R+L=J v.136

[BearQueen87]

BQ87,

again, Jaime could have been mistaken in his judgment about Ser Gerold.

He could. But that's where Ned comes in--he subconsciously remembers Hightower as loyal to Aerys, and remembers the entire KG :

--chest thumping about how they are KG

--they do not flee

--because they swore a vow.

Ned wouldn't respect them nearly as much if they were breaking their sword vow to guard the King. His subconscious wouldn't cast them in such a positive light--as the last good KG in the realm--if they had abandoned their king (Viserys) when they needed him most.

[Lady Gwynhyfvar]

Lady Gwyn,

Ran has stated that Yandel is referring official historical documents there. This is not a error.

Jaime only thinks about Viserys and Aegon after Aerys' death - when Aerys' decrees are null and void - it makes sense to assume that both Aegon and Viserys had good claims in the short time period while Aegon was still alive.

What Jaime means when stating the White Bull was loyal to the end is sort of unclear, don't you think? He could not have known that there was royal child at the tower, and thus subsequently must have thought that Ser Gerold stayed true to Rhaegar's last command to keep Lyanna Stark a hostage/prisoner or protect her.

Not an error but certainly slanted as I said, like most works of history (see below, I agree completely with JS)

As for what Jaime said-- it was nothing to do with Viserys, Aegon or Jon specifically, so I actually don't find it a bit unclear. Rather I find it highly significant that George put those words in Jaime's mouth in that situation. Imo, the intent and manner of the author delivering information matters much more than what any given reader assumes the fictional character is thinking.

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.

Exactly

[addicted to snow]

No, upthread I said that I've never taken this seriously...I simply enjoy literary analysis.

I don't think you've once ever presented an actual literary analysis of anything. You simply state your wildly unbelievable assumptions and then steadfastly refuse to back them up with textual evidence, all the while telling us how wrong we are despite the mounds of evidence we present.

So back up your theories and have a real literary discussion or quit telling me how I should present mine.

Thanks for putting your big-girl hat on...

[Lord Varys]

BQ87,

actually, if I had to analyze the dream stuff I'd say the KG partially represent Ned's guilt of keeping Jon's birthright from him. They are the way how he thinks about what could have been and what 'ended' there (never was). Not to mention that he would be retroactively thankful that they protected Lyanna and her child. But I don't think he respected and liked them all that much then and there. Then he would not have killed them. They would have found a peaceful solution. And most certainly they tried to do that before it came to blades. Some people seem to think Ned already knew a lot about what was going at that time. I'm not so sure about that. And even if he did he may have been very angry about what has transpired. After all, Rhaegar and Lyanna effectively killed Brandon and Rickard.

I think he has a more personal connection to Ser Arthur via Ashara and all, and knew him perhaps on a more personal level than the others - a lot supposedly happened at Harrenhal. There is this old SSM where George said that he could write a novel about what happened there ;-).

[SFDanny]

Instead of replying to long posts of ad hominem and childish "I don't think so" responses intertwined with "prove it" let me deal with what I see as the issues before us concerning the revelation of the decree placing Viserys before Aegon in the line of succession in both the The World of Ice and Fire and in Ran's confirmation of the decree.

Also of interest might be Part 2, and Part 3

"When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King's Landing with Rhaegar's children as a hostage against Dorne." (TWoI&F 129) bold emphasis added

First, is the document a forgery? We have no indication that it is a forgery, but we do know the author is writing this history for King Robert and his heirs. So, can we assume therefore everything in it is false? Obviously no. The history, in general, is confirmed in many, many places by what we know of in other books and from other viewpoints. We must instead look through this book with an eye to the bias of its author, just as we have to do with every POV in the main story, and look for contradictions from other sources. The problem being there is no other reference to this decree. There is also no other source saying this was a lie or that it was forged. In fact, we know from Ran that the author is relying on documents of the time when he tells us of the decree. Which tells us he didn't write this document, and if it is a forgery it would have to come from some one earlier. How can we make a judgement about this?

What we do have is that the document conforms to Aerys's sentiments and paranoia that we are told about elsewhere in the books. For instance, we are told the following:

"Nor did the birth of King Aerys's first grandchild, a girl name Rhaenys, born on Dragonstone in 280 AC, do aught to reconcile father and son. When Prince Rhaegar returned to the Red Keep to present his daughter to his own mother and father, Queen Rhaella embraced the babe warmly, but King Aerys refused to touch or hold the child and complained that she "smells Dornish." (TWoI&F 120-121) bold emphasis added

This attitude is also confirmed by Aerys's pursuit of a "pure blood" Valyrian bride for Rhaegar when he sends Steffon Baratheon to the Free Cities on a mission to find such a bride.

"In 278 AC, the king sent Lord Steffon across the narrow sea on a mission to Old Volantis, to seek a suitable bride for Prince Rhaegar, "a maid of noble birth from an old Valyrian bloodline." (TWoI&F 120) bold emphasis added

this mission is confirmed in the main series as well:

"Patchface had come to them as a boy. Lord Steffon of cherished memory had found him Volantis, across the narrow sea. The king - the old king, Aerys II Targaryen, who'd not been quite so mad in those days - had sent his lordship to seek a bride for Prince Rhaegar, who had no sisters to wed. (ACoK 5) bold emphasis added

And we also have support from another source about Aerys's attitude towards Targaryens marrying non-Valyrians in the reflected comments of his son, Viserys.

"For centuries the Targaryens had married brother to sister, since Aegon the Conqueror had taken his sisters to bride. The line must be kept pure, Viserys had told her a thousand times; theirs was the king's blood, the golden blood of old Valyria, the blood of the dragon. Dragons did not mate with beasts of the field, and Targaryens did not mingle their blood with that of lesser men. (AGoT 26)

Clearly, Viserys is repeating the same attitude he has learned from his father and exhibited in his father's "smells Dornish" disdain for Rhaenys. So, while Viserys didn't witness that particular remark because Aerys wouldn't allow Viserys to come to the ceremony, there is little doubt as to the source of Viserys's racist view of "lesser men." It doesn't come from his mother's warm embrace of Rhaenys. The preference of a "pureblood" heir is not the only thing that reflects Aerys's attitude in the decree. We also have support for the validity of the decree in Aerys's paranoia concerning Dorne's loyalty to the crown.

"Prince Lewyn took command of the Dornish troop sent by his nephew, the Prince Doran, but it is said that he did so only after the threats from the Mad King, who feared that the Dornishmen looked to betray him." (TWoI&F 128) bold emphasis added

This is speaking of Aerys's attitude before the Trident, and it is also confirmed in its aftermath.

"When the news reached the Red Keep, it was said that Aerys cursed the Dornish, certain that Lewyn had betrayed Rhaegar. He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King's Landing with Rhaegar's children as a hostage against Dorne." (TWoI&F 129) bold emphasis added

But it is not only Maester Yandel that is our source for these suspicions, Jaime tells us the same thing as well.

"Rhaegar met Robert on the Trident, and you know what happened there. When the word reached court, Aerys packed the queen off to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys. Princess Elia would have gone as well, but he forbade it. Somehow he had gotten it in his head that Prince Lewyn must have betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident, but he thought he could keep Dorne loyal so long as he kept Elia and Aegon by his side." (ASoS 419)

All of which points to Aerys's motives in issuing this decree. In my last post I mentioned his "righteous royal anger" and the sarcasm was lost on some readers, but it fits what Aerys must have been feeling as his world crumbled around him and his paranoid fears wouldn't allow him to see the difference between friend, ally, and foe. So, what we have is not only new evidence that this decree was issued, but a decree that fits in motive and bias with what we expect from Aerys given other references as well. On the other side we have nothing to show the decree is not real. As a starting point, I think we have to assume it is just what the maester tells us it is, not fanciful conjecture about forgeries and the like.

Which brings me to our second issue about this document. Was this a secret document or one that was issued in the normal way such a decree would be issued? I'm kind of at a loss to understand why the normal process would not be evident to everyone, but I guess it is not to a few. We have instances in the series and the World book that shows both what happens when the king issues decrees, and at least one instance in which this concerns a king setting aside one claimant to the throne over another. All of which are very much public in process. Let's look at some examples.

When Joffrey and Cersei wish to issue decrees he does so in open court as we see when Sansa comes to petition for Ned's life.

"When Joffrey turned to look out over the hall, his eye caught Sansa's. He smiled, seated himself, and spoke. 'It is a king's duty to punish the disloyal and reward those who are true. Grand Maester Pycelle, I command you to read my decrees.'" (AGoT 517) bold emphasis added

Pycelle proceeds to then read a long list of names of those summoned to pledge fealty, including all the Stark children and Catelyn, and then proceeds on to naming Cersei to the small council, Tywin as Hand, Slynt as Lord of Harrenhal, Ser Barristan's removal from the office of Lord Commander to be taken over by Jaime, and the placement of the Hound in the Kingsguard. All of this very much public and to be followed by flights of ravens to carry the message throughout the Kingdom. So too it is with Ned when he was the Hand.

"In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, by the word of Eddard of the House Stark, his Hand, I charge you to ride to the wastelands with all haste, to to cross eh Red Fork of the Trident under the king's flag, and there bring the king's justice to the false knight Gregor Clegane, and to all those who share in his crimes. I denounce him, and attaint him, and strip him of all rank and titles, of all lands and incomes and holdings, and do sentence him to death. May the gods take pity on his soul. (AGoT 392)

All decreed in open court for any to hear. And as well with Tywin, and Joffrey, after the Battle of the Blackwater. when decrees are issued in open court proclaiming the spoils to the victors and judgements to those who remained true to Stannis. Other, instances can be cited as well, but let's look to one instance that regards a royal decree naming his heir in defiance of the agreed upon custom. In this case we are talking about King Viserys I Targaryen and his decision to name his daughter as his heir in contravention of the agreed upon custom in the Great Council of 101 AC.

"Some said that Daemon's support for his brother in the Great Council was motivated by the belief he would be his brother's heir. But in Viserys's mind, he already had an heir: Rhaenyra, his sole daughter by his cousin, Queen Aemma of House Arryn. Rhaenyra was born in 97 AC, and as a child her father doted upon her, and took her everywhere with him - even to the council chamber, where he encouraged her to watch and listen intently. For these reason, the court doted on her as well, and many paid homage to her. The singers dubbed her the Realm's Delight, for she was bright and precocious - a beautiful child who was already a dragonrider at the age of seven as she flew on the back of her she-dragon Syrax, named for one of the old gods of Valyria.

"in 105 AC, her mother finally delivered the son that the king and queen had both long for, but he queen died in childbirth and the boy - named Baelon - only survived her by a day. By this time, Viserys I was heartily sick of being hectored over the succession, and disregarding the precedents of 92 AC and the Great Council of 101 AC, he officially declared that Rhaenyra was Princess of Dragonstone and his heir. A grand ceremony was arranged in which hundreds of lords knelt to do homage to the princess while she sat at her father's feet." (TWoI&F 67) bold emphasis added

All done publicly for the realm to see. So it is clear these cited instances show us again, and again, this is the normal process of a king issuing such decrees. It would be highly unusual for Aerys to have done otherwise, and we have absolutely no evidence to say he did so in the case of his decree naming Viserys his heir after the death of Rhaegar. To try and say otherwise just flies in the face of mountains of evidence of the normal process, and substitutes the "what if he kept it secret" as what we would expect to be done. Now, there is nothing wrong with "what ifs" based on guesses with nothing to back them up - sometimes they even prove right. We must, however, have that process that proves them right through evidence gathered in the books or from the author to show it might be right before adopting them as likely. There is none here.

To top this off, and to close this long post. Let me say it makes perfect sense for Aerys the Mad King to react to his paranoid fantasies about Dornish betrayals at the Trident, and his own racist doubts about his "half-Dornish" grandson by issuing just the decree we see here. It is his vengeance towards what he believes is treason by Dorne. Ignoring all the evidence doesn't make that go away.

None of this means, however that the Kingsguard at the tower of joy heard the news of the decree. That will be the topic of my next post.

edited to add links

[The Twinslayer]

Instead of replying to long posts of ad hominem and childish "I don't think so" responses intertwined with "prove it" let me deal with what I see as the issues before us concerning the revelation of the decree placing Viserys before Aegon in the line of succession in both the The World of Ice and Fire and in Ran's confirmation of the decree.

<snip>None of this means, however that the Kingsguard at the tower of joy heard the news of the decree. That will be the topic of my next post.

Danny, I am very interested to read your thoughts on this.

Because I posted on this at length when the World Book came out I won't repeat it all here, but I have two quick thoughts. First, when considering whether the 3KG knew about Viserys being the new heir before Rhaegar's children, I think it is important to keep in keep in mind that that happened several days before the supposed murder of Rhaenys and Aegon. I don't see any way the KGs could have learned of the supposed death of Aegon -- which of course is not mentioned by them or Ned -- while being ignorant of the fact that Viserys was the new heir. So either they knew that Viserys was the new king or they thought that Aegon was alive. Either way, they can't think Jon is king.

Second, I think it is important to consider the new information from The Princess and the Queen as well. There, Lord Larys, two KGs (Thorne and Fell) and a bastard knight smuggled King Aegon and his son and daughter out of King's Landing when it was taken. Larys ordered the KGs to take the children and leave the king with the bastard knight, who was not a KG -- and Thorne and Fell obeyed. I think this puts a serious dent in the theory that KGs have to disobey orders to go protect the king if there is a "protect vs obey" conflict.

Perhaps GRRM has become aware of the theory that the KGs were guarding a legitimate Jon and he is trying to tell us that was never what he intended?

[BearQueen87]

Danny, I am very interested to read your thoughts on this.

Because I posted on this at length when the World Book came out I won't repeat it all here, but I have two quick thoughts. First, when considering whether the 3KG knew about Viserys being the new heir before Rhaegar's children, I think it is important to keep in keep in mind that that happened several days before the supposed murder of Rhaenys and Aegon. I don't see any way the KGs could have learned of the supposed death of Aegon -- which of course is not mentioned by them or Ned -- while being ignorant of the fact that Viserys was the new heir. So either they knew that Viserys was the new king or they thought that Aegon was alive. Either way, they can't think Jon is king.

Easy. The murder of Aegon was insanely public--literally placed in front of throne of a new king. The naming Viserys as heir? Private and behind closed doors with just Aerys and his small council--many of whom died or were loyal to Lannister (Pycelle) or switched loyalties to Robert. and wouldn't exactly go running to the KG with the news.

So yes, they can very easily think that Jon is the King if he is the true born son of Rhaegar and they are not in the know of private, non public matters of Aerys and his council.

[The Twinslayer]

Easy. The murder of Aegon was insanely public--literally placed in front of throne of a new king. The naming Viserys as heir? Private and behind closed doors with just Aerys and his small council--many of whom died or were loyal to Lannister (Pycelle) or switched loyalties to Robert. and wouldn't exactly go running to the KG with the news.

So yes, they can very easily think that Jon is the King if he is the true born son of Rhaegar and they are not in the know of private, non public matters of Aerys and his council.

That is possible but, to me, absurdly unlikely. You would have to assume that there was a person who knew that the KGs were at the TOJ who sent them a message saying Aegon was dead and who at the same time was unaware that, two weeks earlier, Viserys had become Prince of Dragonstone. That scenario is just too contrived.

[markg171]

BQ87,

actually, if I had to analyze the dream stuff I'd say the KG partially represent Ned's guilt of keeping Jon's birthright from him. They are the way how he thinks about what could have been and what 'ended' there (never was). Not to mention that he would be retroactively thankful that they protected Lyanna and her child. But I don't think he respected and liked them all that much then and there. Then he would not have killed them. They would have found a peaceful solution. And most certainly they tried to do that before it came to blades. Some people seem to think Ned already knew a lot about what was going at that time. I'm not so sure about that. And even if he did he may have been very angry about what has transpired. After all, Rhaegar and Lyanna effectively killed Brandon and Rickard.

I've seen some posters suggest that Ned's dream is simply the story that he had to repeat (to Robert, Jon Arryn, his bannermen's family's, etc). Hence why it's so ritualistic and familiar to him. It's something he memorized. I mean why would Arthur Dayne draw Dawn and hold it with both hands? It's a sword that's light enough to hold with one hand. But it certainly sounds badass, even if it's completely unnecessary. Yet that's what we hear that he did.

As to to everyone saying that naming Viserys his heir flies in the face of the succession, that's completely false and is the most overlooked part of Ran's comment. He specifically mentioned that there was precedent for having your second son succeed before your grandson, and that Aerys was perfectly within his right to name his own heir. There was no "normal" succession in this case, but there was precedents that Viserys could/would come before Aegon.

[Lord Varys]

SFDanny,

to add something of minor significance:

Since Yandel seems to live and study/write at the Citadel, it does not seem likely he has personally investigated the archives of the Red Keep to find material for his history (which could have yielded documents of great worth regarding the reigns of all the Targaryen kings). In fact, we know that his main source for the reign of Aerys II is Grand Maester Pycelle (mostly his letters to the Citadel). Thus I'd think that Yandel learned about this thing from Pycelle as well - either through one of his letters or by actually reading a copy of the decree itself (which may have been sent to Oldtown via raven).

And the fact that Viserys was sent to Dragonstone is also a pretty big hint that he was the Prince of Dragonstone by then. And being named Prince of Dragonstone is no small event. We learn that from Prince Aegon - Aenys' eldest son, who is named such in place of Maegor leading to Visenya's untimely exit from the wedding -, Rhaenyra in 105 AC, and the preparation for Prince Joffrey's official installation as Prince of Dragonstone. This is no small event, and nothing that would be hushed up.

The Twinslayer,

thank you for coming to the same conclusion in regards to the KG duties. It appears that I'm not alone after all ;-).

BQ87,

we have discussed the logistics of this news traveling thing already. It all depends how much time passed between the Sack and Ned's arrival at the tower. We know there was only a fortnight or so between the Trident and the Sack, if I'm not mistaken. If Ned took this long to reach KL, I'd be surprised if the guys at the tower had even heard about Rhaegar's death by then, let alone the deaths of Aerys and Aegon. All they could reasonably have heard were rumors, and we know how rumors sound in Westeros, don't we? Aerys could have transformed in a living dragon after all.

The idea that Rhaegar had informers and allies at court who sent messages via raven to castles close by, who then, in turn, dispatched riders to the gang is certainly possible, but would those guys be able to send messages in the aftermath of the Sack? I don't think so. And only people at KL could deliver accurate information about what has happened there.

In fact, I think Tywin and Robert deliberately hushed up the manner of the death of Elia and her children. Those deeds are shrouded in rumors in the series, and the remains of the children were most certainly not at public display. Being at the foot of the Iron Throne doesn't mean that many people were there when they lay there - Robert, Jon, Ned, Tywin, Kevan, and some others, I assume. I don't expect that this particular tidbit of news traveled fast. It may have long been known that Robert was king before the world learned that Rhaenys and Aegon were actually dead.

More importantly, if there were people at court who knew how to reach Rhaegar why did they not beg him to come as soon as possible as things started to deteriorate? And if they did, and he did not answer, why would they continue to write messages? I wouldn't.

Finally, there is the problem that Rhaegar was not found for a long time. If people at court where sending messages to Rhaegar Varys would have found out after Aerys was trying to find Rhaegar - and then Rhaegar would have been found much earlier than he was.

I'd say it is actually still a viable option that the knights only learned from Ned what had transpired in the outside world - or at least what had happened in KL. This would not really be all that big a deal. The knights could still decide to protect 'the true king' - in the very moment that they learned that Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were all (presumed to be) dead, and thus they could make a case/could consider Lyanna's child their king - even if they by then also knew that Viserys had been proclaimed heir. After all, since Arthur and Oswell were in Rhaegar's camp, they would have preferred his blood on the Iron Throne anyway. The only thing that changes is that you can no longer use the knights being at the tower as 'conclusive evidence' that Lyanna's son is the true king, and the knights were there to protect him.

markg171,

that is certainly a possibility, although I don't think I'd go that far. Not sure if anyone would believe that story anyway. I don't think Ned talked all that much about that. I think he mostly insinuated stuff, and let people come to their own (false) conclusion while using his existent grief as a pretext to not talk about it.

If I had to guess what really happened I'd expect Ned to be pretty damn angry, and some of his guys pulling off some serious Roddy the Ruin suicide combos, or else I can't see how they could take down these guys. Perhaps Lord Willam Dustin also knew how one kills Hightowers and looks good doing it... But even then, Ned and Howland must have been a joke in the fight, so it was effectively five against three. One of them alone should have been able to take them. I'd be surprised if they had some trial-by-combat or another form of ritualized combat rather than seven against three - again, then the knights should have won.

As to the succession:

I've raised this point repeatedly, even listed how the precedents of 233 (Aegon V over Maegor and Aemon) and Jaehaerys II (Jaehaerys over his elder brother Duncan and his line) flew in the face of usual male primogeniture. But somehow nobody here seems to care. I can't imagine why, though ;-).

Aerys II had no brothers so the succession was clear in his case. But had he had a brother one could have made a case that 'tradition' demanded now that the younger son become king - and certainly that a younger son should come before a grandchild from the elder line, as this was what happened multiple times. And all this stuff happened recently. Aegon IV could not reasonably hope to disinherit Daeron for lack of precedents (and due to Daeron's powerful allies). But the Great Council and Aegon V made this all much easier. In essence, the king decided who was his heir in the days of Aerys II, as there were precedents for pretty much everything, and the monarch could choose an heir regarding to his preferences should the default heir prove to be troublesome.

[teej6]

That is possible but, to me, absurdly unlikely. You would have to assume that there was a person who knew that the KGs were at the TOJ who sent them a message saying Aegon was dead and who at the same time was unaware that, two weeks earlier, Viserys had become Prince of Dragonstone. That scenario is just too contrived.

Yes, most likely there is such a person -- Ashara. She would know that Elia and her children were dead and may not know that Aerys named Viserys his heir if this was information disseminated only among Aerys' cronies.

[BearQueen87]

BQ87,

we have discussed the logistics of this news traveling thing already. It all depends how much time passed between the Sack and Ned's arrival at the tower. We know there was only a fortnight or so between the Trident and the Sack, if I'm not mistaken. If Ned took this long to reach KL, I'd be surprised if the guys at the tower had even heard about Rhaegar's death by then, let alone the deaths of Aerys and Aegon. All they could reasonably have heard were rumors, and we know how rumors sound in Westeros, don't we? Aerys could have transformed in a living dragon after all.

The idea that Rhaegar had informers and allies at court who sent messages via raven to castles close by, who then, in turn, dispatched riders to the gang is certainly possible, but would those guys be able to send messages in the aftermath of the Sack? I don't think so. And only people at KL could deliver accurate information about what has happened there.

In fact, I think Tywin and Robert deliberately hushed up the manner of the death of Elia and her children. Those deeds are shrouded in rumors in the series, and the remains of the children were most certainly not at public display. Being at the foot of the Iron Throne doesn't mean that many people were there when they lay there - Robert, Jon, Ned, Tywin, Kevan, and some others, I assume. I don't expect that this particular tidbit of news traveled fast. It may have long been known that Robert was king before the world learned that Rhaenys and Aegon were actually dead.

More importantly, if there were people at court who knew how to reach Rhaegar why did they not beg him to come as soon as possible as things started to deteriorate? And if they did, and he did not answer, why would they continue to write messages? I wouldn't.

Finally, there is the problem that Rhaegar was not found for a long time. If people at court where sending messages to Rhaegar Varys would have found out after Aerys was trying to find Rhaegar - and then Rhaegar would have been found much earlier than he was.

I'd say it is actually still a viable option that the knights only learned from Ned what had transpired in the outside world - or at least what had happened in KL. This would not really be all that big a deal. The knights could still decide to protect 'the true king' - in the very moment that they learned that Rhaegar, Aerys, and Aegon were all (presumed to be) dead, and thus they could make a case/could consider Lyanna's child their king - even if they by then also knew that Viserys had been proclaimed heir. After all, since Arthur and Oswell were in Rhaegar's camp, they would have preferred his blood on the Iron Throne anyway. The only thing that changes is that you can no longer use the knights being at the tower as 'conclusive evidence' that Lyanna's son is the true king, and the knights were there to protect him.

All I will say in regards to GRRM and distance and travel is that he himself said that he doesn't operate under strict rules in case people catch him in mistakes. We might not think it's feasible but that doesn't mean GRRM didn't make it that way for plot convenience.

In the words of KingMonkey: GRRM+ Numbers = nope nope nope

So really the whole "there was no time" argument fails for me because it's not, at the end of the day, what GRRM is focusing on and he is more than willing to stretch out imaginations in order to make his story work.

[Alia of the knife]

The idea that Ned held the three knights - especially Ser Arthur Dayne - in such high esteem because they (apparently) died for someone they had sworn to (or pledged to) defend.

From the fact that Ned despised Jaime for breaking his vow and slaying his king does not follow that honored and praised the three knights because they 'defended their king'. It may be that they did just that, but it does not need to be the case.

The 'king term' would have to be used in loosely term anyway - 'rightful king', 'the prince who should be king' etc. as the three knights had no right to decide who should inherit the Iron Throne after Aerys' death - even if we for some reason assume that they did not know about Aerys naming Viserys' heir (while they still knew everything else - like, that Viserys was on Dragonstone).

I've suggested that Rhaegar (and Arthur and Oswell) refused to leave the tower upon Ser Gerold's arrival - until Ser Gerold offered that the three knights take Rhaegar's place at the tower to protect Lyanna and her (unborn?) child. That makes a lot of sense, actually, as we have all to assume that Rhaegar didn't give a fig about his duty to the Realm, the Iron Throne, or the dynasty at this point. He must have known what was going on by then, but he was obviously unwilling to leave that tower and fight against Robert.

Nothing suggests that Ser Gerold had the men - or the authority - to force Rhaegar to return back with him to KL, and there is also no reason to believe that Rhaegar would have been able to lead the Targaryen army had Ser Gerold brought him back to Aerys in chains. Not to mention that Oswell and Arthur were clearly on Rhaegar's side and would have potentially tried to take the old man out had he tried to lay a hand on Rhaegar.

In regards to the 'Kingsguard honor' of both Arthur and Oswell we have to keep in mind that both were very likely actively involved or at least privy to Rhaegar's plots against the king. It was Oswell who helped Rhaegar arrange the tourney at Harrenhal. This means that he must have known what to say to his brother about the true purpose of this tourney.

Ned Stark may be ignorant about all that, but we as readers should not consider Oswell and Arthur as paragons of KG duty as their foremost duty was to the king not to his heirs, the dynasty, or the Realm.

Ygrain's assumption that Rhaella may have preferred Lyanna's child over Viserys is problematic, I think. The picture TWoIaF draws of Queen Rhaella is that she was dutiful wife and despised sluts had affairs with other men - especially her own husbands (which is why she dismissed her ladies from her service if they entered a relationship with Aerys). I don't consider it very likely that such a woman would approve of and condone the polygamous second marriage of her son, let alone put a child from that union before her own son Viserys in the succession.

Rhaella did her duty and married her brother as she was commanded, and did apparently never have a romantic relationship outside of that. She was way too young to ever enter into a sexual relationship with Ser Bonifer Hasty. Thus it seems likely to me that Rhaella was not exactly happy with how Rhaegar treated Elia and endangered the Targaryen dynasty, and may actually have blamed Lyanna for leading him astray.

Men are allowed to have affairs and such, but mistreating the sister of the Prince of Dorne and running away with (and possibly taking) a noblewoman (to wife) who is betrothed to another great lord is an entirely different matter.

But even if none of this were true and Rhaella happy that her son had finally found 'love', it is not very likely that she prefer a grandchild from that union over her own children.

teej6.

Viserys himself may not have been aware that he was made Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent after the death of Rhaegar. And even if he was - why do we have to assume that he told Dany about that. He seems to have told her only the good stuff, and we also know that Rhaella shielded him from his father's madness as best she could - which means that he may actually have been ignorant about many things. Does Tommen know that Margaery and Cersei hate each other? I don't think so. Elia and her children effectively became hostages after Rhaegar's death (and may have been hostages even before that). You do not exactly tell this kind of stuff young children. And it did not really matter. Viserys was crowned shortly thereafter, when Aerys and Aegon both were (presumably) killed during the Sack.

I brought up the legal prattle stuff, but I do not necessarily think that Dany has to doubt Aegon's heritage to challenge his claim. Even if he is the real deal, if Aerys II passed over Aegon in favor of Viserys, and if Viserys III was the rightful Targaryen king since the death of Aerys II as Dany seems to believe, then she, as Viserys' heir, is the rightful queen.

Bloodraven's raven 'king' quotes are hints towards Jon's legitimate birth (although not conclusive hints - after all, bastards can be legitimized, no one knows that better than Bloodraven), but they are not necessarily decisive as to the succession. Just because Bloodraven seems to prefer Jon does not mean that he should/will be king or has the best legal claim - in fact, he has none, as he is a sworn brother of the NW.

We don't know what Bloodraven knows about Daenerys, actually. She was born on Dragonstone and never set a foot on the shore of Westeros, and as far as we know there are no weirwoods on Dragonstone. Bloodraven may not even know that she exists if the whole weirnet thing does not extend to Essos. But he might know that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, and that Jon is their son.

Not trying to cure cancer here, but why would you make these assumptions about Rhaella when Aerys was just as dutiful, but apparently still kept mistresses until he swore them off as penance for Rhaellas miscarriages?

Rhaella may have also tried to spare some of her ladies the advances of her husband by sending them away. Much easier than to tell a king "no."

My impression is they lived seperate lives, and she didn't exactly welcome his advances, so a mistress might come in handy.

There is also the hint that whatever Rhaegar was up to, so was Rhaella. Treason isn't exactly "dutiful"~ unless it was to serve the realm by putting a better king on the throne.

[Lord Varys]

It is not just the time, it is also means and opportunity. We aren't speaking about somebody traveling too fast or too slow. We don't even know if anyone was traveling. And in a scenario in which no journey is actually necessary for the story to work more or less. We have to make a lot of presuppositions just to have an explanation for what exactly?

In details:

Who controls the only known rookery in the Red Keep. Pycelle. Is it likely that Pycelle would help Ashara to send any messages to a castle close to the tower after the Sack? Probably not.

And while Dorne had not yet submitted to King Robert I assume Ashara would have been a hostage. Now, Ned may have gotten a hint from her where Lyanna might be, but this does not know she knew how to contact the tower. She could have simply talked to Rhaegar after his return from there (and before he died). If somebody at KL had known where Rhaegar was before he came back Aerys would have found out sooner. They must have been looking for Rhaegar for months, essentially since his disappearance. Not simply just because of the war - which only broke out later - but because Rhaegar disappearing without a trace must have looked awfully suspicious in Aerys' eyes.

We know that Elia was on Dragonstone when Rhaegar left. Aerys would have called her to KL when Rhaegar did not came back. And the conversation most likely was not pretty.

The more I think about it the more I think 'the tower of joy' means 'god-forsaken place in the middle of nowhere where I can (and will) be happy, no matter what. Don't even try it, I'll not answer your calls'.

[Alia of the knife]

Given all this blood purity talk, the assumption has long been that the Starks should have been honored by Rhaegars attention to Lyanna, but I wonder if up until Rickard, (influenced by a Maester), they didn't have similar attitudes as the Targaryens and wanted to keep it in the family, or at least the north?

Ned goes begging to his father on behalf of his BFF,for Lyannas hand, but I wonder if past Starks might have looked at the Targaryens and say "we don't do reptiles, and sheep herders?"

One is a mammal, the other is not, oh the parallels.

[Lord Varys]

Alia,

the Starks clearly are the most regal and aloof family besides the Targaryens. The practically continued to rule as kings even after the Conquest, and were usually always pissed if anyone intervened with what they considered their affairs.

It may be that the uncle-marriages were attempts to emulate the Targaryen royalty, or a tradition that had been practiced always. Without an Stark King family tree this is difficult to say. But the fact that Torrhen Stark's sons objected to marriage between their sister and Lord Ronnel Arryn could be hint that marriages outside of the North were hugely uncommon for the Starks prior to the Conquest. Although the ancient enmity between the Vale and North may have played into that.

[Kingmonkey]

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"

It wouldn't make any sense for him to say that, because Aegon had been dead for 14 years, and thus Viserys would be the "true king" just as much whether Aerys had named him his heir or not.

Something to think about. If Viserys had a claim that put him ahead of Aegon, what does that mean for the schemes of Varys and Illyrio? I think most people accept that Viserys was not their plan A, but rather a distraction. They seem not to have put much effort into avoiding him getting himself killed by Drogo. Before Aegon could make his move, Viserys would have to vanish from the scene, though.

[domio1425]

I think the Starks predominantly married other northern families before and after Aegons conquest. The few families who didn't have marriage ties to the Starks I would guess to be the Boltons for obvious reasons, the Manderlys due to being southron in origins and maybe a couple others.

[Kingmonkey]

Oooh. That's another thing I hadn't thought of. What if, instead of wording his decree as "Viserys is now my heir," Aerys wrote "Rhaenys and Aegon are hereby disinherited." If you (general you) don't know Jon exists, then that would imply that Viserys is now the heir, but another legit child of Rhaegar wasn't disinherited simply because Aerys didn't know about him.

This is a very important question. Let's not forget that Rhaegar wanted to call a council when he returned from the Trident, and the Great Councils we've heard of before have been about determining the succession.

The most reasonable explanation for the change in succession at this point is that Aerys was trying to control (possibly imagined) Dornish ambition. Thus the important thing was not so much who the new heir was, but who the new heir wasn't.

[markg171]

It is not just the time, it is also means and opportunity. We aren't speaking about somebody traveling too fast or too slow. We don't even know if anyone was traveling. And in a scenario in which no journey is actually necessary for the story to work more or less. We have to make a lot of presuppositions just to have an explanation for what exactly?

In details:

Who controls the only known rookery in the Red Keep. Pycelle. Is it likely that Pycelle would help Ashara to send any messages to a castle close to the tower after the Sack? Probably not.

And while Dorne had not yet submitted to King Robert I assume Ashara would have been a hostage. Now, Ned may have gotten a hint from her where Lyanna might be, but this does not know she knew how to contact the tower. She could have simply talked to Rhaegar after his return from there (and before he died). If somebody at KL had known where Rhaegar was before he came back Aerys would have found out sooner. They must have been looking for Rhaegar for months, essentially since his disappearance. Not simply just because of the war - which only broke out later - but because Rhaegar disappearing without a trace must have looked awfully suspicious in Aerys' eyes.

We know that Elia was on Dragonstone when Rhaegar left. Aerys would have called her to KL when Rhaegar did not came back. And the conversation most likely was not pretty.

The more I think about it the more I think 'the tower of joy' means 'god-forsaken place in the middle of nowhere where I can (and will) be happy, no matter what. Don't even try it, I'll not answer your calls'.

Honestly it doesn't sound like Rhaegar took long to find at all

He floated in heat, in memory. “After dancing griffins lost the Battle of the Bells, Aerys exiled him.” Why am I telling this absurd ugly child? “He had finally realized that Robert was no mere outlaw lord to be crushed at whim, but the greatest threat House Targaryen had faced since Daemon Blackfyre. The king reminded Lewyn Martell gracelessly that he held Elia and sent him to take command of the ten thousand Dornishmen coming up the kingsroad. Jon Darry and Barristan Selmy rode to Stoney Sept to rally what they could of griffins’ men, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south and persuaded his father to swallow his pride and summon my father. But no raven returned from Casterly Rock, and that made the king even more afraid. He saw traitors everywhere, and Varys was always there to point out any he might have missed. So His Grace commanded his alchemists to place caches of wildfire all over King’s Landing. Beneath Baelor’s Sept and the hovels of Flea Bottom, under stables and storehouses, at all seven gates, even in the cellars of the Red Keep itself.

Gerold Hightower was sent to find Rhaegar after the Battle of the Bells. According to Jaime, it sounds like he showed up almost immediately seeing as Jaime says he returned at the same time that Darry and Barristan rode out to gather the survivors of the Battle of the Bells. Which would have been pretty soon after the battle. So it obviously didn't take too long to find Rhaegar.