R+L=J v 141

[UnmaskedLurker]

SFDanny--

The problem I have with your "new information" principle is that we don't have any new information about what the KG knew. There is nothing in WOIAF that states that word of Aerys's decree became known far and wide. You make so many leaps of logic in concluding that if the KG knew about the deaths of Rhaegar and Aegon, they must also know about the decree. I simply find your logic faulty and unpersuasive. I find it quite easy to imagine circumstances in which knowledge of deaths are known to the KG's source of information but not the decree. You make way too many assumptions to connect the separate pieces of information. They are not of the same kind of information and many people might know about the deaths and not the decree. We have absolutely no information to suggest otherwise regarding this particular "decree" (or whatever it was -- we don't even know it was a decree as opposed to a will to be read on the death of Aerys, for example).

I agree with you, however, that in general, a reference to a vow is not always to the primary vow. But here, where the KG emphasize that they are not going to DS because the the KG do not flee -- then or NOW -- and then emphasize that they swore a vow -- I just don't buy your interpretation. If V is king -- going to DS NOW simply is not fleeing by any definition. It would be going to the king. And honorable KG do not justify ignoring their primary vow (not going to V on DS) by citing a different vow which inherently is of less importance. Based on their character and their words, in this context, reference to a different vow makes little sense.

[Victarion10]

In the latest show episode, Maester Aemon says he's a Targaryen alone in the world, Jon Snow enters the scene straight after he says this.

[Lord Varys]

SFDanny,

Viserys III considers himself to be the true king/king in exile. From his POV Dany is his heir and thus styled Princess of Dragonstone during formal events involving her and him. She wouldn't be styled as such if Viserys hadn't granted her that title and named her his heir. Sure, that didn't mean much while they were on the run and all, but it is a nice hint that he actually loved his sister, and may have had, for a time, a sort 'we against the rest of world' kind of bond to her.

UL,

you really have to make a lot of twisted leaps to go with the 'the knights conveniently knew this stuff but didn't learn other stuff they should have known' or presuppose some secret unofficial heir proclamation so that it makes sense that they didn't know.

Considering that a dream is our only real source of information on the tower we don't have enough information yet to make a sound conclusion or tell a convincing narrative. It may even be that they knew nothing and were told everything by Ned.

The casual way in which the fact that Viserys was Aerys' new heir is introduced is pretty big hint that this was only a first hint for new and additional revelations on multiple fronts. The series is going to investigate the past. ADwD gave us many clues - phantom Viserys complaining about the fact that Illyrio didn't give the dragon eggs to him (we'll learn why this was done), Aerys and Joanna, Lyanna taken 'at sword point', and so on.

What we have right now is not only an incomplete picture but possibly a picture that is deliberately misleading because the author wants not only reveal stuff people have already guessed but to add additional meaning and twists.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

I come from the point of view that I don't think GRRM will change the plot just because many people have guessed certain elements (he basically has said as much). So when he wrote the ToJ scene, he had no idea how many people would figure out what it meant and already decided what it meant -- that will not change. But a careful examination of the scene suggest strongly that the KG believe Jon to be the king. While the dream is not a word-for-word account, it must make sense to Ned as the "essence" of what these people said and believed (as far as Ned knew). Based on that presumption, the conclusion that the KG considered Jon to be king is hard to deny.

As to your statement that it takes a leap to believe the KG were told about the deaths but not the "decree" is incorrect. It is not a leap. The death of a person who is King or Prince is a big deal and would become known to many people. Not just court insiders would know -- in short order everyone would know. It would be major news all over Westeros via raven. It is a big deal.

I don't think the naming of V was done in secret. I have stated over and over again that I don't think it was a secret (although possible it was secret if Aerys wanted to keep Dorne from rebelling, but more likely, I don't think it was secret). But that does not mean it was big news. The naming happened after the Trident and before the Sack. More important things were happening then -- like a war and advancing troops. Spreading word of the naming of a new heir far and wide would not be a priority. Winning the war is the priority. And once the Sack occurs, the decree is irrelevant as Aegon and Aerys are dead and Robert is considered the new King. If the Targs won the war, there would be plenty of time to celebrate the new Prince of Dragonstone then. So why would word of the decree spread far enough to become known to the KG's source of information (which I suspect is Starfall, getting news via raven from other parts of Westeros)? There is no "leap" to conclude that news of this matter would not be of a high priority in that short period of time between Trident and Sack.

You seem to assume that slipping the information into WOIAF must be intended to upend the conclusions some people have made regarding the KG at ToJ. I think there are other possible reasons -- which you yourself have suggested, namely Dany's argument over Aegon (and maybe Jon) for the Targ throne. So there are other reasons to put the information into WOIAF without concluding that it must mean that the KG at ToJ found out about a decree to name V as heir. You are the one making the leap -- the leap that if the KG know about the deaths then they MUST also know about the decree. That is a big leap (IMHO). One for which you have no evidence.

[SFDanny]

SFDanny--

The problem I have with your "new information" principle is that we don't have any new information about what the KG knew. There is nothing in WOIAF that states that word of Aerys's decree became known far and wide. You make so many leaps of logic in concluding that if the KG knew about the deaths of Rhaegar and Aegon, they must also know about the decree. I simply find your logic faulty and unpersuasive. I find it quite easy to imagine circumstances in which knowledge of deaths are known to the KG's source of information but not the decree. You make way too many assumptions to connect the separate pieces of information. They are not of the same kind of information and many people might know about the deaths and not the decree. We have absolutely no information to suggest otherwise regarding this particular "decree" (or whatever it was -- we don't even know it was a decree as opposed to a will to be read on the death of Aerys, for example).

I agree with you, however, that in general, a reference to a vow is not always to the primary vow. But here, where the KG emphasize that they are not going to DS because the the KG do not flee -- then or NOW -- and then emphasize that they swore a vow -- I just don't buy your interpretation. If V is king -- going to DS NOW simply is not fleeing by any definition. It would be going to the king. And honorable KG do not justify ignoring their primary vow (not going to V on DS) by citing a different vow which inherently is of less importance. Based on their character and their words, in this context, reference to a different vow makes little sense.

UL, I make no leaps in logic here. I give ample reason and evidence to believe the decree is something the men at the tower should know about. I don't claim, and never have, they must have known about it. I, as I've said repeatedly, even state they may not have known about the decree. So, please, don't attribute words to me I don't write. I make the case why I think it is likely. If you think, as you obviously do, that they don't know of it then please explain your reasoning why. Am I wrong in my case that it makes sense that these men would have a way of getting information from the outside world? I don't think you are disagreeing with that idea, but correct me if I'm wrong. Instead you seem to be saying it is only this piece of information that would have gone unreported to them. Why? Again, possible but why? What I see from you is just a repeat of old arguments using the actions of the trio in staying at the tower, and one interpretation of what Ned's dialogue with them might mean, when other interpretations of those words, and the meaning of those actions are readily available.

I have to ask whether or not you think honor for the kingsguard means only following their first duty? When we get conflicting vows, as we often do, what makes one path honorable and one not? Is Ser Barristan dishonorable? Jaime dishonorable when he decides to kill Aerys and save the city from the pyromancer plot? Ser Duncan when he lays hands on a prince of the blood to protect the innocent? There are many complicated and uneasy answers to these questions, and others like them, so no I don't think we can say Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are dishonorable if they refuse to follow their oaths and stay to protect innocents from harm. We can say they chose one path the oath would not tell them to do, but whether or not it was honorable or not is something we need more information to decide. That's the way I see it anyway.

[SFDanny]

SFDanny,

Viserys III considers himself to be the true king/king in exile. From his POV Dany is his heir and thus styled Princess of Dragonstone during formal events involving her and him. She wouldn't be styled as such if Viserys hadn't granted her that title and named her his heir. Sure, that didn't mean much while they were on the run and all, but it is a nice hint that he actually loved his sister, and may have had, for a time, a sort 'we against the rest of world' kind of bond to her.

LV, I need to look over the instances when she is called the Princess of Dragonstone, but in principle I don't disagree.

[UnmaskedLurker]

UL, I make no leaps in logic here. I give ample reason and evidence to believe the decree is something the men at the tower should know about. I don't claim, and never have, they must have known about it. I, as I've said repeatedly, even state they may not have known about the decree. So, please, don't attribute words to me I don't write. I make the case why I think it is likely. If you think, as you obviously do, that they don't know of it then please explain your reasoning why. Am I wrong in my case that it makes sense that these men would have a way of getting information from the outside world? I don't think you are disagreeing with that idea, but correct me if I'm wrong. Instead you seem to be saying it is only this piece of information that would have gone unreported to them. Why? Again, possible but why? What I see from you is just a repeat of old arguments using the actions of the trio in staying at the tower, and one interpretation of what Ned's dialogue with them might mean, when other interpretations of those words, and the meaning of those actions are readily available.

I have to ask whether or not you think honor for the kingsguard means only following their first duty? When we get conflicting vows, as we often do, what makes one path honorable and one not? Is Ser Barristan dishonorable? Jaime dishonorable when he decides to kill Aerys and save the city from the pyromancer plot? Ser Duncan when he lays hands on a prince of the blood to protect the innocent? There are many complicated and uneasy answers to these questions, and others like them, so no I don't think we can say Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are dishonorable if they refuse to follow their oaths and stay to protect innocents from harm. We can say they chose one path the oath would not tell them to do, but whether or not it was honorable or not is something we need more information to decide. That's the way I see it anyway.

The evidence that word of the decree never got out widely is that we have no evidence that a lot of people knew about it. So we have no reason to think it is likely or unlikely. It is possible it became widely known and, based on the facts we have, possible that it did not. So the tie breaker for me is which of these two otherwise "equally" possible alternatives fits better with the KG discussion at ToJ. That is my evidence and that is how I "broke" the tie and determined that it was unlikely that word of the decree got to ToJ.

It is not just about honor. It is about the emphasis on their vow. They state that the are there because the made a vow. Selmy would never say he did what he did because he made a vow. Jaime -- same thing. So even if their actions were not dishonorable -- they were not in furtherance of the vow. And no one pounds his chest about keeping a vow if the "primary" vow is being violated at the same time. It makes no sense. The primary vow is the most important. So if Jaime has to "break" the vow to save people -- maybe it was honorable to break the vow. But it would not make sense for Jaime to say he did it to fulfill his vow. The KG said that very thing.

[Lord Varys]

They could refer to another vow, not the KG vow - if they literally said that.

And Ned's code of honor - the basis of his judgment of Ser Arthur - does most likely don't give a fig about the KG oath. He praises Arthur as a knight, not as a KG. The Kingsguard aren't great knights/men because they are KG - they are great despite the fact that they are KG.

[Avalatis]

Right, but on the flip side, it would a bit of a coincidence that the QoLaB wreath happened to be blue winter roses, and it's "the" wreath either way because it's the one he gave. I think we need to mark this one down as a could be either way.

That's why some speculated that Rhaegar was behind the tournment. Though it seems odd that he already had plans/desires for Lyanna before this point. He also had to assume he would win. Do we also know if Lyanna liked the blue winter roses before Harrenhal? It could be she liked them after Rhaegar gave her the wreath.

[Avalatis]

This has all happened before and it will all happen again. Funny enough it is the same posters involved in the debate :).

1.) We have no clue how the Kingsguard got their information. We do know they aren't not Vary's and don't have informed spies everywhere. They could have gotten their news from a raven that traveled to starfall or they could have caught "news" spread by traveling merchants or riders.

2.) We have no clue of how the announcement (if any) was made about Viserys being made heir. Nothing. So we have another big assumption being made by SFDanny and Lord Varys. This could have been anything from a formal court announcement, to a small council meeting, to a will that Aerys made that only maybe a couple of people knew about (which became public later and Yandel would have access to as a Maester, though it was a rather irrelevant fact considering the *very short* time period between any such decree and the death of Aegon). You two are making the big assumption that while a war is going down (and an Army is marching on the Capital after the horrific loss of Rhaegar) they would prioritize sending ravens to every part of the realm to announce and celebrate a new prince of dragonstone instead of demanding additional troops for the war effort. It makes no sense.

3.) The importance of the news to the vast majority of of the people in Westeros is the obvious reason the KG would not have heard. You two are claiming that the news of Viserys being made heir holds weight compared to the death/defeat of Rhaegar at the Trident? Or the murder of Elia and her children and the sacking of Kingslanding. Or Tywins betrayal of Aerys. Or the Kingslayer Jaime Lannister putting a sword through the King who he swore to protect? Or Robert Bartheon naming himself the new King? You are doing mental gymnastics to think this information was anything anyone cared about especially since it became irrelevant within a short period of time (could be within days depending how long it took Ned to march to Kingslanding and how long it took for Aerys to decide to make Viserys heir).

It takes numerous highly unlikely assumptions (not just one) to get to the point where you can claim it was more likely than not that the KG new of the "decree". Meanwhile there is no text in the books to support it (which is why this had never been thought of before). I won't bother covering the TOJ and the new large assumption of additional vows that Hightower was so stupid he got talked into it.

I apologize for the hostile language against your theory. It is possible that they knew, but highly unlikely. For both of you to pretend that the theory is not only a strong possibility but is the more likely; it defies logic and rationalization.

[Moondancer]

The bulk of the nobility of Westeros were gathered in one place with the purpose of showing off to each other. It's a fair bet that the bulk of the merchants of Westeros would have flooded into Harrenhal with all their best luxury goods, too. I don't see any reason to doubt that Rhaegar could have just wandered into the market and ordered up a crown of blue roses to go.

It makes sense.

Rhaenys_Targaryen,

He had a day. :D

[Lord Varys]

I imagine the blue roses grew at Harrenhal, you know, with it being technically winter and all. And they may not have been chosen by Rhaegar - they could have been Lord Whent's prize.

Avalatis,

well, I usually honor the medieval setting and the restriction of the information flow as well as the fact that rumors develop easily in this setting. Especially since the author hammers home that fact again and again.

You get all sorts of contradictions when you assume the tower had detailed information on the Sack. How could it possible have gotten there before Ned? Only by raven, but ravens would not fly there nor would anyone in KL loyal to the Targaryens be able to send a raven there. After all, the city was in rebel hand, and Pycelle was a Lannister crony who had betrayed the Targaryens.

Tywin and Robert/Ned would have no interest to release information on the manner of Aerys' death or the deaths of the children.

At best rumors could have reached them if there were Targaryen loyalists nearby which were in contact with the tower - of which we have no evidence for. The chances that rumors would have reached the tower via travelers is about zero.

But if we assume that there was source in KL who contacted the tower and told them about Rhaegar's death and the Trident - and that would have to go there via raven and messenger, too - then there is no reason that the same source would not also tell them that Aerys had named Viserys heir instead of Aegon. After all, this would have concerned Rhaegar's family.

Not to mention that we have no reason not to assume that Aerys publicly proclaimed that Viserys was his heir now. Yandel's casual mentioning of that fact is a pretty good hint that this common knowledge as he does not discuss it all - which he would if he was giving new or partially unknown information.

[MtnLion]

With regard to the assumption that Yandel could be basing his account of Viserys being named heir over Aegon, it is completely unsupported. The only thing that proponents have to wave is that Ran is pointing to an actual document that Yandel seems to have located, that no one else has read. That's right, these same proponents insist that the Kingsguard at the tower of joy knew about it, when absolutely no one else mentions knowing about it. Jaime doesn't even think of it when thinking about possible heirs. Think about it, King Aerys' bodyguard during the his last days has no idea of a supposed decree. It just doesn't exist.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Asserting that the Kingsguard at the tower of joy knew about a decree that no one mentions is lacking in evidence. There is no point in bothering to refute it.

[Lord Varys]

Well, aren't dreams not also considered non-existing evidence ;-)?

[Avalatis]

You get all sorts of contradictions when you assume the tower had detailed information on the Sack. How could it possible have gotten there before Ned?

Ned didn't go straight to the tower. News of that magnitude would spread like wild fire. It would be the talk of the realm. And this isn't detailed information. But highlights would have reached them (such as Jaime's betrayal).

After all, the city was in rebel hand, and Pycelle was a Lannister crony who had betrayed the Targaryens.

Soldiers talk. Merchants who fled the city of the the sack talk. People who fled the city after the sack talk. And yes these people would be very motivated to move faster than Ned and his army. But even if it was a raven who sent it? What did they know? Was it family correspondence updating Starfall of events or was it someone specifically sending information so that the Kingsguard would know? See how many assumptions need to be made to get even close to your assumption of information?

Tywin and Robert/Ned would have no interest to release information on the manner of Aerys' death or the deaths of the children.

That isn't something you can contain. Numerous soldiers and civilians were there and survived. Robert and Tywin could not have contained that knowledge had they purged the entire city. The manner of the deaths of the children/Elia was not known by the Kingsguard. Jaime killing Aerys was actually hailed by Robert and was a huge point of contention between Ned and Robert. There was no move to hide this and even had there been it would have been known far and wide by the legendary aspect of it.

At best rumors could have reached them if there were Targaryen loyalists nearby which were in contact with the tower - of which we have no evidence for. The chances that rumors would have reached the tower via travelers is about zero.

I already explained how the news traveled. We also have no clue how long it it was between the sack of Kingslanding and Ned arriving at the TOJ. There could have been weeks between the two. You also have no clue how they would have heard the news in the first place (TOJ was isolated). They had to get supplies so that means someone was bringing it to them or they were going out to retrieve it.

But if we assume that there was source in KL who contacted the tower and told them about Rhaegar's death and the Trident - and that would have to go there via raven and messenger, too - then there is no reason that the same source would not also tell them that Aerys had named Viserys heir instead of Aegon. After all, this would have concerned Rhaegar's family.

You have numerous compounded assumptions here. This isn't one assumption deep this requires a complete fabrication of story to make it possible. 1.) They had to have gotten their information from an informant 2.) This informant had unlimited ravens to send to update them in a twitter like fashion of all news worthy events 3.) Aerys making Viserys heir was made public 4.) This informant managed to send out a raven in the limited time frame where it was relevant 5.) This informant even thought this news was worthy of mentioning when Rhaegar had been killed in a legendary battle at the Trident and a army was marching on Kingslanding 6.) This mystical informant could have evaded Vary's and his spies 7.) This informant survived the sack of Kingslanding along with his infinite Ravens to continue to inform them of events

Not to mention that we have no reason not to assume that Aerys publicly proclaimed that Viserys was his heir now. Yandel's casual mentioning of that fact is a pretty good hint that this common knowledge as he does not discuss it all - which he would if he was giving new or partially unknown information.

We've given many different reasons for why it wasn't publically proclaimed: 1.) Priorities 2.) Not to offend the Dornish 3.) Meant as a will to be read on Aerys death bed, which gives him a chance to change it if he survives 4.) Not to paint a target on Viserys before he's safe at Dragonstone.

Yandel doesn't discuss it because it was and is irrelevant. Aegon died within days of any such decision. It's a random factoid that a scholar might find interesting but it has no real impact on anything. Yandel mentions many facts in a offhand manner throughout the World Book. He does not elaborate on everything thing he states in the book.

[Kingmonkey]

That's why some speculated that Rhaegar was behind the tournment. Though it seems odd that he already had plans/desires for Lyanna before this point. He also had to assume he would win. Do we also know if Lyanna liked the blue winter roses before Harrenhal? It could be she liked them after Rhaegar gave her the wreath.

Nope, we don't know for sure whether she liked blue winter roses before Harrenhal, though Ned's comments about her loving the smell of them and of loving flowers is indicative that her love of them was probably a long standing trait. We also have the association of bwr with Winterfell, so while it's certainly feasible she hadn't given them much thought until Rhaegar crowned her, it seems more likely they were picked out for her.

I don't see any reason to assume that Rhaegar had given a moment's thought to Lyanna before the KoTLT events, but then there's no reason to assume he couldn't have arranged for a bwr laurel at extremely short notice anyway.

As for the point about Rhaegar assuming he would win -- I think we need to look at Jorah's exploits at the Tourney at Lannisport for a parallel here. Rhaegar won at Harrenhal because he was determined to crown Lyanna.

[SFDanny]

With regard to the assumption that Yandel could be basing his account of Viserys being named heir over Aegon, it is completely unsupported. The only thing that proponents have to wave is that Ran is pointing to an actual document that Yandel seems to have located, that no one else has read. That's right, these same proponents insist that the Kingsguard at the tower of joy knew about it, when absolutely no one else mentions knowing about it. Jaime doesn't even think of it when thinking about possible heirs. Think about it, King Aerys' bodyguard during the his last days has no idea of a supposed decree. It just doesn't exist.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Asserting that the Kingsguard at the tower of joy knew about a decree that no one mentions is lacking in evidence. There is no point in bothering to refute it.

I've got to say, MtnLion, your choice of Hitchens for an authority to cite ... well, I find it amusing, and I'll leave it at that.

There really is only one authority when it comes to these books, and his name is George R. R. Martin. To a lesser extent, when we talk about TWoI&F we can include Ran and Linda as authorities around appropriate subjects, but they are not infallible on everything. I know of no other person who can claim to have all the answers when it comes to these discussions. There are many whom I respect, especially some of the old timers who have left these threads, and some of the newer contributors as well, but none of them get to silence debate or discussion with a wave of the hand.

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to post your "absolute proof."

[SFDanny]

We've given many different reasons for why it wasn't publically proclaimed: 1.) Priorities 2.) Not to offend the Dornish 3.) Meant as a will to be read on Aerys death bed, which gives him a chance to change it if he survives 4.) Not to paint a target on Viserys before he's safe at Dragonstone.

You are arguing for and against a network that supplied the tower, but somehow did not deliver this particular information. There is abundant reasoning, some of which you list yourself, to support the idea these men made sure to their best extent to be informed of the news of the war, but let's just deal with your last list.

Priorities assumes some kind of burden on the servants at King's Landing that is not in evidence. While Aerys certainly would want more men to defend him, and he had summoned Tywin and threatened the Dornish for more men to accomplish that, none of that means that both cannot take place at the same time. Priorities doesn't mean a second paragraph in a letter cannot be written. Second, the purpose of the change is almost certainly TO OFFEND the Dornish. We know Aerys blames the defeat at the Trident on them. This is his payback, but Prince Doran must also remember he still holds Elia and her children. He has no reason to keep it secret, as I said, he wants it to be known that he has the power to put whomever he wants on the throne after him. Or so Aerys thinks. And he can change his mind whenever he wishes. Letting people know he has chosen Viserys over Aegon in no way restricts him from changing his mind and reversing this later, or even placing someone else as his heir. When Viserys goes to Dragonstone he does so with the royal fleet. The rebels have no power at sea. He is as safe as he can be until the rebels can build a navy or find one willing to attack Dragonstone.

[Voice]

Varys has his own agenda. He is not KG and does not have their sense of honor. I believe Varys is engaged in a family reinstatement mission (I suspect he is a Blackfyre himself). But in any case, I think whatever Varys is doing is for his own reasons and has nothing to do with enforcing any rules of inheritance.

Of course. I think it goes without saying that Varys has his own agenda though, right? LOL

I don't subscribe to the Varys Blackfyre theories, but this development (fAegon's Landing) is an intriguing point in favor of them.

Varys is backing a cloth dragon instead of an actual dragon, with dragons, who also happens to be the one true heir to the IT.

As to your point in the spoiler box -- I am not sure why you put it in a box. My understanding is that only information from the released WoW chapters require spoiler boxes at this time. In any event, you assert that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar. No such thing occurred to my knowledge. Assuming the "decree" really happened, then all it means is that Aerys put Viserys ahead of Aegon. Rhaegar was heir up until his death. After Rhaegar's death, perhaps Aerys named Viserys as the new heir. But even if such a thing happened and was respected, Aegon would still be potentially eligible after Viserys. Viserys merely would come ahead of Aegon. And of course Aerys likely never knew of Jon's existence so Aerys could not disinherit Jon directly. Given that Rhaegar was not disinherited, Jon is not disinherited. Only if Viserys is considered the rightful heir, from a royal decree, and then if Viserys named Dany his heir, would Dany have, at least arguably, the superior claim to a legit Aegon or to a legit Jon.

The notion that Hightower would be a "usurper" and choose Jon over the "chosen heir" seems highly unlikely to me. Dayne and Whent, maybe, but Hightower, highly unlikely.

It was a facetious spoiler box, truth be told. LOL

It seems clear, to me anyway, that Aerys knew (from Varys) of Rhaegar's plans to usurp him. Hence the reason Aerys tagged along for the Tourney of Harrenhal. It also seems clear to me that Aerys put Rhaegar in harm's way, at what was soon to become the Ruby Ford (so named for Rhaegar's demise). And, last and certainly not least, it seems clear that Aerys was a Valyrian Supremacist, and did not approve of Rhaegar mixing his blood with lesser ilk. Thus, for Rhaegar's treasonous actions and lack of "silver of hair" children, he named Viserys his heir... disinheriting Rhaegar's true-born children.

The evidence that word of the decree never got out widely is that we have no evidence that a lot of people knew about it. So we have no reason to think it is likely or unlikely. It is possible it became widely known and, based on the facts we have, possible that it did not. So the tie breaker for me is which of these two otherwise "equally" possible alternatives fits better with the KG discussion at ToJ. That is my evidence and that is how I "broke" the tie and determined that it was unlikely that word of the decree got to ToJ.

I applaud your gymnastics, and tie-breaking analysis, but Aerys was not a discreet man. The idea that his decree was discreet, or even subtle, doesn't seem to jive with the man he was.

Rather than shoehorning Aerys' decree into your interpretation of the events at the toj, it seems more reasonable, to me anyway, to simply recognize the information in its own light. And, in its own light, the decree makes Viserys the true heir. Any legitimate, or illegitimate children of Rhaegar, simply do not matter. They were passed over. Daenerys is the only heir of Viserys, who in turn was the only heir of Aerys.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Right, but on the flip side, it would a bit of a coincidence that the QoLaB wreath happened to be blue winter roses, and it's "the" wreath either way because it's the one he gave. I think we need to mark this one down as a could be either way.

Why would it be a coincidence?

Ever considered that maybe they were Lyanna's favorites because she received them from Rhaegar in 281? That they were her favorites from that day forth?

It makes sense.

Rhaenys_Targaryen,

He had a day. :D

What do you mean? The tourney was not announced a day before it was held...there would have been months to arrange for the blue winter roses for the laurel..