UnmaskedLurker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 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. Good points -- although I find it implausible that GRRM would "forget" how this information affects the Jon reveal. And the point is not that this information will affect whether Jon become King -- I don't think it will. First, Jon would never actively pursue the throne -- the only way to win the game of thrones is not to play the game of thrones, and Jon will never play the game of thrones. I think if Jon becomes King, Dany, fAegon, Stannis and any other realistic heir to the throne by "blood" or other "right of inheritance" will be dead. But this information is relevant to the analysis of whether the 3 KG thought they were guarding the King. GRRM needs to make their behavior understandable, and I am not sure how GRRM does that if they know that Aerys named Viserys as the heir. No matter what happens regarding Dany's or fAegon's or Jon's claim, we still need to make sense of their behavior and why they stayed at ToJ. If the final explanation is merely that "they were following the last orders they were given" then I will be both surprised and disappointed in GRRM. The idea that Dany will bring this point up in her battle with fAegon is intriguing and plausible. I like that explanation. Even though both would only become king/queen based on right of conquest, they also want to believe themselves to be the rightful heir. If Dany truly believed that Aegon was the rightful heir to the Targ throne under the normal rules of inheritance for a Targ, she would have a hard time justifying attacking him. But if she can argue that it does not matter if Aegon is real because Aerys disinherited Aegon, then she keeps her personal moral high ground -- which might not matter to anyone else, but I think matters to Dany. 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. Just in case you missed it, the reason this whole issue came up again is because Ran confirmed that it was not a mistake. I agree with your first point, which is why I don't discount it just because it is evidence against my Team Protect theory. I don't think it is powerful counter-evidence to make me reconsider my position. But I acknowledge that an alternative explanation is required -- and we can only speculate on what the explanation might be. And yes, I had missed the Ran confirmation -- but I am not surprised to hear it. While there are some "mistakes" in the book regarding certain years and event references (as many know, Ran monitored an entire thread on the WOIAF sub-board to go through all the mistakes people found and confirmed or denied they were mistakes), a mistake like this would be highly unlikely because there really is no realistic way for it to come in as a mistake. But it is always useful to eliminate even the unlikeliest of possibilities, and I agree that some explanation for how it can be reconciled with the 3 KG at ToJ is necessary. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that GRRM created an unintended "hole" in the story -- the RLJ mystery is too central to be overlooked when inserted a point about who is heir to the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alia of the knife Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 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. I'm not sure if its "confirmed," but I think Selmys allusion to the "secrets of the Red Keep," and that Rhaegar trusted at least Dayne rather than turning to him, might point to Dayne, and then Whents part in a conspiracy as he disapprovingly compares that to his current situation in Danys adminstration, in "playing the GOT." My impression is that Selmy was saying had Rhaegar trusted him, he would have told him to forget whatever he was planning and bide his time unlike perhaps whatever Dayne and Whent might have been encouraging him to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 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. Your argument has a fatal flaw -- absent knowledge of a decree, Hightower would have no reason to believe that any possible controversy exists regarding who was the Targ heir. If you look in the Targ history, it is rare for there to be any question regarding who is the next king. Hightower would not think -- "Gee, as of the time I left KL, Aerys did not name an heir, but maybe during the month or so that I have been gone, he named an explicit heir, so I better go back to KL to find out if such an unlikely event happened before considering Jon to be King." The only example I can think of where the King explicitly named an heir was Rhaenyra -- and we all know how that worked out. She is not listed in the official list of who sat on the IT. So the King's attempt to name an heir was not respected. It is not entirely clear that after that experience, a precedent might have been set that a Targ king cannot name a different heir. But that is not really the point. I admit that at a minimum, naming an heir probably would create a question that likely would have to go before a GC. But given that Hightower would have no reason to believe that Aerys would take such a step in naming an heir during the brief period of time between when Hightower left KL and the ToJ battle (especially given the relevant Targ history), I believe it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Hightower believed Jon was King and had no reason to think that Aerys might have named Viserys heir nor any reason to think he needed to go back to KL to make sure such a naming had not occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thought you guys would be interested in this new tidbit on the Pact of Ice and Fire, especially cause of the secret marriage aspect: For space reasons, details around the pact -- particularly certain scurrilous details from one Mushroom, involving Prince Jacaerys allegedly falling in love with and secretly marrying Lord Cregan’s bastard half-sister http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/2zd5yf/spoilers_all_amaa_w_elio_linda_of_westerosorg/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thought you guys would be interested in this new tidbit on the Pact of Ice and Fire, especially cause of the secret marriage aspect: http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/2zd5yf/spoilers_all_amaa_w_elio_linda_of_westerosorg/ Oh Mushroom. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thought you guys would be interested in this new tidbit on the Pact of Ice and Fire, especially cause of the secret marriage aspect: http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/2zd5yf/spoilers_all_amaa_w_elio_linda_of_westerosorg/ Bastard half-sister.....? Gods, I want to see the upper part of that tree so badly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Twinslayer Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Your argument has a fatal flaw -- absent knowledge of a decree, Hightower would have no reason to believe that any possible controversy exists regarding who was the Targ heir. If you look in the Targ history, it is rare for there to be any question regarding who is the next king. Hightower would not think -- "Gee, as of the time I left KL, Aerys did not name an heir, but maybe during the month or so that I have been gone, he named an explicit heir, so I better go back to KL to find out if such an unlikely event happened before considering Jon to be King." The only example I can think of where the King explicitly named an heir was Rhaenyra -- and we all know how that worked out. She is not listed in the official list of who sat on the IT. So the King's attempt to name an heir was not respected. It is not entirely clear that after that experience, a precedent might have been set that a Targ king cannot name a different heir. But that is not really the point. I admit that at a minimum, naming an heir probably would create a question that likely would have to go before a GC. But given that Hightower would have no reason to believe that Aerys would take such a step in naming an heir during the brief period of time between when Hightower left KL and the ToJ battle (especially given the relevant Targ history), I believe it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Hightower believed Jon was King and had no reason to think that Aerys might have named Viserys heir nor any reason to think he needed to go back to KL to make sure such a naming had not occurred.I disagree. The mere fact that Aerys chose Viserys to be his successor and that Yandel considered that selection valid means that Hightower would have to be aware of the possibility. Otherwise, Yandel would have said that Aerys tried to name a new heir and the validity of that selection was never put to the test because Aegon died before Aerys did. So far as precedent is concerned, it seems generally accepted in main series that a king can name his own heir. Stannis certainly thinks he can do it (offers to name Renly his heir). So does Robb Stark (puts Jon before Sansa). And Balon Greyjoy (Theon claims to be his heir and Balon says something like "we shall see about that.") Arianne Martell even believes that Doran can alter the Dornish succession, and both Tywin and Tyrion believe that Tywin can determine the succession for Casterly Rock. There is a civil war raging and Aerys believes that the only potential heirs he has left are his sister-wife, his young son, his infant grandson and his young grand-daughter. Hightower would have to be very short-sighted not to consider the likelihood that Aerys made some plan for the succession. Which means that the succession was irrelevant to the reason Hightower, Whent and Dayne stayed at the toj. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I disagree. The mere fact that Aerys chose Viserys to be his successor and that Yandel considered that selection valid means that Hightower would have to be aware of the possibility. Otherwise, Yandel would have said that Aerys tried to name a new heir and the validity of that selection was never put to the test because Aegon died before Aerys did. So far as precedent is concerned, it seems generally accepted in main series that a king can name his own heir. Stannis certainly thinks he can do it (offers to name Renly his heir). So does Robb Stark (puts Jon before Sansa). And Balon Greyjoy (Theon claims to be his heir and Balon says something like "we shall see about that.") Arianne Martell even believes that Doran can alter the Dornish succession, and both Tywin and Tyrion believe that Tywin can determine the succession for Casterly Rock. There is a civil war raging and Aerys believes that the only potential heirs he has left are his sister-wife, his young son, his infant grandson and his young grand-daughter. Hightower would have to be very short-sighted not to consider the likelihood that Aerys made some plan for the succession. Which means that the succession was irrelevant to the reason Hightower, Whent and Dayne stayed at the toj. Examples of who would inherit anything other than IT is irrelevant. The IT rules have never been identical to every other House. But the real point is that Hightower was in KL not too long prior to the battle at ToJ. There is NO reason for him to even contemplate that Aerys would name an heir. Aerys had been on the throne for years without explicitly naming an heir. The war had been going on for months before Hightower left KL and Aerys had not named an heir. No one since Rhaenyra had been explicitly named as heir to the IT. Why would Hightower even think to consider the possibility that Aerys would name an heir in the short period of time between when Hightower left KL and the death of Aerys? Bottom line -- you stated that we have enough information to conclude that Team Protect must be wrong. But we don't have enough information because we don't know whether it would have even occurred to Hightower that Aerys might have explicitly named an heir. Certainly in the years I have seen this issue debated before WOIAF was released, I don't recall any poster speculating about the possibility. So why would Hightower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ygrain Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Sheesh. Aerys needed Rhaegar to come and deal with the Rebellion, so until the warhammer time, the idea of a change in the succession line would hardly cross anyone's mind. Post-Trident, maybe, but then we have only a short time window between the Trident and the Sack, and given the ramifications of the defeat of the Targ army, I doubt that the succession order was high on anyone's list of priorities. Also, it is nice to see the examples when the liege decided to mess with the succession line because the person at the top of it was, for one reason or another, found lacking (Theon, Tyrion), or the succesion had to yield to politics (Renly). And as we can see, those are exceptions, not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Alia, well, I'm using 'confirmed' in my usual 'casual way'. Remember, I'm thinking it's evident that ADwD confirmed that Jon Snow is indeed Rhaegar's son by Lyanna as Ashara Dayne - the only reasonable suspect in favor of being Jon's mother - is officially out. Barristan was not part of Rhaegar's inner circle which included some Kingsguard (Dayne, Whent, and possibly Prince Lewyn as well, at least until Harrenhal). Selmy would have been considered to be part of the 'Aerys party' or rather 'the traditionalist Kingsguard' who would not support a coup of the Prince of Dragonstone against his father the king despite the fact that the man was nuts and ruining Realm and dynasty. Darry and Hightower would have belonged to them as well. Although Ser Gerold may actually have changed his mind on Aerys when he decided to stay at the tower. Telling Jaime not to judge the king etc. may just have been a way to prevent the boy from becoming a kingslayer. I imagine Gerold and the others would have realized how affected Jaime was with what he had to witness at court. But this does not necessarily mean that Ser Gerold was loyal to the end to Aerys II. In fact, I'd assume that he was not. And perhaps I can even try use this whole as an olive branch to MtnLion: Would you agree that Ser Gerold could have stayed at the tower because he and the others decided to consider Rhaegar the true king/head of House Targaryen when Rhaegar parted with them? If this was the case they sort of betrayed their vow to Aerys but kept a new one. Then later on they may very well have believed that Rhaegar's son either 'the true king' or a very important prince of the blood they were swore to protect. Whatever they considered Jon to be would depend on what they knew when and when exactly Jon was born. If the child was only born shortly before Ned's arrival and they already knew that Aerys was dead and Viserys on Dragonstone than they would have stayed with Lyanna despite the fact that they should protect other members of the royal family. UL and Ygrain: Ran has confirmed that male primogeniture was not necessarily binding. There were two precedents against male primogeniture in the third century - Aegon V, and Jaehaerys II - which essentially should have enabled Aerys II to name any male relative his heir. Aerys also apparently considered disinheriting Rhaegar prior to the Trident just as Rhaegar considered deposing his father. Aerys preferring Viserys over Aegon after the Trident should essentially be both a leftover of his quarrels with Rhaegar as well as an outgrowth of his mistrust of the Dornishmen culminating in using Elia and her children as hostages against Doran. UL, here is a complete list of the known and recognized Heir Apparents to the Iron Throne: - Prince Aenys, heir to Aegon I, possibly also Prince of Dragonstone (TWoIaF and 'The Sons of the Dragon' are at odds there; Ran says TWoIaF superseded 'The Sons of the Dragons' which should result a difference text of 'The Sons of the Dragon' in 'Fire and Blood') - Prince Aegon, Prince of Dragonstone, heir to Aenys I - Princess Aerea - not know if she was also named Princess of Dragonstone, heiress of Maegor I - Prince Aemon, presumably Prince of Dragonstone, original heir of Jaehaerys I - Prince Baelon, Prince of Dragonstone, second heir of Jaehaerys I - Prince Viserys, Prince of Dragonstone, final heir of Jaehaerys I - Princess Rhaenyra, Princess of Dragonstone and heiress of Viserys I - Prince Daeron, presumably Prince of Dragonstone, heir of Aegon III - Prince Baelor, possibly Prince of Dragonstone, heir presumptive of Daeron I - Prince Aegon, Prince of Dragonstone, heir of Viserys II - Prince Daeron, Prince of Dragonstone, heir of Aegon IV - Prince Baelor, Prince of Dragonstone, first heir of Daeron II - Prince Valarr, Prince of Dragonstone, second heir of Daeron II - Prince Rhaegel, Prince of Dragonstone, first heir of Aerys I - Prince Aelor, Prince of Dragonstone, second heir of Aerys I - Prince Maekar, Prince of Dragonstone, final heir of Aerys I - Prince Daeron, Prince of Dragonstone (formerly Prince of Summerhall), first heir of Maekar I - Prince Aerion, presumably Prince of Dragonstone, second heir of Maekar I - Prince Duncan, Prince of Dragonstone, first heir of Aegon V - Prince Jaehaerys, Prince of Dragonstone, final heir of Aegon V - Prince Aerys, Prince of Dragonstone, heir of Jaehaerys II - Prince Rhaegar, Prince of Dragonstone, and first heir of Aerys II - Prince Viserys, presumably Prince of Dragonstone, and final heir of Aerys II - Princess Daenerys, Princess of Dragonstone in exile, heir of Viserys III TWoIaF makes it clear that Princes(ses) Aegon, Aerea, Baelon, Viserys, Rhaenyra, Daeron, Rhaegel, Aelor, Maekar, Jaehaerys, and Viserys were formally named and recognized by the then-ruling king as their heirs. In some cases they never inherited or their claim was challenged, but they were all named. Many kings in Westerosi history had one or multiple heirs which they recognized and named as such, installing them as Princes of Dragonstone.Some may not have done this. Baelor does not seem to have been Prince of Dragonstone upon Daeron's death, and Baelor did not seem to have named Viserys Prince of Dragonston and his heir. Whenever there was no clear heir - after the death of Baelor or Maekar, for instance - there was a debate and a potential struggle for succession. Usually the guy the king chose succeeded. The only exceptions are Aegon (who was usurped by Maegor), Aerea who was named heiress by Maegor, and Rhaenyra, whose claim was challenged by a powerful faction at court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lojzelote Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thought you guys would be interested in this new tidbit on the Pact of Ice and Fire, especially cause of the secret marriage aspect: http://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/2zd5yf/spoilers_all_amaa_w_elio_linda_of_westerosorg/ Oooh... Definitely curious. If it is true, I wonder if he meant to pull an Eleanor Butler on her... or if she was going to be an Elizabeth Woodville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmonkey Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 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?" Oh indeed so. This is about family affairs between the various Targ claimants, be they true, false, or somewhere in between. I'm with Ygritte that this is likely to be about DwD2.0 than the throne. However I think it's also going to be a key point in understanding what was going on behind the scenes during Robert's Rebellion. 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. It really doesn't, and I think this debate would be going more smoothly if people realised this. It DOES undermine the idea that the 3KG remained 100% loyal to Aerys and stayed at the ToJ because LegitJon was unquestionably the heir to Aerys' throne, but that is only one of many possible chains of events that include LegitJon, and honestly a pretty dubious one given what we know of Rhaegar's actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmonkey Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 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. You won't often find me defending Team Protect, but we really don't. 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. Yes it can, in multiple ways. For example: 1. They were protecting the king, just not the one that Aerys picked. 2. The idea that the KG were required to instantly drop everything and head to the side of the king is simply wrong, so long as the king is not in imminent danger while the king's heir is. 3. They were planning to send one of them to Dragonstone, but had not yet had the opportunity to do so. I could do another big list of options here, but I'm not going to bother. As soon as there's an option 1, Protect is still on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmonkey Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 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. False dichotomy. Lord Varys did not claim that they were not honorable men in Ned's eyes, he claimed that they were honorable men who were plotting against Aerys. These are not the same thing. We know that Ned would not consider a member of the KG who killed his king to be honourable, but that does not mean that he could not see a KG who acted against his king in a political rather than lethal fashion to be honourable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingmonkey Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Sheesh. Aerys needed Rhaegar to come and deal with the Rebellion, so until the warhammer time, the idea of a change in the succession line would hardly cross anyone's mind. Post-Trident, maybe, but then we have only a short time window between the Trident and the Sack, and given the ramifications of the defeat of the Targ army, I doubt that the succession order was high on anyone's list of priorities. We have the idea of Rhaegar calling a grand council, and previous Grand Councils have been called to decide on the succession. Even more tellingly, TWOIAF tells us the idea of a change in the succession had been under discussion for a considerable time. When Prince Rhaegar and his new wife chose to take up residence on Dragonstone instead of the Red Keep, rumors flew thick and fast across the Seven Kingdoms. Some claimed that the crown prince was planning to depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself, whilst others said that King Aerys meant to disinherit Rhaegar and name Viserys heir in his place. Had any whiff of proof come into their hands to show that Prince Rhaegar was conspiring against his father, King Aerys’s loyalists would most certainly have used it to bring about the prince’s downfall. Indeed, certain of the king’s men had even gone so far as to suggest that Aerys should disinherit his “disloyal” son, and name his younger brother heir to the Iron Throne in his stead. Prince Viserys was but seven years of age, and his eventual ascension would certainly mean a regency, wherein they themselves would rule as regents. An interesting question to consider here is what leverage Aerys used to get Rhaegar to lead the army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnmaskedLurker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 LV-- Your list is not really relevant to my point. Aegon V and Jaehaerys do not become king because the prior king named them as the heir. Aegon V became king because a GC was called and Jaehaerys became king because Duncan abdicated. So they are not relevant to whether Hightower would have considered the possibility that Aerys might name someone other than Prince Aegon as his heir after the Trident. I did not take the time to confirm your list, but I think everyone else after the naming of Rhaenyra was someone who was next in line under the normal succession rules in any event -- but if not, it does not really matter to the question at hand. I admit that naming a different heir puts the situation into question, and most likely results in a GC to resolve the competing claims of the named heir and the heir by normal rules. But again, none of that analysis really is relevant to the question at hand -- which is -- is it reasonable to assume that Hightower definitely considered the possibility that Aerys would name a different heir other than Aegon after the Triden? We just don't know, but it does not seem that far fetched to believe that it never would have occurred to Hightower to inquire whether such an event happened. The KG had their sources of information, and if the sources did not report any such naming of a different heir, Hightower would have no reason to consider the possibility that such a naming occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquintus Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Where is this idea that Aerys "picked an heir" coming from? The line of succession would have been Aerys->Rhaegar->Aegon VI. Aerys either died after or at roughly the same time as Aegon VI, who would have been his heir; meaning that there would be zero reason for him to name anyone else as his heir. If Aegon VI died before Aerys, then he wouldn't have known about any potential heirs besides Viserys. Why would he bother expressly naming Viserys his heir when Viserys is his heir (in his mind) regardless? It's far more likely that he didn't say anything, since the order of succession (as far as he knows) means that either Aegon VI or Viserys is king when he dies anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Twinslayer Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 UL and Ygrain: Ran has confirmed that male primogeniture was not necessarily binding. There were two precedents against male primogeniture in the third century - Aegon V, and Jaehaerys II - which essentially should have enabled Aerys II to name any male relative his heir. Aerys also apparently considered disinheriting Rhaegar prior to the Trident just as Rhaegar considered deposing his father. Aerys preferring Viserys over Aegon after the Trident should essentially be both a leftover of his quarrels with Rhaegar as well as an outgrowth of his mistrust of the Dornishmen culminating in using Elia and her children as hostages against Doran. UL, here is a complete list of the known and recognized Heir Apparents to the Iron Throne: - Prince Aenys, heir to Aegon I, possibly also Prince of Dragonstone (TWoIaF and 'The Sons of the Dragon' are at odds there; Ran says TWoIaF superseded 'The Sons of the Dragons' which should result a difference text of 'The Sons of the Dragon' in 'Fire and Blood') - Prince Aegon, Prince of Dragonstone, heir to Aenys I - Princess Aerea - not know if she was also named Princess of Dragonstone, heiress of Maegor I - Prince Aemon, presumably Prince of Dragonstone, original heir of Jaehaerys I - Prince Baelon, Prince of Dragonstone, second heir of Jaehaerys I - Prince Viserys, Prince of Dragonstone, final heir of Jaehaerys I - Princess Rhaenyra, Princess of Dragonstone and heiress of Viserys I - Prince Daeron, presumably Prince of Dragonstone, heir of Aegon III - Prince Baelor, possibly Prince of Dragonstone, heir presumptive of Daeron I - Prince Aegon, Prince of Dragonstone, heir of Viserys II - Prince Daeron, Prince of Dragonstone, heir of Aegon IV - Prince Baelor, Prince of Dragonstone, first heir of Daeron II - Prince Valarr, Prince of Dragonstone, second heir of Daeron II - Prince Rhaegel, Prince of Dragonstone, first heir of Aerys I - Prince Aelor, Prince of Dragonstone, second heir of Aerys I - Prince Maekar, Prince of Dragonstone, final heir of Aerys I - Prince Daeron, Prince of Dragonstone (formerly Prince of Summerhall), first heir of Maekar I - Prince Aerion, presumably Prince of Dragonstone, second heir of Maekar I - Prince Duncan, Prince of Dragonstone, first heir of Aegon V - Prince Jaehaerys, Prince of Dragonstone, final heir of Aegon V - Prince Aerys, Prince of Dragonstone, heir of Jaehaerys II - Prince Rhaegar, Prince of Dragonstone, and first heir of Aerys II - Prince Viserys, presumably Prince of Dragonstone, and final heir of Aerys II - Princess Daenerys, Princess of Dragonstone in exile, heir of Viserys III TWoIaF makes it clear that Princes(ses) Aegon, Aerea, Baelon, Viserys, Rhaenyra, Daeron, Rhaegel, Aelor, Maekar, Jaehaerys, and Viserys were formally named and recognized by the then-ruling king as their heirs. In some cases they never inherited or their claim was challenged, but they were all named. Many kings in Westerosi history had one or multiple heirs which they recognized and named as such, installing them as Princes of Dragonstone.Some may not have done this. Baelor does not seem to have been Prince of Dragonstone upon Daeron's death, and Baelor did not seem to have named Viserys Prince of Dragonston and his heir. Whenever there was no clear heir - after the death of Baelor or Maekar, for instance - there was a debate and a potential struggle for succession. Usually the guy the king chose succeeded. The only exceptions are Aegon (who was usurped by Maegor), Aerea who was named heiress by Maegor, and Rhaenyra, whose claim was challenged by a powerful faction at court.Thanks, you saved me a lot of typing. Hightower had to know this. And, knowing this, there is no way he said "I am so confident that Aerys did not name an heir after Rhaegar died that I am going to treat Rhaegar's unknown infant son as indisputably the new king." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquintus Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Thanks, you saved me a lot of typing. Hightower had to know this. And, knowing this, there is no way he said "I am so confident that Aerys did not name an heir after Rhaegar died that I am going to treat Rhaegar's unknown infant son as indisputably the new king." This argument makes zero sense to me. Why would he expect Aerys to name anyone his heir when his heir is clearly already Aegon VI. By the time that Hightower learns that Aegon VI, the heir, is dead, Aerys is ALSO dead and can't name anyone new his heir, which would mean that, by default, Jon IS the king. Edit: Also, even beyond this, we have a situation in the books that already mirrors this situation - Robb's succession. Robb named Jon his heir, but since nobody (except for a few people) knows this, the realm assumes that Sansa or Rickon are the heirs to Winterfell and act accordingly. Nobody is going out of their way to track down if Robb named someone else his heir because, realistically, there's no point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearQueen87 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Where is this idea that Aerys "picked an heir" coming from? The line of succession would have been Aerys->Rhaegar->Aegon VI. Aerys either died after or at roughly the same time as Aegon VI, who would have been his heir; meaning that there would be zero reason for him to name anyone else as his heir. If Aegon VI died before Aerys, then he wouldn't have known about any potential heirs besides Viserys. Why would he bother expressly naming Viserys his heir when Viserys is his heir (in his mind) regardless? It's far more likely that he didn't say anything, since the order of succession (as far as he knows) means that either Aegon VI or Viserys is king when he dies anyway. The World Book. It states that Aerys named Viserys his heir, Ran has confirmed that it is not a mistake and that Yandel is using source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.