompanied the very pregnant Rhaella and her son, and you'd think they would have. None of them seem to have been guarding Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys, either. Two of them were with Aerys, two rode off with Rhaegar to the battle, and three were at the Tower of Joy. What were they doing there? Who told them to be there? Rhaegar? Were there five whole kingsguards fighting at the Trident with Rhaegar, and only two left at the palace? This is weird to begin with--clearly the King's Guard were already rallying around Rhaegar.

With Rhaegar dead, the behavior of the knights at the Tower of Joy makes no sense, unless in their minds they are protecting the King. They should have been protecting Aerys, or, failing that, they should have been protecting Viserys. But no, they're all protecting something at the Tower of Joy.

[sj4iy]

To me, whether Viserys was made heir or not is irrelevant unless it can be proven that the KG at the ToJ knew about it.

[BearQueen87]

Bastards have black hearts.

Jon is (supposedly) a bastard.

-------

Jon has a black heart.

It's like math but with words!

[T]he Targaryen prince . . . all in black. Hmm. :)

Btw, in the series, I believe "all in black" is only used to describe brothers of the NW, except on one or two occasions.

Goodness. It's like GRRM is trying to tell us something.

[J. Stargaryen]

It's like math but with words!

Goodness. It's like GRRM is trying to tell us something.

Very much so. :)

[Alia of the knife]

Yet somehow he still won. He has Lyanna now, and I have her.

[MtnLion]

It was a matter of thinking of the dead king at his feet, that king's living son, then that king's dead OLDER son and grandson by that son, and being briefly flummoxed by which should take precedence over the other. Rhaegar did not die a king, therefore Viserys took precedence, actually.

No, actually, By every law a son comes before the uncle. All of Rhaegar's male children come before Viserys.

[Alia of the knife]

Yeeeeeees! Vikings!!!! (Season three, coming soon!)

I know, soon there will be so much to watch, that it will be overload. :wacko: :blink: :D

[imaginepageant]

I'm still finding hints in Theon's chapters, this time in A Clash of Kings, Theon III. It might be a bit of a stretch, but still bears mentioning. (Thanks to IceFire125 for sharing the quote about Rhaegar that made me go, "Wait a second, didn't I just read that in Theon's chapter?")

Theon and his company make quick work of the northmen sent to deal with the raiders harrying the Stony Shore. These northmen, led by Benfred Tallhart, had added a strange decoration to their banners:

They'd been joking and even singing as they'd come on, the three trees of Tallhart streaming above them while rabbitskins flapped stupidly from the points of their lances.

Theon is confused by the rabbitskins; he intended to ask Benfred their meaning, but had forgotten in the wake of Benfred's contemptuous defiance. We, however, have the answer. Inspired by Robb Stark's victories in the War of the Five Kings, Benfred gathered a company of lances. They called themselves "young wolves," but Leobald Tallhart mocked them for it and called them "young rabbits" instead. They then took on the name Wild Hares.

Theon scorns the young company as well, in his conversation with Dagmer Cleftjaw:

"We could hear them singing," the old warrior said. "It was a good song, and they sang it bravely."

"They sang better than they fought. Harps would have done them as much good as their lances did."

This line bears a remarkable resemblance to another, spoken by Barristan Selmy in A Storm of Swords, Daenerys IV:

“Prince Rhaegar’s prowess was unquestioned, but he seldom entered the lists. He never loved the song of swords the way that Robert did, or Jaime Lannister. It was something he had to do, a task the world had set him. He did it well, for he did everything well. That was his nature. But he took no joy in it. Men said that he loved his harp much better than his lance.”

This conversation immediately leads into the story of Rhaegar's victory at the tourney of Harrenhal, where he crowned Lyanna Stark the Queen of Love and Beauty.

So, we have a northman calling himself a wolf in the style of Robb Stark only to be told he is not a wolf, a strong parallel between this northman and Rhaegar Targaryen, and a connection to the tourney where it all began for Rhaegar and Lyanna.

One last thing: rabbits are often used as symbols of sexuality, fertility, and rebirth.

[Ser Creighton]

It's like math but with words!

Goodness. It's like GRRM is trying to tell us something.

It's the argument form of logic.

All in black is used to describe the borthers, Rhaegar even though he did have red on as well, and in one case doors. :)

You know there is another thing to consider with the KG at the tower of Joy and how they may have viewed Viserys and even the mad King. Selmy gives it to us in swords 71. Now Dany was not ready to hear everything thanks to a certain Bear who had been bad. But the great Selmy who is so much better than that horrid Bear and trustworthy gave us his perspective on the mad king and Viserys.

“She turned to Ser Barristan. “You protected my father for many years, fought beside my brother on the Trident, but you abandoned Viserys in his exile and bent your knee to the Usurper instead. Why? And tell it true.”

“Some truths are hard to hear. Robert was a … a good knight … chivalrous, brave … he spared my life, and the lives “of many others … Prince Viserys was only a boy, it would have been years before he was fit to rule, and … forgive me, my queen, but you asked for truth … even as a child, your brother Viserys oft seemed to be his father’s son, in ways that Rhaegar never did.”

“His father’s son?” Dany frowned. “What does that mean?”

“The old knight did not blink. “Your father is called ‘the Mad King’ in Westeros. Has no one ever told you?”

“Viserys did.” The Mad King. “The Usurper called him that, the Usurper and his dogs.” The Mad King. “It was a lie.”

“Why ask for truth,” Ser Barristan said softly, “if you close your ears to it?” He hesitated, then continued. “I told you before that I used a false name so the Lannisters would not know that I’d joined you. That was less than half of it, Your Grace. The truth is, I wanted to watch you for a time before pledging you my sword. To make certain that you were not …”

“… my father’s daughter?” If she was not her father’s daughter, who was she?

“… mad,” he finished. “But I see no taint in you.”

If good, honest, charming, loyal, thick as a brick Selmy saw that Viserys was to much like his father, I am pretty sure the rest of the KG saw it as well. If Aerys was planning on naming Viserys hi heir or the threat of that loomed, some of the KG may very well have decided enough was enough, sometimes you have to protect the King from himself. Some of the KG may not have even been recognizing Aerys authority, Dayne, Whent, Hightower, even Martell had to be blackmailed. So who was actually listening to him other than the kiss asses that were trying to manipulate him?

I am also rather curious to find out why Rhaegar seemed to have so little support. What if he was asking for help and was not getting much?

[Alia of the knife]

"What is the point of making Viserys heir? Good question. What's the narrative purpose of having Yandel tell us he was made the heir if he wasn't as that would affect not just virtually nothing, but literally nothing? The question is applicable on either side of the debate. Not enough info, but one possibility is that as we find out more of the machinations of Dorne, that will be revealed as an important motivation, a final insult to Dorne from the Targ dynasty. Another is that Martin didn't want us to get the entire Rhaegar vs. Aerys picture from the start, but build a gradual realisation that Rhaegar was really not on the side of the Mad King who killed Ned's brother and father, and this is another step of the reveal."

All really good points, especially on the subject of Dorne, which actually seems contradictory because the whole point of Elias mother approaching Aerys, (besides her main objective to slight Tywin to Elias utter destruction), was in stoking his own paranoia of the possibility of losing Dorne unless Rhaegar married Elia.

Dorne is interesting because we are also led to believe that the Courts of Dorne are their own snake pit of corruption and scheming, but they they are not necessarily good at it either, with perhaps the exception of Doran, and no one really wants to listen to him and be patient.

On the last, Martin did promise to flesh out the tensions between father and son, so hopefully the next book will be the time. Hopefully, the next book will be the "information dump" and the book after that will be conclusion.

As for who was heir once Jaime killed Aerys, and why Jaime thinks of both boys, it seems straightforward to me. As far as Jaime knows, Viserys and Aegon are both in the castle, and they are both fatherless. If Rhaegar had outlived Aeryn, then Rhaegar died a king and Aegon would be the indisputable heir, regardless of age. Viserys was only 5, but he was the second son of Aerys.

When a king is deposed, the succession depends largely on why he was deposed, and by whom. In the cases of Richard II, Richard III, and Charles I, the one who deposed the king made that decision. Jaime deposed Aerys for his own reasons and was in no position to declare for anyone at that moment. He could have set Viserys on the throne. Viserys was not yet mad. He was a 5-year-old learning about dragons and kingship at his father's knee. It was only after the 5-year-old king had to live as a refugee, remembering his "destiny," and thinking of his sister as his ward and his wife, that he became mad. None of that had happened yet. For all we know, Viserys was a sweet kid. And Aegon was an infant--Jaime had no way of knowing what kind of person he'd be. So it wasn't a matter of thinking of the awful Viserys, and then thinking of the probably wonderful Aegon. It was a matter of thinking of the dead king at his feet, that king's living son, then that king's dead OLDER son and grandson by that son, and being briefly flummoxed by which should take precedence over the other. Rhaegar did not die a king, therefore Viserys took precedence, actually.

I think Selmy had thought there was a bit of madness in Viserys, but then again, I think that a fragile five year old likely being caught between both Aerys and Rhaella could have had an affect on his nature, but I agree, it wasn't until he and Dany were on the streets, he had to sell his mothers crown etc., that any madness might have manifested, (I don't think stress is a friend to some of the Targaryens).

As for your historical examples, they are spot on, and something I'm sure that Martin is referencing as well in terms of inheritance and sucession. We know that the Tudor line is largely descended from the offspring of John of Gaunt and his mistress Katheryn Swynford. Though they later married, and their children legitmized, (on the condition that line would not seek the throne, which they broke), we see that they are from what many consider the "wrong side of the blanket."

We know that the reason that Richard III was able to take the throne was because his brothers children with Elizabeth Woodville were declared illigitimate as Edward IV allegedly had plighted his troth with another woman prior to his marriage with Elizabeth and technically was not free to marry her. This fact didn't come out until the deathbed confession of the dying Priest who officiated the ceremony.

This same bishop had also been briefly imprisoned by Edward for "speaking out against him."

So in light of this historcal parallel, I wonder what grounds Aerys would have to move to make Viserys his heir, because it is true, Aerys could not just do this without qualifying justifications to disiherit or remove Rhaegars children from the the line of succession. Either Rhaegar was declared a traitor poshumously,(because I do think there were some political machinations going on which likely also included Rhaella), though this is somewhat contradictory since Rhaegar did come back to lead the Targaryen forces, or there is something to do with the Dornish.

There is a theory that I have seen, (and just not on these threads), that perhaps Elias swapped Aegon for another like a "pisswater prince" because her own true offspring had been stillborn, (I personally don't follow it because it would be next to impossible to keep that a secret).

However, if in desparation she did, that is a betrayal of not just Aerys, but of Rhaegar as well, which might have provided him the justification to go after Lyanna because on top of it now, Elia is barren. It would be grounds for putting Elia aside, and even her family couldn't dispute that. If she was involved in such a conspiracy, I'd find it hard to believe that Rhaegar wouldn't figure that out.

Or, someone accused Elia of doing that, or made the accusation that Rhaegar was not the father of Elias children, but someone else. That might explain why in the text that the children are often referred to as "Elias children," which I always found curious.

We see Cersei afraid of being put aside, so I wonder where she might have got that notion?

Jaime was also aware of Ned Stark and Robert's Rebellion, because Tywin was newly loyal to Robert. The wolves would have howled, but Tywin would have held the throne for Viserys or Aegon, if Jaime had declared it.

I speculate that that is sometimes Jaimes bias, because I don't think the wolves were necessarily looking to make Robert king. At this point, they rebelled in order to save their lives as there was really no other option.

Its not my sense that neither Ned, or even Robert wanted the IT, and certainly Ned still sounds like a Targaryen loyalist when he is speaks to the KG, and is outraged by the slaughter of Rhaenys and Aegon.

Now that Jaime is on his "legacy tour," he seems to have made Ned and the Starks his cause, as well as doing his own "mopping up" of his familys mess.

As for the rest of your insight, I comletely agree.

[The Twinslayer]

No, actually, By every law a son comes before the uncle. All of Rhaegar's male children come before Viserys.

So Aerys' son would come before Aerys' uncle. That has nothing to do with Viserys (Aerys' son) versus Jon (Aerys' grandson).

[BearQueen87]

So Aerys' son would come before Aerys' uncle. That has nothing to do with Viserys (Aerys' son) versus Jon (Aerys' grandson).

No? Rhaegar is Aerys's heir. Aegon is Rhaegar's. Once Aerys dies, Aegon is his heir because there is no more Rhaegar. Aegon is dead. So unless there is no true born son of Rhaegar left, THEN Viserys becomes heir.

Insert Jon

[BearQueen87]

Now Dany was not ready to hear everything thanks to a certain Bear who had been bad. But the great Selmy who is so much better than that horrid Bear and trustworthy gave us his perspective on the mad king and Viserys.

*twitch*

You do this just to poke fun at me don't you?

[The Twinslayer]

I'm still finding hints in Theon's chapters, this time in A Clash of Kings,

What do you make of this one, casting Theon in the role of Rhaegar:

"My father," she told him. "Once you're gone, he'll punish me, milord. He'll call me names and hit me."

Theon swept his cloak off its peg and over his shoulders. "Fathers are like that," he admitted as he pinned the folds with a silver clasp. "Tell him he should be pleased. As many times as I've fucked you, you're likely with child. It's not every man who has the honor of raising a king's bastard."

So in light of this historcal parallel, I wonder what grounds Aerys would have to move to make Viserys his heir, because it is true, Aerys could not just do this without qualifying justifications to disiherit or remove Rhaegars children from the the line of succession. Either Rhaegar was declared a traitor poshumously,(because I do think there were some political machinations going on which likely also included Rhaella), though this is somewhat contradictory since Rhaegar did come back to lead the Targaryen forces, or there is something to do with the Dornish.

I don't think Aerys needed a reason to have Viserys come before Aegon. In the medieval period, and in Westeros, kings frequently set the succession in their wills. William the Conqueror named his second son (William Rufus) heir to the English throne rather than his older son Robert. Edward VI's will skipped his cousin Francis in favor of Francis' daughter, Jane.