BearQueen87 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 The fact that nobody mentions it does not suggest they didn't know, because it never comes up. Why would anyone mention it since the point was moot the moment Aegon died? Just because something is not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. But it does come up. Robert spends time in AGOT worrying about Viserys and what the marriage of Drogo/Dany could mean for him--"The Usurper" but he never says, "that boy was Aerys's heir once Rhaegar died. How many could rally behind him and call him the true king because Aerys made him so" While I agree with the point that not mentioning it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it's not as if GRRM didn't give a perfect set up with Robert and Ned discussing Viserys/Dany quite a bit in Book 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Ygrain, but the point there is that they are not solely Kingsguard. They are knights as well. Ned and Bran are talking about knighthood when the KG comes up, and nothing suggests that you judge a KG solely on his 'king-defending duties'. In fact, this is most certainly not the case as men like Ser Ryam Redwyne and the Dragonknight are praised for their knightly skills and nature, not so much for the fact that they may or may have not successfully defended their king. Aemon died defending his brother but he had long acquired a reputation as the finest knight on earth. And Ser Ryam apparently did not even have the chance to die for his king, as nobody seems to have tried to murder either Jaehaerys or Viserys while he was alive. You are not considering the full picture of the KG in this discussion. They are supposed to be both - a cadre of loyal-to-death bodyguards who obey without question/disobedience as well as a shining example of the virtues of knighthood to bring glory to House Targaryen and the Realm. The latter is why they are famous, and they are famous and loved as such because they excel as knights, not as bodyguards. BearQueen87, why should the succession set up by Aerys II come up in those discussions? Both men new who Viserys was, that Aerys had named him his heir, and that Rhaella had crowned him on Dragonstone. They don't need to discuss stuff like that. George could have included it, but just because it wasn't there doesn't mean that it wasn't the case. We only learned about Viserys' coronation in the App - but we always new he was crowned because he considered himself to be a king. Prince Aegon does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 BearQueen87, why should the succession set up by Aerys II come up in those discussions? Both men new who Viserys was, that Aerys had named him his heir, and that Rhaella had crowned him on Dragonstone. They don't need to discuss stuff like that. George could have included it, but just because it wasn't there doesn't mean that it wasn't the case. We only learned about Viserys' coronation in the App - but we always new he was crowned because he considered himself to be a king. Prince Aegon does not. OR Robert and Ned know nothing about it and can't discuss what they don't know. Honestly, both seem just as likely--and given Robert's blustery nature and almost paranoia that the "dragonspawn" would come to plague him again, why wouldn't he remind Ned that Viserys had been crowned? And given the KG stance of not moving toward DS, even though they know that is where Viserys is, seems to suggest that they don't know anything about what Aerys and his small council did behind closed doors. But what they do know is that Rhaegar had another son by another wife who just so happens to be in that tower behind them. And Viserys would have considered himself King no matter what--being named heir and crowning notwithstanding. He's the only Targ left. Of course he thinks he is King. Aerys: dead. Rhaegar: dead. Aegon: dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Ygrain, but the point there is that they are not solely Kingsguard. They are knights as well. Ned and Bran are talking about knighthood when the KG comes up, and nothing suggests that you judge a KG solely on his 'king-defending duties'. In fact, this is most certainly not the case as men like Ser Ryam Redwyne and the Dragonknight are praised for their knightly skills and nature, not so much for the fact that they may or may have not successfully defended their king. Aemon died defending his brother but he had long acquired a reputation as the finest knight on earth. And Ser Ryam apparently did not even have the chance to die for his king, as nobody seems to have tried to murder either Jaehaerys or Viserys while he was alive. You are not considering the full picture of the KG in this discussion. They are supposed to be both - a cadre of loyal-to-death bodyguards who obey without question/disobedience as well as a shining example of the virtues of knighthood to bring glory to House Targaryen and the Realm. The latter is why they are famous, and they are famous and loved as such because they excel as knights, not as bodyguards. This is getting tedious. Even if I accepted your interpretation that they talked knighthood in general, which I do not, I see nothing in Ned's characteristics that would lead me to believe that he meant "a shining lesson to the world" in terms of swordmanship - or that he would consider the finest knight ever someone who failed to fulfill his sworn duty. Either way, I'm done talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I don't see why he would specifically boast that he was his fathers appointed heir rather than just boast that he is the rightful king. The fact that we don't see him boasting about this is hardly evidence that it he didn't know. The fact that nobody mentions it does not suggest they didn't know, because it never comes up. Why would anyone mention it since the point was moot the moment Aegon died? Just because something is not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. Uh, Viserys is EXACTLY the kind of person who would boast of such a thing...to everyone. "My father chose ME to be the rightful heir to the kingdom" is something I see coming right out of his mouth loudly and often. If you don't agree, well...I think you have a higher opinion of Viserys than most people would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 Uh, Viserys is EXACTLY the kind of person who would boast of such a thing...to everyone. "My father chose ME to be the rightful heir to the kingdom" is something I see coming right out of his mouth loudly and often. If you don't agree, well...I think you have a higher opinion of Viserys than most people would. No, it has nothing to do with my opinion of Viserys. I'm not saying he wasn't boastful. I'm saying he was going around boasting "I am the rightful king" rather than "my father named me his heir." Which makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Han Snow Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 No, it has nothing to do with my opinion of Viserys. I'm not saying he wasn't boastful. I'm saying he was going around boasting "I am the rightful king" rather than "my father named me his heir." Which makes sense. Agree on that. For me the fact that Aeyrs named him the heir reinforces my belief that the three KG did not know it and that they were protecting who they thought to be the rightful heir/future king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Ygrain, I'm not talking solely about swordmanship, either. A knight is sworn to defend the innocent, as I've stated before. And you know the quote. Bran asks whether the KG are the finest knights. Thus the topic becomes the KG as a subset of knights, not a discussion about the KG as the KG, and the virtues they should possess. Not to mention that nothing suggests that Ned actually told Bran what makes a true and great KG, and whether this is different from being a great knight. Nothing in Bran's chapters suggests that he knows anything about those subtleties. And you don't have to accept my interpretation. I'm not trying to convince anyone. All I'm trying to accomplish is to get people to consider that not only one particular interpretation is valid and explains all the facts. BQ87, but Aegon knows he is the only son of Rhaegar and the only male Targaryen left. So he would be king in ADwD when we meet him, would he not? But he does not call him such because he has not been crowned. Just as Haegon and Daemon III Blackfyre did not call themselves king before Bittersteel crowned them. And it is not equally likely that Robert and Ned knew nothing about Viserys' status as Prince of Dragonstone prior to Aerys' death. Maester Yandel knows about that. And nothing suggests that Yandel has even been to KL to do research for his book. Robert and Ned were political leaders and great lords during the Rebellion. People would have told them what was going on. Even Renly learned that Stannis was sending some letters by raven, did he not? And you do know that I do not necessarily consider a conversation in dreams as actual evidence about what the historical characters featuring in that dream may or may not have known? We should not really consider the dream sequence as conclusive proof what the the KG did or did not know. If George had intended to give us 'the truth' he would have decided to make the flashback a memory rather than a dream. Many characters have vivid memories of the past, and I guess we can all agree that those contain more truth than dreams - even old and/or recurring dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 No, it has nothing to do with my opinion of Viserys. I'm not saying he wasn't boastful. I'm saying he was going around boasting "I am the rightful king" rather than "my father named me his heir." Which makes sense. Not really. He's trying to prove to people how much of a king he is. I see no reason he wouldn't have mentioned this had he known about it. He especially would have told his sister. He didn't. IE: we have no indication whatsoever that he ever knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 BQ87, but Aegon knows he is the only son of Rhaegar and the only male Targaryen left. So he would be king in ADwD when we meet him, would he not? But he does not call him such because he has not been crowned. Just as Haegon and Daemon III Blackfyre did not call themselves king before Bittersteel crowned them. And it is not equally likely that Robert and Ned knew nothing about Viserys' status as Prince of Dragonstone prior to Aerys' death. Maester Yandel knows about that. And nothing suggests that Yandel has even been to KL to do research for his book. Robert and Ned were political leaders and great lords during the Rebellion. People would have told them what was going on. Even Renly learned that Stannis was sending some letters by raven, did he not? And you do know that I do not necessarily consider a conversation in dreams as actual evidence about what the historical characters featuring in that dream may or may not have known? We should not really consider the dream sequence as conclusive proof what the the KG did or did not know. If George had intended to give us 'the truth' he would have decided to make the flashback a memory rather than a dream. Many characters have vivid memories of the past, and I guess we can all agree that those contain more truth than dreams - even old and/or recurring dreams. Bullet point style response point by point. 1) Aegon: but he considers himself to be the true king, he just has to win back his father's throne. The ceremony and all that jazz needs to come, yes, but he thinks that he should be king. And again, Dany thinks that Aegon would have been the next king. So did Viserys not tell her that he had been crowned? How does she reconcile that she is the Princess of DS (Viserys's heir) but that Aegon would have been after Rhaegar? Because Aegon is dead, thus of course Viserys is king (not because of Aerys or a crowning) and she is his sister, of course she comes next...that's how it makes sense to them 2) Yandel: Maester Yandel has historical documents that he is working form. None of which means that everyone knew what was going on. Let's say that Robert and Ned did know--fine. That doesn't mean that the KG knew--they aren't "political lords and leaders" as you called them. And aren't they the ones that matter in this? I stand by the belief that if Hightower knew that Viserys had been named heir, after Rhaegar, and he equally knew that Viserys was on DS--he would have gone to DS. 3) Dreams; Yes of course. The dream is highly stylized and ritualized. It may not be "exact memory" but it highlights the men as Ned's subconscious remembers them--that they refused to flee and go elsewhere. They refused to leave the TOJ. What we get later--like from Jaime--is the character of the man who stands out the most, Hightower. Ned "recalls" Hightower believing that Aerys was King in spite of the fact that Aerys did unspeakable things and that, at present, they appear to following only Rhaegar's orders. Did Hightower actually say anything about Aerys still sitting on the IT had he been there? Who the flip knows! It's about how Ned's subconscious recalls the LC--loyal to Aerys as King to the very end. He's not there because he believes Rhaegar to be king (which is perhaps why Dayne and Whent are there). He's there because the king himself is in the tower, not in KL, not on DS...there...in a tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted to snow Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Uh, Viserys is EXACTLY the kind of person who would boast of such a thing...to everyone. "My father chose ME to be the rightful heir to the kingdom" is something I see coming right out of his mouth loudly and often. If you don't agree, well...I think you have a higher opinion of Viserys than most people would. You do realize that he is not a real person... Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Stargaryen Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 No, it has nothing to do with my opinion of Viserys. I'm not saying he wasn't boastful. I'm saying he was going around boasting "I am the rightful king" rather than "my father named me his heir." Which makes sense. That's a reasonable position. I think rather than trying to inject the argument into a specific scene, or set up a hypothetical scenario as others have done, I'd just say that it's a bit odd that the World book is the first time we learned about Viserys being named heir. And I think you'd agree that it is not at all apparent from the previous text that this was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted to snow Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 3) Dreams; Yes of course. The dream is highly stylized and ritualized. It may not be "exact memory" but it highlights the men as Ned's subconscious remembers them--that they refused to flee and go elsewhere. They refused to leave the TOJ. What we get later--like from Jaime--is the character of the man who stands out the most, Hightower. Ned "recalls" Hightower believing that Aerys was King in spite of the fact that Aerys did unspeakable things and that, at present, they appear to following only Rhaegar's orders. Did Hightower actually say anything about Aerys still sitting on the IT had he been there? Who the flip knows! It's about how Ned's subconscious recalls the LC--loyal to Aerys as King to the very end. He's not there because he believes Rhaegar to be king (which is perhaps why Dayne and Whent are there). He's there because the king himself is in the tower, not in KL, not on DS...there...in a tower. Then Why were these 3 King's Guards already at the tower, alone, after Rheagar left but prior to Jon's Birth? Was the king in the tower then? NO, they didn't Jon's sex or even if he would live... More likely they were following orders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Then Why were these 3 King's Guards already at the tower, alone, after Rheagar left but prior to Jon's Birth? Was the king in the tower then? NO, they didn't Jon's sex or even if he would live... More likely they were following orders... Hightower stayed originally because Rhaegar told him to--yes (though was the exact order to protect Lyanna or to guard the land/tower). But after that, the primary KG order kicks in: protect the king. That is the single most important order. If Hightower believed Viserys to be the true king after Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon died...he'd hightail it to DS because Viserys is without a KG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 That's a reasonable position. I think rather than trying to inject the argument into a specific scene, or set up a hypothetical scenario as others have done, I'd just say that it's a bit odd that the World book is the first time we learned about Viserys being named heir. And I think you'd agree that it is not at all apparent from the previous text that this was the case. I think this makes it apparent that Viserys being named heir was not widely known. In fact I doubt that this decree went beyond Aerys' small council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted to snow Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Hightower was not a real person either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I think this makes it apparent that Viserys being named heir was not widely known. In fact I doubt that this decree went beyond Aerys' small council. :agree: Hightower was not a real person either... ....and? He's a character that George has given some definitive traits and acts in ways that GRRM dictates. It means that we can theorize about what he may or may not have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Hightower was not a real person either... Well, duh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 Not really. He's trying to prove to people how much of a king he is. I see no reason he wouldn't have mentioned this had he known about it. He especially would have told his sister. He didn't. IE: we have no indication whatsoever that he ever knew. It's totally possible he mentioned it to someone at some point, just because we don't see it doesn't really suggest that it never occurred. Maybe Martin only recently decided that it made no sense that Aerys would leave Aegon as his heir given his mistrust of the Dornish and plan to burn down King's Landing. And maybe Viserys did tell his sister. As I said before the "he would have been the sixth" line doesn't prove she was unaware, since Viserys is dead when she says it. That's a reasonable position. I think rather than trying to inject the argument into a specific scene, or set up a hypothetical scenario as others have done, I'd just say that it's a bit odd that the World book is the first time we learned about Viserys being named heir. And I think you'd agree that it is not at all apparent from the previous text that this was the case. I don't find it that odd, especially since Jamie does think of Viserys first when thinking who the next king would be. Compare it to Quellon Greyjoy's last minute entrance into the rebellion. This was also never mentioned in the main texts, either because it just didn't come up or because Martin hadn't decided it happened yet. Yet nobody questions that it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Well, duh... And here I was thinking that Martin was writing history! I'm devastated to learn that they are only made-up characters! Now what will I do??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.