R+L=J v.136

[Kingmonkey]

(snip) Ned talks to them of the Battle of the Trident, but leaves out Rhaegar's death or the deaths of others like Darry and Martell, and Ser Barristan's near fatal wounds. He talks of the sack, but leaves out the murders of Elia and her children. And he leaves out the decree. All important information to understand the actions of the three men. Yet, we assume that even though in the dialogue Ned recounts in his dream it doesn't mention things like Rhaegar's death or the murders, that the Kingsguard must know about these things anyway because they are widely known news. The decree should be widely known as well, if it is handled in the normal manner we would expect. How can we assume then they know about some of these widely known facts and not others that are tied up in the same events?

:agree: Nicely put together argument, and this is where anyone who wants to assume the 3KG did not know must start. That's not to say that they did know, simply that it is making an assumption that they did not. It's by no means an unreasonable assumption to make, because it's an assumption that leads to a narrative that is consistent with the known facts. However as it is equally possible to see a narrative that is consistent with the known facts which does not require this assumption, the assumption is not required. Put simply: We do not know, so we should default to the assumption this knowledge is not a special case, while being open-minded to the possibility that it is.

To the next point, in his last statement to the three Kingsguard, Ned as much as says "then why aren't you on Dragonstone guarding Prince Viserys instead of blocking my way to my sister?" The response is "we are not fleeing to Dragonstone or anywhere else because we swore a vow." The question becomes what vow is Ser Gerold talking about? That will be the subject of my next post.

This I believe gets us if not to the heart of the matter, then to the heart of the debate.

Consider the people arguing hardest for They-Did-Not-Know. Consider the people arguing hardest for They-Did-Know. It's pretty close to a straight split between Team Protect and Team Obey. This argument has landed right on the major fault-line that exists in R+L=J, because it appears to directly relate to that fault-line. If the 3KG knew, they must have been Obeying, if they were Protecting, they must not have known.

All very well, except I think this debate is suffering badly from a largely unconcious false correlation. They-Did-Know does not demand Obey over Protect, and They-Did-Not-Know does not demand Protect over Obey.

If the 3KG knew, when did they find out? A week before Ned arrives? An hour? Maybe they had heard so recently they haven't had time to leave yet. Perhaps right before Ned arrived, they had been having a fierce argument about whether they should go to Dragonstone or not. Perhaps they had that argument some days ago, and decided to go as soon as Ned's army moved out of the immediate vicinity so that they would have a chance of getting there without being captured. Perhaps Arthur and Oswell were dye-hard Rhaegar loyalists who had been secretly acting against Aerys for years and had been struggling for the past two weeks to keep Hightower from rushing off to Dragonstone and risking the secrecy of their hiding place. Perhaps Rhaegar had already convinced Hightower of the rightness of his cause before leaving for the Trident and so all three felt they were at the side of the king at that very moment. Perhaps a million options.

You can be on Team Protect and still be happy with They-Did-Know. You can be on Team Obey and think that They-Did-Not-Know. Most importantly of all: We-Do-Not-Know.

[BearQueen87]

You can be on Team Protect and still be happy with They-Did-Know. You can be on Team Obey and think that They-Did-Not-Know. Most importantly of all: We-Do-Not-Know.

Nicely said.

So, in sum there are a few options.

1) The KG knew and decided that they did not care because they were privy to information we are not: R and L were married and they decided to follow that instead but they were not (at least not all) sworn to Rhaegar as King.

2) The KG knew but they had all already sworn allegiance to Rhaegar and thus were sworn to his last born son.

3) The KG knew nothing except for the death of Aerys and Rhaegar (and possibly Aegon) and were following the more obvious custom of passing from father to son once they learned that Aerys, Rhaegar, (and possibly) Aegon were dead.

Personally, I lean one way but I'm also on #TeamProtect and have been for awhile now. In the end, GRRM only knows.

[sj4iy]

I don't think Martin would simply stick in that part about Ned praising Arthur Dayne for any other reason than he died protecting his king. It just makes no sense any other way...even if he died on the orders of Rhaegar, I don't see Ned holding him so highly considering he was leaving his king in trouble by doing so.

So yeah...if I'm wrong, I'm wrong...but until I see something in the text refuting it, that's how I'm going to see it.

[addicted to snow]

That's a good point I haven't seen made before.

Nobody in-universe seems to fault these guys for staying and dying at the tower. Yandel even states that they died nobly, Yet nobody in-universe knows about the possibility that they were defending a claimant to the throne.

I agree, intereting points that I have never seen made before...

[addicted to snow]

Something else I find interesting:: I think that Ned was intent upon killing the Mad King himself & Jamie stole this from him... There is definitely some bitterness there...

[Kingmonkey]

So, in sum there are a few options.

I think we can add a few more.

2a. The KG knew but some of them had already sworn allegiance to Rhaegar and thus were sworn to his last born son, and were able to persuade the rest not to act immediately.

5. The KG didn't know anything, and the ToJ dream dialogue represents the symbolic and thematic meat of a (possibly much) more extensive conversation between Ned and the 3KG, where Ned gave them the news.

6. Team Protect have it right, they swore to obey Rhaegar's order.

7. The ToJ dream dialogue is subconscious justification after the fact by Ned. Something went horribly wrong at the ToJ, and we've yet to find out what.

8. The KG did know, and there was an unresolved dispute between them about the correct action to take at the moment Ned arrived.

9. The KG knew, but had concluded that the matter of succession was not for them to decide on, and being wary of being seen as Kingmakers, decided to stick with their current orders for now.

10. They did know, but had concluded that KG primary duty doesn't actually kick in until coronation, so until then they should stick with their current duties.

11. The KG did know, but had been persuaded that they were fulfilling their duties more definitely by protecting a child prophesied to stop the end of the world than by protecting a well-defended king.

12. The KG knew, and they / some of them recognised Viserys as king, but had not yet gone to Dragonstone, because...

a. they decided that Viserys was as safe as he could be, thus allowing secondary duties to come first for the moment.

b. it simply wasn't practical to drop anything and get there. They had enemies on all sides, and Dragonstone is across the sea. They were biding their time.

c. one does not simply walk into Dragonstone.

I could probably go on.

[Kingmonkey]

I don't think Martin would simply stick in that part about Ned praising Arthur Dayne for any other reason than he died protecting his king. It just makes no sense any other way...even if he died on the orders of Rhaegar, I don't see Ned holding him so highly considering he was leaving his king in trouble by doing so.

We have yet to see another reason, but that does not mean there isn't one. Let me just remind you of this:

Arthur Dayne has been presented as the quintessential chivalrous knight. How could he support the atrocities of Aerys, that even Jaime was horrified by?

Well... keep reading.

Why pick out Dayne over Whent and Hightower if it's just about dying for the king? More particularly, an insane king who'd killed Ned's brother and father, and who Ned had been willing to risk everything to depose?

Ned has great respect for knights who are true to the honourable duties of knighthood, but little respect for the institution of knighthood itself. Moreover, he's not a man to put authority above honour. He, as Hand, goes directly against the king for the sake of honour. Would he really consider a Kingsguard who died in the service of a dishonourable king to be a shining example?

Here's what Ned says about a contemporary of Dayne who failed to die in the service of his king at that time:

"Ser Barristan is as valiant and honorable as any man in King's Landing." Ned had come to have a deep respect for the aged, white-haired Lord Commander of the Kingsguard.

Ned has a lot of respect for Barristan. He's one of the few people in King's Landing Ned actually considers highly.

"Cats." Ned sighed. "Perhaps it was a mistake to hire this Braavosi. If you like, I will ask Jory to take over your lessons. Or I might have a quiet word with Ser Barristan. He was the finest sword in the Seven Kingdoms in his youth."

In Ned's mind, Barristan was the finest swordsman, yet Dayne was the shining example.

Ser Barristan was an old man, and rigid. He would tell Ned to do his duty.

However, Barristan has a flaw. He is inflexible, and puts duty over doing what's right.

"It shall be as you command, my lord." Ser Barristan seemed old beyond his years. "I have failed my sacred trust."

"Even the truest knight cannot protect a king against himself," Ned said.

Ned does not consider a Kingsguard remiss when they failed to save a king from their bringing their own destruction upon themselves.

Ser Barristan Selmy was the first to answer the summons, immaculate in white cloak and enameled scales. "My lords," he said, "my place is beside the young king now. Pray give me leave to attend him."

"Your place is here, Ser Barristan," Ned told him.

[...]

He trusted neither Pycelle nor Varys, and Ser Barristan was honor-bound to protect and defend the boy he thought his new king. The old knight would not abandon Joffrey easily. The need for deceit was a bitter taste in his mouth, but Ned knew he must tread softly here, must keep his counsel and play the game until he was firmly established as regent. There would be time enough to deal with the succession when Arya and Sansa were safely back in Winterfell, and Lord Stannis had returned to King's Landing with all his power.

Ned does not want Barristan to blindly follow his duty, he wants to convince Barristan to do what's right for the realm, and to help him wrest power from the dead king's successor.

So how does this reflect on Ned's memory of Arthur? What qualities did Arthur have that Barristan lacked, that made Arthur the shining example? Perhaps that he lacked those exact failings that Ned sees in Barristan. Arthur was not rigid. He did not consider himself remiss for failing to protect a king who doomed himself through his own self-destructive actions. He would not blindly follow the acknowledged authority if the alternative was really the right thing to do.

In short, I propose that the reason Ned holds Arthur in such high regard is exactly because, to answer that SSM, Arthur did not support the atrocities of Aerys, but acted honourably to try to stop them. Further, that Arthur's death protecting his king was not something Ned considered honourable, but tragic. Remember in Ned's dream, the two people who show sadness are Arthur and Ned. Ned considered Arthur to have been on the right side all along, but discovered this too late.

[Lord Varys]

It is practically confirmed that Oswell and Arthur were plotting with Rhaegar against Aerys. This makes them technically traitors but also 'honorable men' from the POV of people who did not want to serve a mad king. And it is clear that Rhaegar did not want to kill or harm his father. He just wanted to depose him as king.

[sj4iy]

We have yet to see another reason, but that does not mean there isn't one.

Which is why I said "until I see textual evidence otherwise"...

And really, it's nothing to do with any of the KG that has me thinking it- it's Ned's praise. Why would he name Arthur Dayne as the best KG ever if the man didn't die protecting his king? That's pretty much the long and short of it to me.

Until the books or show specifically refute it, I will believe that's what happened.

[Kingmonkey]

Which is why I said "until I see textual evidence otherwise"...

And really, it's nothing to do with any of the KG that has me thinking it- it's Ned's praise. Why would he name Arthur Dayne as the best KG ever if the man didn't die protecting his king? That's pretty much the long and short of it to me.

Until the books or show specifically refute it, I will believe that's what happened.

We are not given an explanation for Ned's opinion of Arthur. All we can do is draw conclusions based on our reading of Ned's character. That's what you've done, and it's what I've done. You already have adopted a viewpoint without direct evidence. If you demand direct evidence, you shouldn't have an opinion. If you consider indirect evidence through a reading of Ned's character, then why not consider alternative readings?

"Why would he name Arthur Dayne as the best KG ever if the man didn't die protecting his king?" For the reasons I described above. I think it's a pretty cogent explanation, and it makes sense of that SSM. Everyone can believe what they want and it would be a boring thread indeed if we all agreed on every detail, but it's really not the case that there's no other valid explanations -- even if you don't like them as much as the one you've chosen.

[BearQueen87]

[snip]

Ooooh, lot-o-options.

I said this a few pages back but in the end I don't even think it matters.

1) I really don't believe that Westeros (or whatever is left of it) will chose their next King based on the answer to the question "who is the rightful Targaryen heir?"

2) It doesn't negate all the other evidence for RL to be married. Either the KG didn't know about Viserys but did know that RL were married and that baby boy Jon was legit OR the KG knew and made a decision based on either loyalty, precedent, or something else.

Someone said this upthread but Viserys's claim to the throne ended long ago, with a pot of molten gold. Dany is intent on taking the IT by conquering, not by showing up and saying, "so my brother was actually the heir and I was his..." And Jon...is inside a puppy dog.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Ooooh, lot-o-options.

I said this a few pages back but in the end I don't even think it matters.

1) I really don't believe that Westeros (or whatever is left of it) will chose their next King based on the answer to the question "who is the rightful Targaryen heir?"

2) It doesn't negate all the other evidence for RL to be married. Either the KG didn't know about Viserys but did know that RL were married and that baby boy Jon was legit OR the KG knew and made a decision based on either loyalty, precedent, or something else.

Someone said this upthread but Viserys's claim to the throne ended long ago, with a pot of molten gold. Dany is intent on taking the IT by conquering, not by showing up and saying, "so my brother was actually the heir and I was his..." And Jon...is inside a puppy dog.

While I agree with these points, I think that the "Viserys was named heir" point is a valid issue to raise concerning An issue that I have brought up over and over again is that I think too many people analyze these issues in the way they might be analyzed if these were actual historical events rather than a piece of literature. In the "real world" any possible explanation must be considered. In literature, the author -- at least any good author -- generally will not go for an "out there" explanation of events. The author has set up the situation to make the likely explanations the points of controversy -- and then readers have to choose which they think is correct -- and then the author reveals who was right. Random pieces of evidence are not usually just thrown in for no reason.

So why did GRRM add into WOIAF that Viserys was the heir to Aerys? It might be an accident or mistake -- but I think we need to assume it was intentional. So what was the point? I also am part of Team Protect, as the overall evidence I see suggests that unless the 3 KG believed they were guarding the King, at some point they likely would have acted differently. Or, to put it a different way, I think GRRM has set up a situation in which he is trying to get careful readers to realize that they are guarding the King. The counter-theory that they merely were following the last orders they got seems hollow to me.

But then I still need to come up with an explanation of why GRRM chose to add that "Viserys as heir" quote in WOIAF. Was he giving a clue about the falling-out between Aeyrs and Rhaegar so that the reveal regarding what Rhaegar was really planning makes more sense? Was he just saying something about "unreliable narrators" and how the maesters conflate things and don't always get them right, and that Viserys was not the "heir" until Aegon was dead, but because everything happened so quickly between sending Viserys to DS and the Sack of KL that they were sloppy? Was he merely throwing in a red herring to distract readers from thinking of Jon as the King (at least from a Targ loyalist point of view)?

I admit I am having a bit of trouble deciding what purpose it served to add that tidbit about Viserys being heir -- when it clearly seems to be an implicit attack on the arguments that Team Protect have been making for year on this board -- that at least one KG would have gone to DS if Viserys was (or arguably might be) the legit King. This explanation is the best way to understand the statements in the Ned conversation in which the KG state why they did not go to DS (i.e., that Darry is a good man, but not of KG and KG don't flee). If the KG thought Viserys was or might be the legit Targ King, then this statement is hard to parse. How is it fleeing to go to protect the heir apparent? I also do not believe the argument that Hightower would have "switched" sides and considered Rhaegar and not Aerys to be "King" (prior to Rhaegar's death).

So while I cannot completely explain the reference in WOIAF to Viserys being the heir (and it does not say "named by Aerys as heir" -- just "heir to Aerys" so we are not sure why they stated he was the heir while Aegon was still alive), this line in a side-book does not undo the analysis that leads me to believe the 3 KG considered Jon to be King and remained at ToJ because they believed they were guarding the King. How to reconcile that conclusion with the information about Viserys as heir is not clear, but my best guess is the information simply was not widely known (it was not done as a public decree), and so the KG simply did not know that Aerys named Viserys as heir. So why did GRRM put that tidbit in WOIAF? I really am not sure.

[Ygritte]

But then I still need to come up with an explanation of why GRRM chose to add that "Viserys as heir" quote in WOIAF. Was he giving a clue about the falling-out between Aeyrs and Rhaegar so that the reveal regarding what Rhaegar was really planning makes more sense? Was he just saying something about "unreliable narrators" and how the maesters conflate things and don't always get them right, and that Viserys was not the "heir" until Aegon was dead, but because everything happened so quickly between sending Viserys to DS and the Sack of KL that they were sloppy? Was he merely throwing in a red herring to distract readers from thinking of Jon as the King (at least from a Targ loyalist point of view)?

What I've been wondering the last few days is if it's more about Aegon--whether fAegon or rAegon--than about Jon. As in, no matter what the KG were doing, I don't think Jon's arc will necessarily end with him sitting on the throne, and it doesn't need to; he's got a lot of other stuff going on. Someone upthread mentioned it as a possible setup for another Dance of Dragons, and I think that may be it. It sets up a conflict between Dany and Aegon (or their supporters). If the succession went as normal, then Dany only became the official heir after baby Aegon and Viserys were both dead, but if this decree is real, then it puts Dany ahead of any real or fake Aegon. So then you could have Aegon claiming the throne's his because he was the male heir, and Dany arguing her claim is better because of the decree. You could have the Dornish arguing that the decree is fake, and so on.

I hope it's not setting up rAegon, because I prefer fAegon, but I think this reveal may have more to do with them than with Jon. GRRM may not have even thought through whether it throws a wrench in the Jon clues. If it doesn't matter at all to his eventual arc--if he's not going to be king--GRRM may not have remembered it would mess with the AGOT dream dialogue.

[Alia of the knife]

Again, in terms of getting information, I just don't understand why the KG wouldn't actively seek to stay in the loop. They wouldn't have contacts in KL that might be outside the usual raven path, or a scout out and about in the local markets outside the TOJ?

Oswell would have contacts via Harrenhal, and if his family asked Lyanna to stay on as a guest, (maybe via Rhaegar), that is a source, (where is that Whent daughter again), because the one thing we're missing is someone who might have known Lyannas innermost thoughts as in a BFF.

[BearQueen87]

But then I still need to come up with an explanation of why GRRM chose to add that "Viserys as heir" quote in WOIAF. Was he giving a clue about the falling-out between Aeyrs and Rhaegar so that the reveal regarding what Rhaegar was really planning makes more sense? Was he just saying something about "unreliable narrators" and how the maesters conflate things and don't always get them right, and that Viserys was not the "heir" until Aegon was dead, but because everything happened so quickly between sending Viserys to DS and the Sack of KL that they were sloppy? Was he merely throwing in a red herring to distract readers from thinking of Jon as the King (at least from a Targ loyalist point of view)?

Like Ygritte said, it's possible that it's a set up for Dany/Aegon but then also Dany/Jon. If Viserys was Aerys's true heir then Viserys's heir Dany, making her claim more than just wanting to take the throne back for her family. It's hers by right of succession. (side note: But again, it doesn't matter because anyone who wants that stupid and ugly chair is going to have to take it by force and not by "I was the real heir!" whether it be Aegon, Dany or Jon.) It could play into the role of who is chosen as King once the War is over and all is revealed--including Dany's claim as Viserys's heir and Jon's claim as Rhaegar's son.

Again, in terms of getting information, I just don't understand why the KG wouldn't actively seek to stay in the loop. They wouldn't have contacts in KL that might be outside the usual raven path, or a scout out and about in the local markets outside the TOJ?

Oswell would have contacts via Harrenhal, and if his family asked Lyanna to stay on as a guest, (maybe via Rhaegar), that is a source, (where is that Whent daughter again), because the one thing we're missing is someone who might have known Lyannas innermost thoughts as in a BFF.

One wonders if Lyanna and Ashara met at HH.....

[MtnLion]

It is practically confirmed that Oswell and Arthur were plotting with Rhaegar against Aerys. This makes them technically traitors but also 'honorable men' from the POV of people who did not want to serve a mad king. And it is clear that Rhaegar did not want to kill or harm his father. He just wanted to depose him as king.

No it is not confirmed. Oswell and Arthur were Rhaegar's sworn swords, but still they were Kingsguard, assigned by Aerys to protect Rhaegar, wherever he went. If you really want to prove that they were other than honorable knights in Ned's eyes, you must provide proof that Ned knows that they weren't. You can't make statements that relate to a reader's view influencing a character's view. Ned is a character, and in spite of what nay reader believes, Ned has his own beliefs. Ned has his own observations.

[RumHam]

I really dont understand why people feel the need to defend the notion that Viserys is possibly the heir of Aerys. In case anyone forgot, his claim to the throne ended with a pot of molten gold poured onto his head. And even if he was the chosen heir, that technicality is not going to make people in Westeros accept Daenerys as queen, her on the back of Drogon leading an army will. And even that depends on whether or not Daenerys decides to accept Jon as the rightful king post battle of the dawn.

It's just mildly annoying when people discount new information for no other reason than because it doesn't mesh with their preferred theories. I agree it probably won't have any bearing on Daenerys' claim.

So why did GRRM add into WOIAF that Viserys was the heir to Aerys? It might be an accident or mistake -- but I think we need to assume it was intentional.

Just in case you missed it, the reason this whole issue came up again is because Ran confirmed that it was not a mistake.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I see no reason why Yandel would lie about the heir-issue, so he most likely is telling it as he has received the facts. The provider of these facts most likely was Pycelle, who, I think, had no reason to lie about the issue.

Could he even have lied? Wouldn't Aerys' small council, as far as it remained, have been present for such a thing? And besides Rossart, none of the post-Trident small council members are stated to have died, so we can assume more than Pycelle had survived, right?

[The Twinslayer]

:agree: Nicely put together argument, and this is where anyone who wants to assume the 3KG did not know must start. That's not to say that they did know, simply that it is making an assumption that they did not. It's by no means an unreasonable assumption to make, because it's an assumption that leads to a narrative that is consistent with the known facts. However as it is equally possible to see a narrative that is consistent with the known facts which does not require this assumption, the assumption is not required. Put simply: We do not know, so we should default to the assumption this knowledge is not a special case, while being open-minded to the possibility that it is.

This I believe gets us if not to the heart of the matter, then to the heart of the debate.

Consider the people arguing hardest for They-Did-Not-Know. Consider the people arguing hardest for They-Did-Know. It's pretty close to a straight split between Team Protect and Team Obey. This argument has landed right on the major fault-line that exists in R+L=J, because it appears to directly relate to that fault-line. If the 3KG knew, they must have been Obeying, if they were Protecting, they must not have known.

All very well, except I think this debate is suffering badly from a largely unconcious false correlation. They-Did-Know does not demand Obey over Protect, and They-Did-Not-Know does not demand Protect over Obey.

If the 3KG knew, when did they find out? A week before Ned arrives? An hour? Maybe they had heard so recently they haven't had time to leave yet. Perhaps right before Ned arrived, they had been having a fierce argument about whether they should go to Dragonstone or not. Perhaps they had that argument some days ago, and decided to go as soon as Ned's army moved out of the immediate vicinity so that they would have a chance of getting there without being captured. Perhaps Arthur and Oswell were dye-hard Rhaegar loyalists who had been secretly acting against Aerys for years and had been struggling for the past two weeks to keep Hightower from rushing off to Dragonstone and risking the secrecy of their hiding place. Perhaps Rhaegar had already convinced Hightower of the rightness of his cause before leaving for the Trident and so all three felt they were at the side of the king at that very moment. Perhaps a million options.

You can be on Team Protect and still be happy with They-Did-Know. You can be on Team Obey and think that They-Did-Not-Know. Most importantly of all: We-Do-Not-Know.

I don't think the "did they know or didn't they" debate really matters. I think we now have enough information to conclude that the "Team Protect" argument is wrong whether they knew or not.

Here is why. We now know conclusively that after Rhaegar died, Viserys was the "new heir." Whether this happened automatically or because of a decree by Aerys, it happened. And Maester Yandel accepts that this was valid. Viserys was the new heir.

If it happened automatically (son of a king coming before son of a dead prince) then Hightower would know that Viserys was his new king.

If it happened because of a decree, there are two possibilities. First, Hightower knew about the decree and none of the three Kingsguard went to Dragonstone. In this scenario, the "Team Protect" argument must be wrong.

The second possibility is that Hightower did not know about it. In that case, he must have known it was a very real possibility. As Lord Commander of the Kingsguard and a member of the Small Council, he would understand that Aerys had every right to choose his new heir once Rhaegar was dead. That alone is sufficient for us to conclude that Hightower did not think that Jon was the new king. At most, Hightower would have thought that Jon was a potential claimant.

Hightower would also know that Aerys would be predisposed to choose his own full-Targ son Viserys (who was closer to adulthood) over Rhaegar's half-Dornish infant son. And he would know that Aerys had not named Jon Snow as the new heir because even if Aerys knew that Lyanna was pregnant he did not know Jon would be a boy. In other words, Hightower had to know that Aerys had the power to choose his new heir and that if he exercised that power (1) he probably chose Viserys, and (2) he definitely did not choose Jon.

Now, if "Team Protect" is right and one Kingsguard has to go to the new king, then at a minimum Hightower would have been required to go to King's Landing or to Dragonstone (or to send one of the others) to find out who his new king was after Aerys died. The "Team Protect" theory cannot explain why Hightower did not do this.

But the "Team Obey" theory can. If they were following orders, it does not matter who the new king was, they all had to stay where they were.

[Alia of the knife]

I admit I am having a bit of trouble deciding what purpose it served to add that tidbit about Viserys being heir -- when it clearly seems to be an implicit attack on the arguments that Team Protect have been making for year on this board -- that at least one KG would have gone to DS if Viserys was (or arguably might be) the legit King. This explanation is the best way to understand the statements in the Ned conversation in which the KG state why they did not go to DS (i.e., that Darry is a good man, but not of KG and KG don't flee). If the KG thought Viserys was or might be the legit Targ King, then this statement is hard to parse. How is it fleeing to go to protect the heir apparent? I also do not believe the argument that Hightower would have "switched" sides and considered Rhaegar and not Aerys to be "King" (prior to Rhaegar's death).

So while I cannot completely explain the reference in WOIAF to Viserys being the heir (and it does not say "named by Aerys as heir" -- just "heir to Aerys" so we are not sure why they stated he was the heir while Aegon was still alive), this line in a side-book does not undo the analysis that leads me to believe the 3 KG considered Jon to be King and remained at ToJ because they believed they were guarding the King. How to reconcile that conclusion with the information about Viserys as heir is not clear, but my best guess is the information simply was not widely known (it was not done as a public decree), and so the KG simply did not know that Aerys named Viserys as heir. So why did GRRM put that tidbit in WOIAF? I really am not sure.

I supsect what the author is doing is twofold.

I think in terms of the "unreliable narrarator," he is referencing history in regards to the notion that "history is written by the victors," in terms of how the latter end of the Targaryen dynasty played out.

And the second is to flesh out the fact the "secrets of the Red Keep," as well as get a sense of the relationship between Aerys and his father, (and perhaps Rhaellas part in all this as well), which GRRM had promised to do some time back, creating this narrative of discontent in the family which Varys also played upon.

Perhaps Rhaegar had good reason to concerned about his place as heir, especially in light of Rans confirmation about succession.

Its true that most kings did indeed follow those lines, but we do see that Henry II was prepared to make his favorite and youngest son John, his heir. We also see that his own mother was removed from the line of succession by the Norman barons who wanted her cousin, Stephen of Blois.

However, having said all that, there are still people alive who probably know the true events as they played out like JonCon, Doran, and perhaps some of the Daynes, (and maybe that mysterious Whent daughter), but wisely keep their own counsel and their mouths shut.

The other is that while there is the issue of Yandel perhaps pandering to the current dynasty, I go back to the example of Shakespeare and his writing largely for the Tudor Court, using Richard III as an example because there are still grains of truth sprinkled throughout such writing.

While Richard III turns out to be not the "crouchback" monster painted by his detractors, (there were also rumors that his brother Edward IV was indeed a bastard), and he was quite well regarded by many who thought he would have made a better king than Henry who didn't ever grow up in England, the current evidence does hold that he, or someone he appointed was responsible for the deaths of his nephews, though it be true that they were actually more dangerous to the Tudors.

Even as Richard is properly reburied this sunday, that debate still rages on.

In terms of inverse, I also think what we see developing is a narrative around Aerys. Aerys was mad, but was he stupid and not right to be paranoid about what was going on around him, maybe down to his own son and wife?,(at least until Lyanna Stark roled into town and upended everything).

We also see a narrative developing that far from being an aloof, and "above-the-political" frey noble warrior poet, Rhaegar may have been quite involved in playing the GOT, and while it might have understandable seeing that his father was destroying the credibility of what was left of the Targ,, dynasty, Aerys would not have been the first mad Targaryen, and removing him thus certainly didn't set a good precedent for future kings whose sons might decide them "mad," nor for the KG who chose to involve themselves.