R+L=J v.136

[Ygrain]

Exactly. For all the noise people are making about Jaime thinking of Viserys first, the fact that he thinks about Viserys and Aegon indicates to me that he wasn't giving much thought to the actual succession, but rather claims. If he had been considering the succession in that moment, he should have thought of one or the other, not both.

Indeed. He is basically asked, "who do you want to crown", and he is going through the list of candidates.

Furthermore, there is the matter of age - while still a minor, a boy of eight is closer to adulthood and therefore stability than an infant.

[J. Stargaryen]

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.

Really? It doesn't seem that way when Jaime gives his recollection in Storm. He even mentions that Elia would have gone as well, but that Aerys was keeping her and Aegon as leverage against Dorne. So it's at best a meta-hint. It obviously doesn't follow logically that Viserys going to Dragonstone = Viserys being Prince of Dragonstone, since Aegon was supposed to go 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, Jaime V

Indeed. He is basically asked, "who do you want to crown", and he is going through the list of candidates.

Furthermore, there is the matter of age - while still a minor, a boy of eight is closer to adulthood and therefore stability than an infant.

I don't know if anybody had brought up that argument before, but it pretty well refutes the 'Jaime thought of Viserys first' argument. If it was really about the succession, he shouldn't have thought of Aegon at all.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

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?

[...]

Yandel didn't come up with it, clearly. So who? Yandels source, who was most likely Pycelle? Or another?

If it indeed was a fake, then whoever placed it in the Red Keep's documents doesn't seem to have been a Robert fan. After all, with Viserys named heir, Aegon's claim had become much, much weaker, leaving less reason to kill him.. which was done in Roberts name.

[sj4iy]

Another reason to believe that this information about Aegon being disinherited wasn't widely disseminated is that Dorne was supporting Aerys in the war- it would "poison the well" if they had found out that their Prince was no longer in line for the Throne.

Basically, this is such a dumb turn of events that I don't know why they bothered to shoehorn it into the story. It really makes no sense to the story overall, and Martin clearly didn't have it in mind while writing the books, so why bother now?

[Lord Varys]

Aegon was passed over, not necessarily disinherited. Had Viserys died without issue, Aegon would still have been next in line. As would have been Prince Duncan, presumably, had Jaehaerys and Aerys predeceased him - Daeron was already dead at Summerhall.

markg171,

another quote states that Aerys chose Jon Connington as Hand because he could not find Rhaegar. They were looking for Rhaegar for quite a while, although the reasons may have changed. At the beginning Aerys would have been pissed/irritated/suspicious but by the time he had fired Merryweather he apparently had realized that House Targaryen needed a strong and charismatic champion to fight against Robert. And he apparently knew he was not that man. Although he never seemed to have realized that cutting his beard and nails could have been a good first step... But then, it would not have cured the mood swings.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Another reason to believe that this information about Aegon being disinherited wasn't widely disseminated is that Dorne was supporting Aerys in the war- it would "poison the well" if they had found out that their Prince was no longer in line for the Throne.

Basically, this is such a dumb turn of events that I don't know why they bothered to shoehorn it into the story. It really makes no sense to the story overall, and Martin clearly didn't have it in mind while writing the books, so why bother now?

But naming a new heir would have occured after Rhaegar's death, and thus after Lewyn's death. So there was nothing for Dorne to defend... The army they had send had partly died, and the other part was most likely trying to hurry home, or to safety, after the Battle of the Trident was lost.

[Alia of the knife]

Aegon was passed over, not necessarily disinherited. Had Viserys died without issue, Aegon would still have been next in line. As would have been Prince Duncan, presumably, had Jaehaerys and Aerys predeceased him - Daeron was already dead at Summerhall.

They were looking for Rhaegar for quite a while, althAt the beginning Aerys would have been pissed/irritated/suspicious but by the time he had fired Merryweather he apparently had realized that House Targaryen needed a strong and charismatic champion to fight against Robert. And he apparently knew he was not that man. Although he never seemed to have realized that cutting his beard and nails could have been a good first step... But then, it would not have cured the mood swings.

I don't have the book with me, but didn't Rhaella crown Viserys herself?

Also, on the latter, absolutely true because Aerys had once been young, handsome. Bathing would have been a bonus as well.

Thanks for that information on the Starks. I didn't know about Torrens daughter and her brothers.

Going back to Brandon, and even Ned himself not happy about the crowning of their sister when Yandel, a litmus for the rest of Westeros, seems to think the Starks should have felt honored but did not, seems to indicate perhaps the Starks own sense of "otherness,"(pardon the pun).

[Alia of the knife]

Thanks! Not exactly buttercups, but I did see a patch of dead grass the other day! I've learned to be happy with the little things :p

Yes, the little things are the most important. Its fifty degrees, St. Patrick's WEEK, the bars are busy and people are going nuts. :)

[Lord Varys]

It was Torrhen's sons. They were pissed about the match between their sister and Lord Ronnel Arryn, which was arranged/enforced by Queen Rhaenys to make peace between the regions and knit the Realm together. They refused to attend the wedding, and were even sort of justified later on as both Ronnel and his Stark wife and all their children were killed by Ronnel's younger brother Jonos upon Aenys' ascension (during the rebellion in the Vale).

Essentially it seems that the Starks remained aloof and very distant to the Iron Throne until the Dance when Jacaerys Velaryon and Cregan Stark forged their Pact of Ice and Fire which included the proposed match between a Targaryen princess and a Stark - presumably Lord Cregan himself. Considering that Jace would have been first in Gulltown, the Eyrie, Sisterton, Gulltown, and then Winterfell it is possible that the news about Luke had already traveled to Winterfell by then - which means that Jace may have promised Cregan his half-sister Lady Rhaena who ended up marrying Corwyn Corbray and Garmund Hightower. It seems that Cregan preferred Black Aly Blackwood to his Targaryen princess in the end. But it may have been that the promise involved the children of both Jace and Cregan, we do not know the details.

On Aegon:

It would make more sense for Robert's party to consider Aegon the true heir and jump on the uncertainty of succession afterwards to legitimize Robert's ascension. Viserys was still alive and thus a real threat whereas Aegon was dead (presumably).

[Alia of the knife]

It was Torrhen's sons. They were pissed about the match between their sister and Lord Ronnel Arryn, which was arranged/enforced by Queen Rhaenys to make peace between the regions and knit the Realm together. They refused to attend the wedding, and were even sort of justified later on as both Ronnel and his Stark wife and all their children were killed by Ronnel's younger brother Jonos upon Aenys' ascension (during the rebellion in the Vale).

Essentially it seems that the Starks remained aloof and very distant to the Iron Throne until the Dance when Jacaerys Velaryon and Cregan Stark forged their Pact of Ice and Fire which included the proposed match between a Targaryen princess and a Stark - presumably Lord Cregan himself. Considering that Jace would have been first in Gulltown, the Eyrie, Sisterton, Gulltown, and then Winterfell it is possible that the news about Luke had already traveled to Winterfell by then - which means that Jace may have promised Cregan his half-sister Lady Rhaena who ended up marrying Corwyn Corbray and Garmund Hightower. It seems that Cregan preferred Black Aly Blackwood to his Targaryen princess in the end. But it may have been that the promise involved the children of both Jace and Cregan, we do not know the details.

On Aegon:

It would make more sense for Robert's party to consider Aegon the true heir and jump on the uncertainty of succession afterwards to legitimize Robert's ascension. Viserys was still alive and thus a real threat whereas Aegon was dead (presumably).

Oh wow.:(

No wonder the Starks feel that everytime they go south, they don't come back.

On the pact, I always suspected, given their track record, that the Starks somehow managed to "peace out," of the agreement.

Edit: Its also interesting that Torrhens sons didn't want to serve the Targaryens.

[Lord Varys]

Well, there is also the Company of the Rose a sellsword company in Essos founded by Northmen who did not went along with Torrhen kneeling and chose exile instead. There may some cadet branches of House Stark among them if the company still exists. Didn't you read TWoIaF?

Cregan Stark did apparently got a lot of rewards for his loyalty to the Blacks and Aegon III though. Again, the Cregan-Rhaena match is just speculation on my part, and as we don't know when Rhaena married Corwyn Corbray it is difficult to say who turned who down but Cregan really seems to have had a thing for Black Aly Blackwood as she actually promised to marry Cregan if he went through with the pardoning of Corlys Velaryon.

If the Pact included a match between Cregan's and Jace's children it would have been transferred to Aegon's children I guess, but it took a while for him to father children. But perhaps Daeron I was actually betrothed to a daughter of Cregan and Black Aly Blackwood...?

[MtnLion]

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.

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

<snip>

There we go, my favorite. My aunt could have had balls, then she would have been my uncle.

[MtnLion]

MtnLion,

The problem could be easily solved if we take into account that the orders don't have to interfere with the vows. Or especially, in this delicate situation, that their interpretation of the orders doesn't interfere with their interpretation of the vows. The human factor and the truths people tell to themselves are not to be disregarded. I think that post-TWoIaF we need to allow for more room for the possibility of KG having strict orders and trying to obey them in the aftermath of Rhaegar's death.

( After all, Hightower trolls Ned. "We weren't there." No shit, Sherlock! :D)

Then you are utterly ignoring what Barristan says is the first priority of the Kingsguard?

[Lord Varys]

MtnLion

Jaime was wrong in his assessment of Ser Gerold. At least in a certain sense. He could only have based his assessment of Ser Gerold on his knowledge of the man which did not include the fact that he was (possibly) guarding Lyanna and Rhaegar's child at the tower. I'm not sure how Jaime could have believed he was as loyal as he supposedly was if he cannot believe that he died protecting the king. Protecting Lyanna is not protecting the king, after all. And with all this 'KGs have to protect the king first and foremost' you keep bringing up the three knights at the tower would have failed both their king as well as Rhaegar as they effectively abandoned them in favor of doing some secondary task - like protecting a Princess Consort/hostage with no royal blood in her veins.

If this does not look strange and 'un-kingsguardly' in Jaime's eyes why the hell should we believe this idea that KGs always have to protect the king, and search out the true king as soon as the old one dies (presumably with their ingrained 'true king detectors')? If we go with your interpretation then everyone in Westeros should either long have concluded that Rhaegar and Lyanna had a child at that tower - which no one seems to have done - or the three knights would not be considered paragons of KG virtue because they effectively abandoned Aerys and Rhaegar and sat out the war.

Lady Gwyn makes the point that Jaime being used as the man revealing Ser Gerold's true allegiance without ever knowing to whom he was loyal to in the end is an interesting point. But given Jaime's ability to read people and judge characters for what they truly are ('Littlefinger could be a splendid Hand', 'Hi there, Raff, you are funny.') I'd not expect him to be right in this regard.

And this should also extent to Ser Arthur and Ser Oswell. We know they most likely plotted with Rhaegar against Aerys. He does not know this which is why he thinks they are this shining examples. If the series includes weirnet flashbacks into Rhaegar/Lyanna territory we all may be surprised how shining the real persons actually were.

And a personal word: I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I like discussing topics and looking at them from every possible angle. I'm with you that Jon Snow is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son. I'm also with you that he might have a claim to the Iron Throne, and that the three knights may have thought he did. But I do not think we all have to accept the 'orthodox view' you seem to be championing that it is evident that the knights had to stay there because he was the true king, that they could (or would) have to make that decision, or that it would be less honorable if they had just obeyed Rhaegar's last command as he expected them to. There would also be honor in that, don't you think?

We don't need this particular interpretation to stick to the overall Jon Snow theory. No one is trying to take anything from you here.

We all have our favorable topics in this series but I find it that it is more rewarding if you do not fall in love to much with one particular interpretation or expectation. There is a lot we don't know yet, and a lot of new information that is still going to come may turn everything around. If you invest too much in a particular topic you may be disappointed about the outcome.

[Ygrain]

Then you are utterly ignoring what Barristan says is the first priority of the Kingsguard?

And he also says that guarding a mistress and a bastard is NOT the purpose of KG. But, yeah, they are true KG for carrying that out.... kinda like a teacher assigned to copy some book while a class is left unattended.

[The Twinslayer]

Another reason to believe that this information about Aegon being disinherited wasn't widely disseminated is that Dorne was supporting Aerys in the war- it would "poison the well" if they had found out that their Prince was no longer in line for the Throne.

Basically, this is such a dumb turn of events that I don't know why they bothered to shoehorn it into the story. It really makes no sense to the story overall, and Martin clearly didn't have it in mind while writing the books, so why bother now?

I think you have it backwards.

When Rhaegar died, if Aerys had designated Aegon as the new heir, the message to Dorne would be "all you have to do to take the throne is to have me killed."

But by announcing that Viserys was the new heir, the message to Dorne was "stay loyal because your sister and your nephew and your niece are my hostages."

[Alia of the knife]

Didn't you read TWoIaF?

Lol, I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. Yes I did, and promptly forgot it because I just don't have the time to religiously study it. However, if you ask me about The War of the Roses, the Plantaganet and the Angevins, the Great Anarchy, the hundred years war and the battle of Agincourt, etc. I'm on it, but on this, I guess I will have to do my homework

Well, there is also the Company of the Rose a sellsword company in Essos founded by Northmen who did not went along with Torrhen kneeling and chose exile instead. There may some cadet branches of House Stark among them if the company still exists.

Cregan Stark did apparently got a lot of rewards for his loyalty to the Blacks and Aegon III though. Again, the Cregan-Rhaena match is just speculation on my part, and as we don't know when Rhaena married Corwyn Corbray it is difficult to say who turned who down but Cregan really seems to have had a thing for Black Aly Blackwood as she actually promised to marry Cregan if he went through with the pardoning of Corlys Velaryon.

If the Pact included a match between Cregan's and Jace's children it would have been transferred to Aegon's children I guess, but it took a while for him to father children. But perhaps Daeron I was actually betrothed to a daughter of Cregan and Black Aly Blackwood...?

Love the compnay of the Rose, and its interesting that there were northern women who helped found and reputed to be part of it. Especially in light of Neds statment regarding Lyanna, that she would have carried a sword had his lord father not forbade it.

I don't suggest Lyanna would have become a mercenary, but she actually might have had options. And then there is apparently frugal Ned spending a LOT of money on Aryas lessons, which would suggest it wasn't a whim. But more, it points to the possibility that women in the north might have the option of arms, which would make sense in a potentially harsh climate where everyone needs to contribute to survive.

As for the Blackwoods, interesting they are the ties that bind to some degree the Targaryens and the Starks.

[Lord Varys]

That teacher analogy really does not hit home. A Kingsguard is a servant. Unlike a teacher who is not sworn by sacred oaths to sit idly by while one of his students rapes and mutilates his girlfriend or burns some fellow classmate to death a Kingsguard has to suffer this kind of stuff. They are bound by oath and honor, not by modern-life contracts or common sense.

If one king/prince gives them an order to commit themselves to a task even after his death they should feel obliged to obey them. That much is clear from the way things were handled during the Dance.

[sj4iy]

I think you have it backwards.

When Rhaegar died, if Aerys had designated Aegon as the new heir, the message to Dorne would be "all you have to do to take the throne is to have me killed."

But by announcing that Viserys was the new heir, the message to Dorne was "stay loyal because your sister and your nephew and your niece are my hostages."

Except he DIDN'T announce it because NOWHERE in the books does it say that he did.

Really, that's the end of this debate. Until you can prove that ANYONE at all knew about it, it has no bearing whatsoever on the story.

Also, they can't exactly have Aerys killed when he's holding Elia and her children hostage, so that argument's right out the window.

[Ygrain]

That teacher analogy really does not hit home. A Kingsguard is a servant. Unlike a teacher who is not sworn by sacred oaths to sit idly by while one of his students rapes and mutilates his girlfriend or burns some fellow classmate to death a Kingsguard has to suffer this kind of stuff. They are bound by oath and honor, not by modern-life contracts or common sense.

If one king/prince gives them an order to commit themselves to a task even after his death they should feel obliged to obey them. That much is clear from the way things were handled during the Dance.

You really, really, really don't get it. A teacher is responsible for their students and that responsibility comes first, just like the KG's "resposibility" for the king comes first. Minor details like orders and what not change nothing about the gist.