Heresy 157

[Matthew.]

Well quite and given that Viserys was indeed the true king all that "textual analysis" of the fever dream is gurgling down the pan.

Why? The end result is still the same: the remaining KG chose the ToJ over aiding the remaining royal family on Dragonstone. Whether it was out of loyalty to Rhaegar's final wishes, a belief that there was nothing left for them to do but die, or because they felt they were guarding an unborn royal, they made the choice to be at ToJ.

[Matthew.]

Addendum: If Aerys' goal was only to separate them from Rhaegar, why not have the finest knights in the realm guarding him along with Jaime Lannister? Or, why not have them guarding his newly appointed heir on Dragonstone, or Rhaella? Why Dorne?

[Black Crow]

Why? The end result is still the same: the remaining KG chose the ToJ over aiding the remaining royal family on Dragonstone. Whether it was out of loyalty to Rhaegar's final wishes, a belief that there was nothing left for them to do but die, or because they felt they were guarding an unborn royal, they made the choice to be at ToJ.

They did indeed chose to stand and fight there and my own argument is that they did so as ronin, avenging their dead master [not Rhaegar but Aerys] the traditional argument that they were guarding their new King, the babe now known as Jon Snow, has been blown out of the water by the confirmation that Viserys was now the king.

[Black Crow]

Addendum: If Aerys' goal was only to separate them from Rhaegar, why not have the finest knights in the realm guarding him along with Jaime Lannister? Or, why not have them guarding his newly appointed heir on Dragonstone, or Rhaella? Why Dorne?

I'd imagine that the short and dirty answer is that Aerys wasn't exactly the most rational thinker, but at all events this information has been deliberately released and deliberately confirmed, which suggests that GRRM wrote that bit for a reason and right now the only reason I can think of is to lower the expectations surrounding R+L=J.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Not to get off track, but Ran just confirmed that Viserys was Aerys heir, not Aegon, after Rhaegar died

Looks to me like Ran's confirming that what the World book says is intentional, not necessarily that it's accurate. I don't think that post is the game changer some will make it out to be.

[wolfmaid7]

Looks to me like Ran's confirming that what the World book says is intentional, not necessarily that it's accurate. I don't think that post is the game changer some will make it out to be.

I don't know Snowy "basically reporting on Historical records at the time" seems a bit more solid.Are you in doubt on the records available when Maester Yandel reported it?

[Eira Seren]

I don't know Snowy "basically reporting on Historical records at the time" seems a bit more solid.Are you in doubt on the records available when Maester Yandel reported it?

I can't recall what records Yandel was even using to make the statement.

[Matthew.]

I'd imagine that the short and dirty answer is that Aerys wasn't exactly the most rational thinker, but at all events this information has been deliberately released and deliberately confirmed, which suggests that GRRM wrote that bit for a reason and right now the only reason I can think of is to lower the expectations surrounding R+L=J.

It's possible that Aerys ordered them to be there, but I find that a less logical explanation than them being there because either a.) they were ordered to be there by Rhaegar, or b.) they'd been a part of a conspiracy to switch out Aegon VI, and missed out on the tail end of the war.

For them to have been in Dorne that means that Aerys felt placing them there made more sense than guarding himself, guarding the interests of the crown on the Trident, or guarding his new heir and pregnant wife. Sure, Aerys wasn't rational, but I can't imagine that such a paranoid man would order the finest swordsman in the entire realm to do something that won't be (as far as Aerys knows) guarding his bloodline in any capacity whatsoever.

[wolfmaid7]

I can't recall what records Yandel was even using to make the statement.

I don't know what Ran was referencing,i'm not sure it matters.But it would be nice to know if the records were hearsay but i do recall from the WB pg 129 after Rhaegar's death when news got back to the Keep Aerys had sent his pregnant wfe and "new heir' Viserys to Dragonstone.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I don't know Snowy "basically reporting on Historical records at the time" seems a bit more solid.Are you in doubt on the records available when Maester Yandel reported it?

Well, I don't know that Yandel cites any sources for that information explicitly - though maybe there's another place he speaks to it that I'm not seeing. But more to the point - I'm just looking at the statement Ran was responding to, which was not an allegation that Yandel's info might be wrong, but that identifying Viserys as the "new heir" is just a mistake because he wasn't actually the next in line. Ran's response is, basically: "Nope. No mistake. Yandel is telling you that Aerys named Viserys his new heir."

Now... did Aerys really name Viserys his new heir? Who knows? All we know is that someone reported he did. Perhaps it's even true. But I can think of reasons Robert Baratheon and Tywin Lannister would find that particular story convenient, even if it weren't strictly accurate. And history, as we know, is written by the victors...

.

[wolfmaid7]

Well, I don't know that Yandel cites any sources for that information explicitly - though maybe there's another place he speaks to it that I'm not seeing. But more to the point - I'm just looking at the statement Ran was responding to, which was not an allegation that Yandel's info might be wrong, but that identifying Viserys as the "new heir" is just a mistake because he wasn't actually the next in line. Ran's response is, basically: "Nope. No mistake. Yandel is telling you that Aerys named Viserys his new heir."

Now... did Aerys really name Viserys his new heir? Who knows? All we know is that someone reported he did. Perhaps it's even true. But I can think of reasons Robert Baratheon and Tywin Lannister would find that particular story convenient, even if it weren't strictly accurate. And history, as we know, is written by the victors...

.

I see what your saying and agree it could have been true or false ,looking at pg 129 "the queen fled to Dragonstone with Viserys the new heir" .But what would their reason for wanting Viserys as King be though.Rhaegar and his heir is dead,i would see Viserys as a problem unless they had planned to take Viserys and rule through him somehow.

[Joe Pine]

Not necessarily. As it was being worn until Aegon tooled up and Robb donned a replica as King in the North, its more likely that the original crown of the Kings of Winter was bronze and that the iron swords may have been added as the kingdoms fell. There are indeed too many kingdoms and petty kingdoms to correspond to the nine swords, which is why I'm suggesting that only the titled ones made it on to the royal diadem, hence the:

1. The Kings of Winter

2. The Red Kings [boltons]

3. The Barrow Kings

4. The Warg Kings

5. The Marsh Kings

6. Nights King

and?

Iron Swords = Iron Men springs to my mind, would the swords tally with the number of islands, might need to add say bear island or a few others that the Ironborn once held in history.

7 main islands plus lonely light as an outlier, makes eight..

[Eira Seren]

Well, I don't know that Yandel cites any sources for that information explicitly - though maybe there's another place he speaks to it that I'm not seeing. But more to the point - I'm just looking at the statement Ran was responding to, which was not an allegation that Yandel's info might be wrong, but that identifying Viserys as the "new heir" is just a mistake because he wasn't actually the next in line. Ran's response is, basically: "Nope. No mistake. Yandel is telling you that Aerys named Viserys his new heir."

Now... did Aerys really name Viserys his new heir? Who knows? All we know is that someone reported he did. Perhaps it's even true. But I can think of reasons Robert Baratheon and Tywin Lannister would find that particular story convenient, even if it weren't strictly accurate. And history, as we know, is written by the victors...

.

Because They'd look like they murdered the royal family a little less? Kind of makes him look weak if they didn't get viserys. But then the threat of the targ return could be a nice little piece to help unite everyone and keep reminding the nobles in the future why they needed to toe the line.

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

I see what your saying and agree it could have been true or false ,looking at pg 129 "the queen fled to Dragonstone with Viserys the new heir". But what would their reason for wanting Viserys as King be though. Rhaegar and his heir is dead,i would see Viserys as a problem unless they had planned to take Viserys and rule through him somehow.

Well, having the historical record reflect that Aegon was not heir to the throne when Aerys died might turn out to be helpful, if it were possible a child might one day turn up claiming to be Aegon Targaryen. Or if there were ever any doubt raised as to the claim that young Aegon was actually dead.

Better (for the new regime) to identify Aerys' true heir as Viserys - who was evidently rather unstable and unlikeable from a very young age...

.

[JNR]

Looks to me like Ran's confirming that what the World book says is intentional, not necessarily that it's accurate. I don't think that post is the game changer some will make it out to be.

Yeah. Although it would be convenient for certain theories of mine, I can't call that a game changer in all truth.

"Historical records" means what? Yandel read something vague and drew a tentative conclusion that he reported as a fact? Or Yandel read a formal document filed by Aerys that said "I, Aerys, hereby declare Viserys my new heir, bypassing Rhaegar's children, as witnessed by twenty good men and true, and testified by my royal seal," which would be a great deal more solid?

I do think, though, that this spells the end of the popular claim that Yandel simply made it up.

[wolfmaid7]

Well, having the historical record reflect that Aegon was not heir to the throne when Aerys died might turn out to be helpful, if it were possible a child might one day turn up claiming to be Aegon Targaryen. Or if there were ever any doubt raised as to the claim that young Aegon was actually dead.

Better (for the new regime) to identify Aerys' true heir as Viserys - who was evidently rather unstable and unlikeable from a very young age...

.

Oh crap! Yeah i momentarily forgot about Young Griff .Its a twofer as it would help Dany in this situation, put the Rhaegar love child in a new light but alas i feel it would be another powder keg for the realm.

[JNR]

the traditional argument that they were guarding their new King, the babe now known as Jon Snow, has been blown out of the water by the confirmation that Viserys was now the king.

It's so odd to have to speak for RLJ, but in this instance, I'm sure the argument will be made that the KG didn't know Aerys had done that -- they were instead still assuming Rhaegar's last living son would still be the rightful king.

Of course, it's not a good argument. The KG are apparently aware of Aerys' death and Jaime's hand in it, so why not that awfully important bit too, especially since it would have occurred earlier?

And back will come the response that if Yandel had to consult historical records, that means it wasn't a well-known fact... ergo, the KG didn't know it.

To which we might respond: Maybe it was a well-known fact, and Yandel was just verifying it like a good scholar should.

And on and on it goes.

I have suggested before that if, in the next book, Jon's parents are explicitly revealed and they aren't Rhaegar and Lyanna, there will be many in the forums who assume it's a trick, not real, and will confidently assert that until and unless GRRM says flat-out "this is not a trick" in an interview. And maybe even then.

[markg171]

It's so odd to have to speak for RLJ, but in this instance, I'm sure the argument will be made that the KG didn't know Aerys had done that -- they were instead still assuming Rhaegar's last living son would still be the rightful king.

Of course, it's not a good argument. The KG are apparently aware of Aerys' death and Jaime's hand in it, so why not that awfully important bit too, especially since it would have occurred earlier?

And back will come the response that if Yandel had to consult historical records, that means it wasn't a well-known fact... ergo, the KG didn't know it.

To which we might respond: Maybe it was a well-known fact, and Yandel was just verifying it like a good scholar should.

And on and on it goes.

I have suggested before that if, in the next book, Jon's parents are explicitly revealed and they aren't Rhaegar and Lyanna, there will be many in the forums who assume it's a trick, not real, and will confidently assert that until and unless GRRM says flat-out "this is not a trick" in an interview. And maybe even then.

Well so far they've said

- Aerys didn't trust the Dornish so he couldn't have his heir, Aegon, also be his hostage as he has to be willing to kill his hostage

- It's better to have a 7 year old be your heir over a 1 year old

- Aerys went completely mad with the death of Rhaegar

- Aerys choose Viserys because he trusted him

- Wanted to keep the Targaryen bloodline pure by making Viserys heir over the half Dornish Aegon

Nothing about the KG not knowing this information, or that it wasn't a well known fact that Viserys was heir.

As to the "historical records" I'm sure Aerys probably used a maester to let Dragonstone know to expect Viserys and Rhaella. In which case, Yandel could have read that letter that says something like "My new heir Viserys is on his way. Guard him well." Or like you suggested earlier, he made the decree in front of the court and numerous people witnessed it. But if it's in the historical records, then he definitely didn't make it up.

[wolfmaid7]

This was on the WOIAF app i had recalled reading somewhere that Viserys had been crowned on Dragonstone,so i googled the line and got this.This info was under Rhaella's bio on the app

"Following the Sack of King's Landing and the deaths of Aerys, Princess Elia Martell, and the presumed deaths of Rhaegar's children Aegon and Rhaenys, Viserys was declared king on Dragonstone. Nine turns of the moon later, however, the royal fleet was smashed in a storm, and at the same time Rhaella died while giving birth to Daenerys Targaryen, who was known thereafter as Daenerys Stormborn. When the garrison prepared to betray the two remaining Targaryens to Stannis Baratheon and his approaching fleet, the loyal Ser Willem Darry spirited them away to Braavos."

[corbon]

They did indeed chose to stand and fight there and my own argument is that they did so as ronin, avenging their dead master [not Rhaegar but Aerys] the traditional argument that they were guarding their new King, the babe now known as Jon Snow, has been blown out of the water by the confirmation that Viserys was now the king.

Err, no.

It's so odd to have to speak for RLJ, but in this instance, I'm sure the argument will be made that the KG didn't know Aerys had done that -- they were instead still assuming Rhaegar's last living son would still be the rightful king.

Of course, it's not a good argument. The KG are apparently aware of Aerys' death and Jaime's hand in it, so why not that awfully important bit too, especially since it would have occurred earlier?

Indeed.

Thats a bad counter to a good argument.

Their news seems to include Rhaegar's death, Aerys's death, and probably Aegon's death too. Therefore it was initiated after the sack.

Who is in control after the sack? The new regime.

What is their first task? To inform the realm of the regime change. "Hey everybody, its all over now, KL has fallen, the Targs are destroyed, Robert Baratheon is the King, the Lannisters are onside, you all owe allegiance to King Bob and you should all stop fighting now".

What gets included in such a report? The destruction of the Targaryens, the death of Aerys, Rhaegar, and possibly Aegon.

Why? To reduce the chance of hold-outs by eliminating their hopes as much as possible

What does not get included? Irrelevant and potentially damaging information (if it was even know to the rebels) that Viserys was Aerys' named heir.

The basic proclamation goes out, it is disseminated as widely and as fast as possible - there is a regime change after all and the new regime needs everyone to know the important details (Viserys being Aerys' heir is not an important detail for everyone to know, for the new regime).

The supporters of the ToJ (must have had logistical support) get the news and pass it on.

This is what I've believed most likely since ADwD came out, if nt before. The WoIaF book revelations have changed nothing relevant to this.

I have suggested before that if, in the next book, Jon's parents are explicitly revealed and they aren't Rhaegar and Lyanna, there will be many in the forums who assume it's a trick, not real, and will confidently assert that until and unless GRRM says flat-out "this is not a trick" in an interview. And maybe even then.

Such a warm and welcoming place this... :(