R+L =J v.135

[Lord Varys]

Aerys may have been receptive to the Elia idea because she was the closest female Targaryen cousin around that belonged to an upper-tier bloodline. Penroses, Dondarrions, Tarths, and the like would not have been worthy of consideration even if they had had any daughters in the right age - which does not seem to be the case. Velaryons would have been fine, but there apparently weren't any in the right age.

[Alia of the knife]

SFDanny,

aren't women supposed to produce hormones that prevent to ovulate again while they are breastfeeding? I thought that this was the case, although it would certainly not be an effective/trustworthy way of birth control.

Rhaenys,

but the war still is supposed to be 'about a year', is it not? I'm with you that we don't know when exactly the war began, and that it extended somewhat into 283 AC, but I doubt it was much longer. The crucial thing is that we don't know how much time passed between Rhaegar leaving and Rickard/Brandon's deaths and Jon Arryn raising his banners. 14-15 months for Aegon at his death should be the far end of the scale.

And if we went with an earlier birth he would have to be much older.

The most important reason, as they understood it in their time, for a wet nurse for noble/royal women, was to allow them back into the marriage bed as soon as possible in order to continue to fulfill their succession duties.

Aegon was never said to be a healthy, normal kid;

Elia had hard pregnancies;

Targaryen babies are known to have such problems;

There is no textual evidence for Aegons state of health, but on both sides, Rhaegar and Elia, there was a high rate of infant mortality. Rhaegar lost quite a few siblings and so did Elia, with Elia almost dying herself, which makes one wonder why Martin would include this detail.

Perhaps Rhaegar was concerned about begetting a "spare for the heir," again going back to Kevan Lannisters statement about Rhaegar wanting "sons." :dunno:

[Mithras]

There is no textual evidence for Aegons state of health, but on both sides, Rhaegar and Elia, there was a high rate of infant mortality. Rhaegar lost quite a few siblings and so did Elia, with Elia almost dying herself, which makes one wonder why Martin would include this detail.

Perhaps Rhaegar was concerned about begetting a "spare for the heir," again going back to Kevan Lannisters statement about Rhaegar wanting "sons." :dunno:

Yes, this is my point. With absence of evidence suggesting that Aegon was a healthy kid and the bad history of pregnanices on both sides, Aegon might have some health problems. So, Aegon being a "baby at breast" cannot be used as a proof to determine his age because he might have some health problems delaying his normal development.

[Mithras]

Aerys may have been receptive to the Elia idea because she was the closest female Targaryen cousin around that belonged to an upper-tier bloodline. Penroses, Dondarrions, Tarths, and the like would not have been worthy of consideration even if they had had any daughters in the right age - which does not seem to be the case. Velaryons would have been fine, but there apparently weren't any in the right age.

We also learn from TWOIAF that both the Martells and Targaryens have common Rogare ancestors. This was probably one of the reasons for the match between Daeron II and Mariah Martell.

[Ygritte]

Yes, this is my point. With absence of evidence suggesting that Aegon was a healthy kid and the bad history of pregnanices on both sides, Aegon might have some health problems. So, Aegon being a "baby at breast" cannot be used as a proof to determine his age because he might have some health problems delaying his normal development.

As others have said, I don't think there's anything in the text to support developmental issues. I think the concern for a "spare" was more in the hypothetical. It was something pretty much all royals worried about, not because a particular kid had a particular health issue necessarily, but because child mortality in general was high. A baby could be perfectly healthy and then die in an epidemic when he was 5.

ETA: And if Aegon had been sickly, wouldn't it have been mentioned in people's mental lists of Elia's supposed failings? You know, "she was frail and her only son had been frail too" rather than just that she herself was frail.

[BearQueen87]

Yes, this is my point. With absence of evidence suggesting that Aegon was a healthy kid and the bad history of pregnanices on both sides, Aegon might have some health problems. So, Aegon being a "baby at breast" cannot be used as a proof to determine his age because he might have some health problems delaying his normal development.

It is a huge leap from "might have had some heath problems" to rare genetic developmental disorder.

[Lord Varys]

I know what the purpose of a wet nurse is in the real world, but in Westeros noblewomen actually did breastfeed their children (Joanna Lannister, for example).

Rhaegar trying to impregnate Elia again while she was still recovering would have been quite risky, as this would risk both the life of the child as well as the mother. And by that time the Targaryens weren't this desperate for heirs, anyway. Aerys had Rhaegar and Viserys, and should Rhaegar have no sons, they could marry Viserys to Rhaenys and make them the next heirs.

There were not 'development issues' in the Targaryen family tree. They were miscarriages, stillbirths, disfiguring elements (Jaehaerys, Jaehaerys II), simpletons (the two Vaellas and possibly Gael), and full-blown monstrosities (under the category of stillbirths). Nothing suggests that they had developmental issues like slow growth or such. If they were simple they issues with the mind, and nothing suggests Aegon had any of those problems. In fact, if he did, the whole Aegon plan would never have been conceived.

Mithras,

we know that Drazenko Rogare was Prince Consort of Dorne, but we have no idea whether he had any children with his Martell wife - possibly Aliandra - nor do we know whether those children did live long enough continue the Martell line. But even if they did, this would have nothing to do with present-day politics.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

@Mithras

I don't know about you, but I don't suspect that a character has some rare medical disorder unless I am given at least one hint that points in the direction that he does.

@Lord Varys

Yes, the war still lasted "close to a year", (meaning either slightly less, or slightly more, than a full year) that's in text of the main series. That won't change. We don't know exactly when the war began, but we can make a rough estimation on when it ended. We know that Daenerys was born 9 months after the Sack, and that she was born in 284 AC. With her discovering her pregnancy on her 14th nameday, and the pregnancy having just ended (after lasting some 9 months, as she herself indicated that it was almost time for the birth, no matter whether Rhaego's actual birth was naturally induced, or thanks to Mirri) in early 299 AC when the Red Comet is sighted (to sync everything with the rest of the storylines) for the first time, combined with the fact that Clash tells us her nameday falls within the first half of the year, we can see that her birthday actually occurs somewhere around the 4th, 5th or 6th month (I personally assume that she was a month or two pregnant on her 14th nameday, as she could already notice the swelling of her belly, but that's going by what my medical textbooks tell me, I haven't been pregnant before myself, so I can't say whether that's roughly the same for each woman and I assume it differs per person; but that would place her birth somewhere around the timewindow of mid-5th till end 6th month of the year.)

So, we can deduce roughly when the Sack took place.

A separate way to do so, is by looking at Jon's nameday, and Robb's. It would seem that Catelyn is convinced that Robb is older (I read a line in either Clash or Storm last week where she thinks to herself that after her wedding, she had send Ned off to the woman who would birth him his bastard). From reading the books alone, it should be quite clear that Robb and Jon both have their nameday's quite late in the year. Because the only mention of Jon's nameday is riddled with a big timeline error in Game, (Tyrion/Catelyn meet-up at the inn), I tend to look at Robb's.. Who turns sixteen, after months and months of war have been described in Clash. Robb, who was conceived after the Battle of the Bells, which occured in 283 AC. So Robb's nameday occurs rather late in the year (somewhere in the last 1/3rd, to keep it rough). With Jon's occuring closely by, and with Jon's nameday occuring after Robb's, and within the window of 2 weeks before, or 2 weeks after the Sack, we can see that the Sack will have been late in the war as well.

I agree that an earlier birth for Aegon is out of the question.. If only due to basic math (2x9+6=2 full years). But even if we make Aegon as young as possible, placing his birth in the early weeks of 282 AC, his death (and thus the Sack) would have needed to occur within the first two months or so of the year.. Which doesn't fit at all with Dany's nameday, nor with Robb's and Jon's.

[Kingmonkey]

Aegon is also only 1.5 yrs old and his side in the war is losing. You don't appoint an infant to help rally the troops.

Viserys was only 7, neither of them is going to rally the troops.

[BearQueen87]

Viserys was only 7, neither of them is going to rally the troops.

No you're right but that's not what I meant. I should have been clearer. Having a child who is only a few years away from taking the regency, at most, appointed heir makes more sense from a moral standpoint than an infant who can't walk or talk. It's about trying to keep up appearances. If your troops think that the the death of Rhaegar is the end of the regime, you have to show them that this is not the case: so you have a son who is older, has been kept by your side, begun the training in leading the realm...instead of a squalling baby.

[Alia of the knife]

Just a side note, this is a really cool site.

http://www.wildspiritwolfsanctuary.org/westeros_pack.php

I just adopted the Starks as well as the direwolves. A great cause. :D

Okay, back to arguing .

[MtnLion]

And lastly, the three men aren't who we think they are. The have broken their vows and they place what ever they see as their duty at the tower over what they clearly know they should be doing - protecting their new king. The last is what I think we are left with now as the most probable. I agree that unless for some reason Aerys keeps this decree to himself, then it is likely the trio have heard of it.

I disagree. The Kignsguard at the tower say: The Kingsguard does not flee (from its duty to protect King Aerys) then or (from its duty to protect Jon) now, because (explained) we swore a vow to protect our king's life with our own.

[MtnLion]

It was probably not exactly 6 months bed rest. It might be a figure of speech. And we know that a comet was sighted in the night of Aegon's conception. In that case, Rhaegar would not miss the chance and the conception of Aegon might have taken place during the bed rest period.

Then, think about Rhaenys' age (at or close to her third birthday) and Aegon's age one year give or take a turn or two¹, when they were slain. Elia attended Harrenhal Tourney after recovering from Rhaenys' birth, and before conceiving Aegon is the most practical answer.

¹SSM

[Avalatis]

The three Kingsguard have a few reasons for not running to Visreys:

1.) They didn't hear about the declaration since most of the news was about Rhaegar dying and the sack of Kingslanding. The new heir would have been of minor significance in the grand-scale of things and doubtful to be widely known.

2.) Precedent had already been set. I ran a theory some threads back that Aerys had already offered Rhaegar the throne in a moment of clarity. This was not widely known and was an offer carried by Hightower to Rhaegar. This would mean that Aerys flipping out after Rhaegars death and naming Viserys heir would be meaningless to these Kingsguard as they no longer recognize his rule.

3.) The prophecies that drove Rhaegar were so convincing that Hightower and company were willing to serve a higher cause to save the realm. With the Targarens fully disposed and a Usurper ascending the throne there was no reason to support Viserys. If there was no doubt that Jon was the prince who was promised, these men might twist their vows to see that he survives the rebellion to be King.

4.) They decide to be kingmakers though this doesn't really fit well with Hightower. They saw this as an opportunity to push a claimant who wouldn't be crazy.

[BearQueen87]

The three Kingsguard have a few reasons for not running to Visreys:

1.) They didn't hear about the declaration since most of the news was about Rhaegar dying and the sack of Kingslanding. The new heir would have been of minor significance in the grand-scale of things and doubtful to be widely known.

2.) Precedent had already been set. I ran a theory some threads back that Aerys had already offered Rhaegar the throne in a moment of clarity. This was not widely known and was an offer carried by Hightower to Rhaegar. This would mean that Aerys flipping out after Rhaegars death and naming Viserys heir would be meaningless to these Kingsguard as they no longer recognize his rule.

3.) The prophecies that drove Rhaegar were so convincing that Hightower and company were willing to serve a higher cause to save the realm. With the Targarens fully disposed and a Usurper ascending the throne there was no reason to support Viserys. If there was no doubt that Jon was the prince who was promised, these men might twist their vows to see that he survives the rebellion to be King.

4.) They decide to be kingmakers though this doesn't really fit well with Hightower. They saw this as an opportunity to push a claimant who wouldn't be crazy.

Honestly my money is on #1

[SFDanny]

SFDanny,

aren't women supposed to produce hormones that prevent to ovulate again while they are breastfeeding? I thought that this was the case, although it would certainly not be an effective/trustworthy way of birth control.

Rhaenys,

but the war still is supposed to be 'about a year', is it not? I'm with you that we don't know when exactly the war began, and that it extended somewhat into 283 AC, but I doubt it was much longer. The crucial thing is that we don't know how much time passed between Rhaegar leaving and Rickard/Brandon's deaths and Jon Arryn raising his banners. 14-15 months for Aegon at his death should be the far end of the scale.

And if we went with an earlier birth he would have to be much older.

You are absolutely right that breastfeeding produces such hormones, but relying on this as a method of birth control is extremely risky. Things like how much nursing the mother does and how regular she does it make a big difference in those hormone levels. Suffice it to say this not fool proof. My point is that when we are looking at this with the scant knowledge we have it doesn't work to assume that a conception of a new child is ruled out during Elia's period of six months bed rest. This could be a shorter period by much of that time. Doesn't mean Rhaenys Targaryen isn't right, she's very good with this question, but I think we need to keep an open mind to an earlier time of Aegon's conception and therefore a earlier time of his birth.

[Kingmonkey]

No you're right but that's not what I meant. I should have been clearer. Having a child who is only a few years away from taking the regency, at most, appointed heir makes more sense from a moral standpoint than an infant who can't walk or talk. It's about trying to keep up appearances. If your troops think that the the death of Rhaegar is the end of the regime, you have to show them that this is not the case: so you have a son who is older, has been kept by your side, begun the training in leading the realm...instead of a squalling baby.

I don't think Aerys was writing himself off, just yet. He also still had a still-fertile (and in fact, though he wouldn't have known it, pregnant) sister/wife, a son, a grandson and a granddaughter. I don't see why anyone would think it was the end of the regime unless they expected King's Landing to fall -- and if they did, having a 7 year old on Dragonstone wouldn't change their minds.

[SFDanny]

I disagree. The Kignsguard at the tower say: The Kingsguard does not flee (from its duty to protect King Aerys) then or (from its duty to protect Jon) now, because (explained) we swore a vow to protect our king's life with our own.

Protecting Aerys has never been the question. Aerys is guarded by other Kingsguard right up to the point when Jaime kills him. Their duty to protect Jon comes - until Aerys death - from Rhaegar's orders to them and they are following their vows by doing so. When they know Rhaegar and Aerys are dead, and if they know of Aerys decree concerning the succession putting Viserys next in line to the throne, then and only then do they break their vows if they decide not to send at least one of their number to Viserys. ignoring their first duty is not a choice they can make, if they are being faithful to their oaths. If they decide to try to place another on the throne instead of Viserys they are making Selmy's choice even if the person they want to place on the throne is Rhaegar's rightful heir instead of Robert. Ser Barristan tells Dany his choice was treason, and tells her why he made it. Given the scenario I don't think we have much choice ourselves but to say the probability points to Hightower, Whent, and Dayne having made Selmy's choice based likely on the same reasons. If true, one can certainly argue that they made the right choice, but I don't see how one can make the argument they were true to their oaths. They abandoned Viserys and failed to fulfill their first duty.

[Kingmonkey]

The three Kingsguard have a few reasons for not running to Visreys:

1.) They didn't hear about the declaration since most of the news was about Rhaegar dying and the sack of Kingslanding. The new heir would have been of minor significance in the grand-scale of things and doubtful to be widely known.

You don't appoint a new heir and then not make sure people know about it. That just doesn't make any sense -- if people don't know you've done it, then he won't be heir. This is doubly true if the entire point of doing so is to weaken Dorne's hand.

Now I wouldn't say that means the 3KG must have known, because we only have Ned's dream narrative to go on. However if we assume they were aware of Viserys going to Dragonstone, then they had received news of events in King's landing following the Trident. That would probably include Viserys being made heir. Let's remember that Dragonstone was the seat of the heir apparent -- if Aegon had remained as heir, it would have made more sense to send him, rather than Viserys, to Dragonstone. Sending Viserys to Dragonstone is a way of making it clear that it is he, not Aegon, who is now heir. TWOIAF tells us that the idea of Aerys appointing Viserys his heir had been proposed before, so it's not a surprise move.

2.) Precedent had already been set. I ran a theory some threads back that Aerys had already offered Rhaegar the throne in a moment of clarity. This was not widely known and was an offer carried by Hightower to Rhaegar. This would mean that Aerys flipping out after Rhaegars death and naming Viserys heir would be meaningless to these Kingsguard as they no longer recognize his rule.

Doesn't fit with Rhaegar telling Jaime that he was going to call a council after the rebellion, nor with Hightower saying that if they had been in KL, Aerys would still sit on the throne. Hightower may well have carried some message of reconciliation with Rhaegar, but it can't have been that much. I think it's more likely that Aerys carried an ultimatum: defeat the rebels for me, or I'll make Viserys heir in your place. Rhaegar talked about calling a council, and the councils of the past existed to decide on the succession above the wishes of the king.

3.) The prophecies that drove Rhaegar were so convincing that Hightower and company were willing to serve a higher cause to save the realm. With the Targarens fully disposed and a Usurper ascending the throne there was no reason to support Viserys. If there was no doubt that Jon was the prince who was promised, these men might twist their vows to see that he survives the rebellion to be King.

Possible, but it's hard to imagine what proof would be so convincing.

4.) They decide to be kingmakers though this doesn't really fit well with Hightower. They saw this as an opportunity to push a claimant who wouldn't be crazy.

I'd say this is the most likely one. Proving that something fulfils prophecy is hard, but Aerys being mad as a sack of underfed wildcats was obvious to all. We know that Rhaegar and Aerys had been at odds, and that Dayne at least was very much Team Rhaegar. Rhaegar's call a council comment, tied with Varys warning Aerys that the tourney at Harrenhal was really Rhaegar making a power play strongly suggest that Rhaegar had been gathering support for this for some time.

As I've mentioned before, we don't need to assume that Hightower was in on this, only that the other two were able to persuade or manipulate him to go along with their plans, at least to a limited extent.

[RumHam]

Crispen Cole.

I will now always imagine Cristian Cole as Crispin Glover. Thanks for that.

An end to the "It can't be true or Viserys would have shouted about it" stuff. Hurrah.

I'm going to point back to my stuff starting here from v.126 on what it would mean if the Viserys stuff is true. It covers a lot of the ground and people might want to reconsider the implications now that it's confirmed.

Looks like it's time to update the FAQ a little again.

I think we need to have a major reconsideration of the protect vs obey debate now. If the first duty of the KG is to protect the king, and that overrides every other order, then the 3KG were breaking their vows by not heading off to Dragonstone. Discuss.

At the very least people will hopefully stop claiming Yandel was mistaken or lying because the information complicates an existing theory. That was quite frustrating. 90% of what Yandel wrote was accepted without question, but this one thing from very recent history that could easily be verified by people still living had to be a mistake or propaganda. Right.

... and now everything hinges on the KG being aware of the decree or not. Because if they didn't know about it, it changes nothing.

When you name a new heir it's not something you want to keep secret. It seems unlikely they would know all about the Sack and Viserys' flight to Dragonstone and not know about this.

OK, a question. Why would Aerys appoint Viserys his heir over Aegon? Neither of them is remotely old enough to rule. Rhaegar is dead. What's the point?

Well both his options are younger than you would like, but Viserys is considerably older than Aegon. Aerys knows what kinda person his son is, to the extent you can determine that with a seven year old. Aegon was both Dornish and could have grown up to be anything, from mentally challenged to a Targaryen hating monster. Aegon also would have been a lot easier for the rebels to control if they went the route of preserving the Targaryen line. Also he was sending Viserys away, while he felt he needed Aegon there as a hostage. It makes sense not to have your heir in the castle with you when you know you're about to be besieged by rebels and your failsafe plan is to burn the place down.

I still don't think this was public record.

Yandel mentions it in passing as if everyone should know and it requires no explanation. Also Ran has now said it's in the historical records. Finally as I've said many times before, it makes no sense to have a secret heir, especially in that situation.

As for why the Kingsguard wouldn't go to Dragonstone there are a few possible reasons. It may have been impractical or unsafe to travel there during wartime with a pregnant lady/infant. They may have seen the writing on the walls and opted to die in combat following their prince's last order rather than switch sides or flee into exile. And then there's the possibility that Rhaegar might have convinced them Jon was going to be crucial to the survival of all mankind.