R+L=J v.142

[Avalatis]

No one can explain what a KG or another person is supposed to do when the succession is not clear. That is the point of unclear successions. That is why when the succession is challenged, we always have a civil war and/or a Great Council to clarify the succession.

That is why I find the endless discussions about the presence of the KG at ToJ unnecessary, because that is missing the complete picture.

The entire theory of R+L=J is missing the complete picture, else it wouldn't be a theory and would be an established fact in the books. I think there is quite a bit of evidence such as Martin's quote and Jon Snow stating "by all the laws" that sons before uncles and even daughters before uncles. The Targaryens have an exception to that rule as women cannot inherit before men (so uncles before daughters).

But if your point is that "nothing is certain". Then yeah, there is no way the KG could be certain that Lyanna's son wouldn't be challenged. But until that point he would be the default heir. The Kingsguard are men of action, they will do their duty until they no longer can.

[Kingmonkey]

@Kingmonkey

In the last thread you brought up the fact that Yandel drops it as if it is no importance that would suggest it is widely known. At the same time this his a history book where such a tidbit of "new heir" should have been emphasized with additional text as it is clearly an unusual move. So I think it could go both ways on this. Unless Yandel is banking on the forethought of the readers (time crunch which has been brought up) and this isn't a reference or a lie at all. It's an eventuality that everyone accepted as Aegon died with no real chance to be heir.

By "time crunch", do you mean the idea that Yandel was simply calling Viserys the new heir on the basis that he was going to be so shortly without any intervention from Aerys necessary, when Aegon died? Ran's discussion of primogeniture in the context of that line in the book puts that idea to bed. Discussions of whether it actually happened and how aside, it's hard to read Elio's response in any way that doesn't confirm that Yandel is indeed saying that line indicates a change in heir.

I do see your point that as an unusual move, it would make sense for a historian to go into more detail. However the idea of Aerys putting Viserys ahead in the inheritance had already been discussed by Yandel a page or so back, so there's already context. If he assumes his target audience (Robert Joffrey Tommen) would be likely to know about the change in inheritance, it wouldn't be necessary to explain that line. On the other hand, if GRRM/Elio/Linda weren't writing an academic history, they wrote a story. I suspect it was intentional NOT to draw too much attention to that line.

[Kingmonkey]

If we imagine Arthur standing above Ned about to kill him it is not very likely a fishing net could actually have immobilized him without endangering Ned (after all, Dayne should cut through such a net on contact). And to deal a mortal blow through such a net with a frog spear would be not exactly easy. And I'm not sure a fishing net a net used by gladiators and pit fighters are the same type of nets. Fishing nets are very light and designed to catch fish who are supposed to not realize that the net is there. The net of a fighter is usually much more stable, and even includes some weight to keep the the enemy immobilized. I very much doubt that Howland carried this type of net (if he took a net with him to Dorne at all - not sure where he would have wanted to catch fish there...).

Further to Ygraine's point, I think it's no accident that the traditional weapons GRRM gives to the Crannogmen -- trident, dagger and net -- were the arms of the retiarii gladiators, specifically intended for fighting against a more heavily-armoured foe.

We shouldn't assume that the fishing net and frog fork are exactly that. The history of weaponry is full of examples of weapons that derive from functional tools. A farmer picks up a bill hook or threshing flail to defend himself when bandits turn up; next time the bandits show up, the farmer has mounted his bill on a longer pole, or added spikes to the flail, and the halberd and footman's flail are invented. The outsider may see hunting and fishing equipment, but the crannogman's eyes may seen equipment specialised for warfare.

It's notable that retiarii were considered the lowest of the low amongst gladiators, but that didn't stop some of them being rather successful. GRRM likes his examples of conventional fighters underestimating unconventional ones, and we shouldn't be too certain that Howland isn't an example of just this. If he'd been allowed to enter the lists at Harrenhal with net and trident, he might have been a lot more confident of winning himself.

[Lord Varys]

UL,

you are not making sense. You just repeat stuff that you have no reason to believe - this idea that kings cause trouble if they don't follow primogeniture, and that this is somehow the case since the Dance. Where is your textual evidence for that?

The Dance does not really play into the primogeniture thing all that much. Viserys I named his eldest child, his daughter his heir, and stuck with that even after he had legitimate son. This was against the custom of male primogeniture, but the Jaehaerys I, the first Great Council of 101, and the third Great Council of 233 set precedents against the elder branch of the royal house, and stipulated that younger sons (Baelon, Aegon V) can come before (male and female) grandchildren from the elder line. The Realm and Aegon V forcing Prince Duncan to abdicate established another precedent against male primogeniture in general. Why this was done - Duncan marrying a woman of uncertain birth - does not matter. Aegon V successfully disinherited his eldest son, and thus other kings can do this now, too. Just as the Joff's dismissal of Barristan Selmy from the KG set a precedent for this - now every king can dismiss any KG for any reason he wants.

If an heir predeceases a king the heirs children are usually fucked. Aemon's daughter Rhaenys was passed over (but most likely would have been passed over had Aemon become king), and so where Princes Maegor and Aegon. The king decides whether he wants to hand his realm to one of his own sons or his grandchild. And the Realm can't do anything about that. The succession is an internal matter of the Crown, not something everybody gets a say. Only rival claimants can challenge the rise of a king. If the Tyrells hadn't had Renly as a pretender they could not have possibly tried to seat somebody else on the Iron Throne (all they could have done would have been to declare the independence of the Reach, or something like that).

If you check the history of the Targaryen dynasty then being named heir by the king is a constituting element for a smooth succession. Nobody challenges Aenys' ascension to the Iron Throne, but Maegor met resistance because he wasn't Aenys' heir - and so on.

After Maekar's death there was a succession crisis not because the king had chosen the wrong heir (or acted against primogeniture) but because he had not named an heir. There were multiple claimants with good claims, and factions supporting them, but the will of the late king wasn't known - which is why Bloodraven called a Great Council to prevent a war.

If kings have chosen heirs they can ensure that their ascension is not challenged, even if they would name bastards or second cousins their heir simply by removing all other claimants from positions of power while giving power and offices to the chosen heir and his friends and allies. If an heir is Hand before the death of the king his ascension is essentially secured, as the Hand rules in the late king's stead until a new king is crowned.

They can also execute, exile, or force the claimants they disinherited/passed over to join an order and thus neutralize their claims permanently. But this is not necessary if the king is actually the king - that is, the guy in charge.

You are free to believe whatever the hell you want to believe about the beliefs of the knights at the tower, but you are not free to invent something about the Targaryen succession, and to use that then as evidence to justify your belief about the knights' beliefs at the tower. It does not work this way. We have good textual evidence how the succession actually worked, and it is completely at odds with your theory.

I'm sorry, but that's just as it is. And this is actually a new development. Prior to TWoIaF we all thought there was a strict line of succession going like Aerys > Rhaegar > Aegon > Viserys > Rhaenys > Daenerys > Rhaella. But the truth is that this is simply not the case. If an heir dies, then the king decides who next in line is, not a strict, law-based line of succession. If the king decides without having named a clear heir, or if both king and heir die at the same time, things get unclear.

[RumHam]

Lord Varys already covered this, but a few specific points:

But based on what we know of the history of Westeros, every case in which there are competing claims (other than arguably Maegor), the claims were resolved by GC or war. We have no examples of where the King names a different heir and everyone merely accepts that naming as binding after the death of the King. Not one example. And the only relevant example where the King died having named someone else – it resulted in war and the person the king named was never regarded as having been Queen by history. So I take that as proof that the naming by the King of a different heir is NOT binding on everyone else after the death of the King. So while the rules of primogeniture might not be binding on the King, the King’s naming of someone else as heir is not binding on the kingdom after his death.

And there is your mistake. As I've said before people not following the king's wishes does not set a precedent that the king cannot chose his heir. The idea is sorta ridiculous since the king is the highest authority in the land. Once again unless I'm mistaken we're discussing whether Aerys had the right/authority to name an unusual heir. I don't think what might have happened in an alternate timeline where the Targaryens won the war is at all relevant. Did Cersei tearing up Robert's will establish a precedent that the wills of future kings can be ignored? Of course not. She just broke the rules. Breaking a rule/law does not automatically abolish that rule or law.

To repeat for the sake of clarity: what may have or probably would have happened in your hypothetical "Targaryens win" situation has no bearing on the question at hand. Which is "Could Aerys have named Viserys heir over Aegon?" You could try to argue that the Kingsguard themselves would have disregarded Aerys's decree, but anyone else hypothetically disregarding it or demanding a Great Council is not relevant to this discussion.

Also I find it amusing that now you're saying that competing claims beg a Great Council, when in this case someone was explicitly established as heir. But when the question was Jon or Viserys, a much less clear situation, you argue the Kingsguard just decided on their own. No Great Council needed, obviously Jon is king even though very few people know he exists and his legitimacy is questionable at best.

I also acknowledge that even where the king names no one, male-preferred primogeniture is not binding. Aegon V is an example. But Aegon V only had a valid claim in that case because a GC excluded everyone in front of Aegon V for specified reasons (Maegor being a young child and son of a crazy person, Daeron’s daughter being “simple” (and probably being female as a factor) and Aemon refusing to forsake being a maester and taking the throne). I have always acknowledged that where enough people in power view it necessary, a GC can select someone “out of order” to be King (or perhaps Queen). Such a “precedent” however would not change the “rules” going forward – it would simply be an example of the power of a GC to alter the rules on a case-by-case basis

Here we agree. I am not one of the few people arguing that the Great Council of 233 changed the usual succession procedure. Ran even said that the only precedent that can be taken from any of the great councils was the "no girls allowed" rule.

[MtnLion]

Avalatis, KCDFTT.

[Lord Varys]

Kingmonkey,

well, I don't think it is completely impossible, but on my list of possibilities how Howland could defeat and kill Ser Arthur Dayne if there was a fight between these net and frog spear are at the very end. Before that come poison and magic.

If I'm not very much mistaken the crannogmen are the most traditional 'civilized' First Men living this side of the Wall (the clansmen of the Mountains of the Moon being uncivilized). Which means they most likely use bronze for their weapons rather than iron - if their frog spears carry metal heads at all (could be hardened wood or obsidian) - and thus Howland would have to be very lucky indeed to pierce Arthur's armour with such a weapon.

Culturally, pit fighting and crannogmen lifestyle couldn't be farther apart. I'm not sure trident and net would be useful tools for fights in the lands the crannogmen live in, nor do we have any hint they have ritualistic tourney-like events in which they could be used in one-on-one combat.

RumHum,

well, custom by precedent essentially means that single events shape the general guidelines of what is considered to be proper/allowed and what is not. It is indeed the case that there was no universally accepted Queen Regnant in Westeros, and nothing came of the attempts to change that. But we also have precedents against male primogeniture (Duncan vs. Jaehaerys), and five precedents against the inheritance of the elder (male and female) line (Maegor vs. Aegon, Baelon vs. Rhaenys, Viserys vs. Laenor, Aegon V vs. Maegor, and Viserys III vs. Aegon). This gives any king a lot precedents to use to justify his decision to pass over his eldest son in favour of whoever he would rather see on the Iron Throne.

There are actually only very few incidents in which the throne passed from father to eldest son: Aegon I > Aenys I; Aegon III > Daeron I; Viserys II > Aegon IV; Aegon IV > Daeron II; Jaehaerys II > Aerys II. Those make only five precedents.

[gash is back]

how is this theory still going so long? like we all know it's true. and it's not like it will even come close to the biggest twist in the series.

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

You are engaging in a case of projection -- accusing me of engaging in the behavior you are actually the one engaging in. I contend that you, my friend, are the one who is mischaracterizing the Targ history and the implications of events. You have made these assertions about Targ history before, and I have let them go because it is so tedious to respond point-by-point. But I will do my best to try to be as succinct as possible (after finishing writing my post, I see that I failed to be succinct) and correct what I see as your interpretive errors (after finishing writing my post, I think I did fulfill this mission).

You state that DoD had little to do with primogeniture. I think you are ignoring the entire point of DoD – particularly what it is held to signify as precedent. In support of this proposition, you reference the GC of 101 and 233. I am not sure how the 233 GC can be relevant to DoD, as it occurred later, but I will just go with it because I don’t think it changes my point.

You state that GC 101 stands for the proposition that younger sons can come before grandchildren from an elder line. No. What that GC stands for – and what it came to be known for, it that male lines come before female lines. Here is the “money quote” from WOIAF: “what mattered most was that the male line take precedence over the female line.” The two contenders were Viserys, son of Baelon and grandson of Jaehaerys, and Laenor, son of Rhaenys, grandson of Aemon and great-grandson of Jaehaerys. While other factors were considered, the main factor that was determinative and for which this GC is understood to represent is that male lines are ahead of female lines. Even though I believe Rhaenys was still alive during 101, she was not even considered a final contender. But her son, Laenor, was considered a claimant but determined to have a lesser claim than Viserys because Laenor’s claim was derivative of Rhaenys’s claim and Rhaenys’s claim was inferior to Viserys’s claim because Viserys was male and Rhaenys was female.

So GC 101 is all about fine-tuning the rules of the Targ version of primogeniture – clarifying that sons of female descendants have inferior claims to sons of male descendants. In other words, any female in the chain between the king and the potential heir being considered puts that claimant behind another claimant through an all-male line. So contrary to your assertion that GC 101 stands for younger sons coming before grandchildren of an elder line – it stands for no such thing. First, it was not a younger son coming first over a grandchild – but rather a grandson from a younger son coming before a great-grandchild of an elder line. But that point is more or less irrelevant. As noted above, the main argument that was used – and for which the Targs considered the GC to stand for – is that male lines come ahead of female lines. After that GC, Targs agreed that such a rule was the “normal” rule of succession. Although other factors were considered, the male-line preference was the deciding factor and the “rule” that is considered to have come from this GC. Here is the other “money” quote from WOIAF to demonstrate my point: “In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession: regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendents.”

Next you reference the Egg GC of 233. You state that this GC was needed only because Maekar failed to name an heir. You have zero evidence that the GC would not have been called if Maekar had named an heir. We know that Maekar did not name an heir, but we don’t know what would have happened if Maekar had named an heir. Once again, you are the one assuming facts that are not supported by the text. All we know is that Bloodraven wanted to avoid war that might result from competing claims so he called a GC. That GC did not attempt to follow any “rules” or set any new “rules” for the order of succession. Rather, that GC decided to consider the alternatives and select the person who was “best” for the kingdom.

No one suggested that a “rule” was being applied that would lead to Aegon V as king. No one suggested that Aegon V had a better claim than Maegor because Aegon was son of the king and Maegor grandson of the king. Rather, Aegon was an adult and Maegor was 3 years old and child of one of the craziest and cruelest Targ members in recent memory, Vaella was not mentally competent (interesting that being a female was not noted as a reason against her – although her consideration was dismissed immediately so maybe that was an implied factor) and Aemon refused. So the only precedent it set was the precedent that a GC can be called to select someone “out of order” for the best interest of the kingdom when there are competing claims. But naming an heir cannot guarantee that there will not be competing claims.

Nothing in the reported proceedings of that GC allow anyone to consider any other rule-setting precedent to have been made. So, yes, it is an example of a younger son being selected over the child of an older son, but no one suggested that in general, a younger son should supersede the child of an older son – only in this situation where the grandson was overlooked for specified reasons applicable to that person. And no one suggested that the succession issue would not have arisen if Maekar had named an heir – you merely made that up. We have no idea if a GC would have been called even if an heir had been named.

Finally you refer to Duncan as an example of disinheritance – i.e., as evidence that the King can name his own heir and be respected. But the Duncan situation stands for no such thing. Again, you are just making stuff up. Here is the direct quote from WOIAF: “Prince Duncan renounced his claim to crown and throne.” It says NOTHING about Aegon V naming Jaeherys as heir over Duncan or disinheriting Duncan. You stated that Aegon successfully disinherited his eldest son. NO. You are wrong. Aegon did not disinherit Duncan. Duncan abdicated. There is a world of difference between Aegon V disinheriting Duncan, and Duncan abdicating his right to the throne. And so Duncan’s abdication does NOT stand for the proposition that the King can name a different heir and be assured it will be respected after his death. It stands for the proposition that if an heir abdicates, the abdication will be respected – big difference and for purposes of our debate, all the difference in the world (world of ice and fire, that is).

So back to DoD for a moment. I will state again that throughout the Targ dynasty history, we have one and only one example in which the King died having named an heir different than the one who would “normally” inherit under the rules of GC 101 (male-preferred primogeniture). Again, Duncan does not count because he was out of contention by having personally abdicated. So in the one and only example in the entire history of the Targ dynasty where the King named a different heir and then died, the named heir was not respected as the Queen on the IT. The history books don’t report her as having been Queen on the IT. She is excluded from the list of the members of the Targ dynasty who ascended to the IT.

You simply slip past my point that the named heir was not respected. You claim, falsely, that Aegon V’s disinheritance was respected, but you ignore that Viserys I’s attempt to disinherit Aegon II was NOT respected. Once again – the one and only clear example in the entire Targ history in which a King died having named an heir who was not the “normal” next-in-line, the King’s choice was not respected. Even though Rhaenyra arguably sat on the throne for a time, no one considers her to have been a legitimate Queen on the IT. No one. So this one example – the only really relevant example – disproves your assertion that Kings have the right and power to name their successor. Clearly, they don’t or Rhaenyra would be respected as having sat the IT.

Then you make a point that is not inconsistent with anything I said, so I don’t know why you make it. You talk about how succession is an internal matter, and without Renly as a potential claimant, the Tyrells would not have been able to seat someone else as King. I agree with that point and don’t think that point is inconsistent with anything I have ever written on the matter. I have stated over and over again that these issues only come up when there are competing claims. There have to be competing claims. I agree. So what? Whenever the King names someone other than the “normal” next-in-line as his heir, he is always setting up a situation in which there could be competing claims because the person who was passed over will almost always have a claim (unless he abdicates, like Duncan agreed to do). Yes, you give some clever ways the King could take the other person out of contention, such as execution, exile or send to an order – but in many if not most cases, these alternatives would be impractical. And absent these extreme actions, the King cannot avoid the “original” next-in-line to have a potential claim.

I also agree that naming an heir assists in a smooth succession. But given the historical examples, if the King choses to name someone who not otherwise the “normal” next-in-line, smooth succession is not assured. We have only one example – DoD – but that one example is not encouraging. So I have textual support for my assertion that naming a different heir creates a risk of challenge. It does. DoD proves that it does. So your assertion that the King always get to decide the heir and if the King choses then succession for that person is assured is simply not correct. You are wrong. DoD proves that you are wrong.

Next you turn back to Aegon V being chosen and blame the confusion on Maekar not naming an heir. I have already addressed this issue above. Even if Maekar named an heir, we have NO proof that a similar issue would not have arisen. We have NO examples of a King naming a different heir and that different heir becoming King. Again, Jaehaerys II does not count because Duncan abdicated – he agreed he would not become king so there was no rival to Jaehaerys who would make a competing claim.

You also assert that “if kings have chosen their heirs they can ensure that their ascension is not challenged, even if they would name bastards of second cousins their heir simply be removing from positions of power while giving power and offices to the chose heir and his friends and allies.” That is more of a political and strategic argument than anything else, but it has nothing to do with the point at issue. Back to the Viserys/Aegon situation, no matter what Aerys would try to do (short of execution, exile or move to an order), Dorne likely would press Aegon’s claim after the death of Aerys – no matter what Aerys did to try to isolate the power of Aegon and his allies. Aerys also might not want to or feel he is willing to take the political hit involved in the more extreme solutions (execution, exile, etc.).

But similar to the Tyrells pushing Renly’s claim, the Martells would push Aegon’s claim – except the Martells would have a much stronger case in favor of Aegon than the Tyrells had for Renly. So even your suggestion of isolating Aegon and his allies is not guaranteed to work, but even if it would, it does not really counter anything I said – it simply is consistent with my statement that Viserys might become king because no one in power is supporting Aegon. I state explicitly that possibility, so I essentially contemplated a variation on the point you are making here and agree with you. But so what? It is a practical point – but not a point about the rules of succession.

Similarly, your point about executing, exiling or forcing a competing claimant to join an order also is a practical and not really a legal point. That point says nothing about the rules of succession – only that the King has strategies that might be employed to get his way. Most kings likely would not take such extreme actions against a member of the royal family. More important, the hypothetical I was addressing assumed the King did none of these things to take Aegon out of contention. And even more to the point, regarding ToJ, we know that none of those factors are relevant to the issue facing the KG.

So I state in the strongest terms possible that I am NOT inventing anything about the rules regarding Targ succession. You are the one who is making stuff up. That is just as it is (as you put it). Based on what I think the KG knew at the time (i.e., assuming they had no knowledge of Aerys naming Viserys as heir), the KG at ToJ arguably are facing a situation similar to Bloodraven in 233. So you make a legitimate point at the very end of your post that things get “unclear” in such a situation.

But the KG do not have the luxury of waiting for someone in power to call a GC to clarify who would be next in line. KL has fallen. The KG are in the middle of enemy territory, hiding in an abandoned tower. And the KG have the legit son of the late Crown Prince in the tower (again, assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and the KG accept the polygamous marriage). There are no lords to be gathered to have a GC. Hightower, as LC, needs to make a decision regarding whether to keep all the KG at ToJ, send all to DS or split them up. We know that the KG all stay at ToJ. Why? The only reasonable conclusion is that the KG consider Jon to be King (I have explained in prior posts why alternative theories for why they stayed don’t convince me).

So why do the KG think Jon is king? Again, maybe Aerys had told Hightower to promise Rhaegar that Aegon would be named as the next heir. Or maybe the KG decide that without the ability to call a GC, a decision must be made on who is King so that the KG can fulfill their duties. The main precedent available that sets forth actual rules of succession (as opposed to merely choosing among alternative potential contenders) is GC 101. And that precedent makes Jon the King because he is from the senior-most all-male line. I admit that I don’t know exactly on what basis the KG make this determination. But I believe that the Targ rules of male-preferred primogeniture are a valid basis upon which the KG might have made that decision. Even if Bloodraven thought the issue completely unclear, he had the luxury to call a GC to resolve the issue. The KG at ToJ had not such option available to them. So they needed to use the rules of succession that Targ history indicates would determine the next in line – and those rules support Jon as King.

[The Missing Crannogman]

If Howland did intervene in the fight at all (and not, say, only helped treat Ned's wounds after the death of all the others) then it is quite likely that Howland had an effect on Ser Arthur while he was about to slay/finish off Ned, or else the whole saving stuff would not really fit - after all, if Ser Arthur had never directly attacked/threatened Ned's life it would hardly make sense to assume that Howland saved Ned by killing him.

If we imagine Arthur standing above Ned about to kill him it is not very likely a fishing net could actually have immobilized him without endangering Ned (after all, Dayne should cut through such a net on contact). And to deal a mortal blow through such a net with a frog spear would be not exactly easy. And I'm not sure a fishing net a net used by gladiators and pit fighters are the same type of nets. Fishing nets are very light and designed to catch fish who are supposed to not realize that the net is there. The net of a fighter is usually much more stable, and even includes some weight to keep the the enemy immobilized. I very much doubt that Howland carried this type of net (if he took a net with him to Dorne at all - not sure where he would have wanted to catch fish there...).

If there was a fight involved I'd put more money on the poisoned darts of the crannogman. A shot through the open visor should be enough to kill any man, especially if a strong poison is used. And the crannogmen use poisoned arrows.

Howland fought the Kingsguard with a sword

Ned’s wraiths moved up beside him, with shadow swords in hand. They were seven against three.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Lord Varys already covered this, but a few specific points:

And there is your mistake. As I've said before people not following the king's wishes does not set a precedent that the king cannot chose his heir. The idea is sorta ridiculous since the king is the highest authority in the land. Once again unless I'm mistaken we're discussing whether Aerys had the right/authority to name an unusual heir. I don't think what might have happened in an alternate timeline where the Targaryens won the war is at all relevant. Did Cersei tearing up Robert's will establish a precedent that the wills of future kings can be ignored? Of course not. She just broke the rules. Breaking a rule/law does not automatically abolish that rule or law.

To repeat for the sake of clarity: what may have or probably would have happened in your hypothetical "Targaryens win" situation has no bearing on the question at hand. Which is "Could Aerys have named Viserys heir over Aegon?" You could try to argue that the Kingsguard themselves would have disregarded Aerys's decree, but anyone else hypothetically disregarding it or demanding a Great Council is not relevant to this discussion.

Also I find it amusing that now you're saying that competing claims beg a Great Council, when in this case someone was explicitly established as heir. But when the question was Jon or Viserys, a much less clear situation, you argue the Kingsguard just decided on their own. No Great Council needed, obviously Jon is king even though very few people know he exists and his legitimacy is questionable at best.

Here we agree. I am not one of the few people arguing that the Great Council of 233 changed the usual succession procedure. Ran even said that the only precedent that can be taken from any of the great councils was the "no girls allowed" rule.

I have already addressed most of these points in my response to LV above, but I will summarize relevant issues here.

I am not arguing that people ignoring the King's wishes is what sets the precedent. What I am arguing is that Rhaenyra actually sat the IT for some time, but nevertheless, historically, no one considers her to have been Queen on the IT. The only possible explanation for that treatment in Targ history is that she is not considered to have been the legitimate queen by anyone after DoD. DoD is seen to have settled the male-preferred primogeniture issue. It is not just that people did not follow the King's wishes. It is that many people actually DID follow the King's wishes, but after the fact, everyone acts as though the King's wishes were not followed. The only possible explanation is that no one thinks that the king's determination of an heir is binding after his death. It is not a case of ignoring the King's right to name an heir. It clearly is a case of everyone that came after DoD agreeing that the king never had the unilateral right to name his heir. Remember that after the death of Aegon II, Rhaenyra's son, Aegon III, came to power. So he or his progeny could have set the record straight and added her to the list of Targ rulers. But they don't (perhaps because the bias against female rulers apparently was strong and most everyone agreed to treat DoD as confirmation that male-preferred primogeniture was an important rule). If Rhaenyra was physically kept from the IT or killed immediately -- maybe you would have a point. But that is not what happened in DoD. She ruled from KL for some time. But she is not acknowledged as ever having been ruler of Westeros -- even though she was named by the King as his heir. So even thought the King named his heir, and even though she in fact rules for some time from the IT, no one considers her to ever have been Queen of Westeros. In other words, the King does not have the absolute right to name his successor -- DoD proves that point.

As to why the KG viewed Jon as king rather than viewing competing claims, I am not sure. I conclude that they must not have known about the naming of Viserys by Aerys because then they certainly would have had a difficult time arguing that Viserys did not have a strong claim. Jon also might have a strong claim under the DoD precedent, but certainly V would have decent claim. But without knowing about the decree, Viserys's claim becomes much weaker. Yes, Aegon V became king via GC under similar circumstances. But I have explained in my response to LV that there are multiple reasons why the KG here might view it different. Primarily, KL was lost to the Targs. The Lords all declared for Robert. So no GC was possible. Without a GC -- and without knowledge that Aerys named a new heir -- the KG would basically have to rely on the "general" rule of primogeniture. And that rule leads to Jon and not Viserys as king.

[Ser Leftwich]

Just had a thought about the "half-dozen" companions of Rhaegar in the Riverlands. The usual suspects are:

Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, Myles Mooton, Richard Lonmouth, along with several other candidates.

Just wanted to add one to the mix: Bonifer Hasty. Old friend/love of Rhaegar's mother, someone who would be willing to help in such a venture.

And someone who is both 1) alive, and 2) we have heard of!

Thoughts?

[Lord Varys]

UL,

1. The Dance is considered a precedents against female inheritance when Baelor's succession is discussed in 171 AC, but it is a precedent which was settled by war. Primogeniture was a topic in the events leading up to the Dance as Viserys I effectively changed set a precedent for Dornish inheritance (the eldest child inherits, regardless of gender by force of his royal authority) as well as a setting a precedent for 'a king can choose his heir as he sees fit' as nobody actually challenged Viserys' decree to name Rhaenyra his heir during his lifetime.

But the Dance does not concern the fact that other kings chose male heirs that were not from the female line.

2. The first precedent that younger sons can come before grandson from the elder line is Maegor vs. Aegon, the second is Baelon vs. Rhaenys in 92 AC (decided by Jaehaerys' royal decree/decision). The Great Council of 101 reinforced the decision of 92 AC by confirming Prince Viserys, the late Baelon's eldest son, as Jaehaerys' heir. The Velaryon party tried to challenge Jaehaerys' decision from 92 AC by putting forth Laenor's claim as he was not female and thus the arguments used by Baelon's supporters (and accepted by Jaehaerys) in 92 AC could not apply there. Viserys was Baelon's natural heir - had Baelon ascended the Iron Throne as King Baelon I there wouldn't have been a need for a Great Council as Baelon would simply have named Viserys Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent after his own coronation. The arguments used against Laenor were indeed that the male line must come before the female line which is essentially an arguments against the ascension of grandsons before younger sons if those grandsons are descended from the king through the female line - which is the case with Laenor Velaryon.

By the way, we know from Ran that Rhaenys and Laena were not among the nine lesser claimants who were discussed at the Great Council in 101 - Rhaenys only died during the Dance, and was a vocal supporter of her son during the council, as was Corlys Velaryon.

That the male line takes precedence of the female line was an argument against Laenor, it was not the question the council was called to discuss. It was called to discuss the succession, nothing else. What arguments swayed the various lords are their secrets. And it is also an interpretation of the Great Council that it set an iron precedent against the inheritance of females and males from the female line in general - this die-hard interpretation is that no female and no male through the female line can ever sit the Iron Throne. However, Robert Baratheon set a precedent that the female line takes precedence over the male line (Viserys III), and had there ever been a situation in which only males through the female line (or only daughters) were left to claim the throne they would have done so as the throne would hardly have disappeared in such a scenario, nor would have a male through the male line have popped into existence just because he was needed...

3. Well, Bloodraven called the Great Council to prevent another Dance. That's what George writes - if Maekar had named an heir, and if that heir had been accepted by the royal family and their supporters, there wouldn't have been a need to prevent a succession war through a Great Council, no? Great Councils don't just pop into existence - had Bloodraven seen any other opportunity to prevent a war he most likely would have done so and just handed the crown to Aegon V who, most likely, had been his favourite candidate all along.

The precedent set by the Great Council of 233 AC is that a younger son - Aegon V - can come before a prince from the elder male line (Maegor is descended from Maekar through his second son Aerion, and from Prince Rhaegel, Maekar's elder brother, through Rhaegel's youngest daughter Daenora - he is of an impeccable Targaryen bloodline). That is a fact, simply because Aegon V ascended the Iron Throne. It does not need to want to set a precedent to do so - the Dance did also not want to set a precedent, yet people interpreted its outcome as a precedent against female inheritance. The Great Council in 101 did also not want to set a precedent against the elder line - yet it did.

You don't seem to get the precedent thing. A precedent means that there is an event X which is then later used to justify event Y. Queen Regent Cersei Lannister uses the precedent set by King Joffrey's dismissal of Barristan Selmy as Kingsguard to later strip Borros Blount of his white cloak, too. Yet aside from the fact that two White Swords were dismissed from the KG the two events have nothing in common - Selmy was dismissed because he failed to protect his king, and Blount was dismissed because he proved to a craven. And Tywin Lannister believed that those precedents could be used to dismiss Ser Jaime from the Kingsguard, too - who was neither a craven nor did he fail to protect his king.

Thus the circumstances how the Great Council of 233 chose Aegon V do not matter if a later king uses its decision as a precedent to pass over his grandson in favour of his own younger son (that is, when Aerys II decides to choose Viserys III over Prince Aegon). The important thing is that Aegon V became king instead of Prince Maegor.

4. As to Duncan and Jaehaerys: Yes, Duncan abdicated as Prince of Dragonstone and gave up his claim - under pressure from the whole court, Faith, and royal family. Aegon V did not intervene in favour of his elder son, and he did, apparently, accept Duncan's decision to give up his rights. Which means that from Aegon's POV Duncan was disinherited - after all, technically you can't give up your rights to an inheritance without the approval of the guy from whom you hope to inherit something. Duncan's actions would matter not at all if Aegon V had not accepted his abdication as Prince of Dragonstone - if Aegon V had issued a decree that Duncan was still his heir then he would have still been his heir, no? Regardless of Duncan himself did. Without the permission of the king you can't just give up your rights - if the king wants to consider you his heir you are his heir. Whether you then ascend the Iron Throne or decide to reject the crown is another matter but you cannot enforce your will against the king's will that you are not his heir. After all, Aegon V was the king. But Aegon V named Jaehaerys II Prince of Dragonstone in Duncan's place - which means he was passed over and disinherited insofar as the Iron Throne was concerned (but Aegon V might have intended to give him other holdings and incomes - say, Summerhall, or something else).

5. Back to the Dance: Viserys I named Rhaenyra his heir and Princess of Dragonstone in 105 AC with the approval of most of the Lords of the Realm and his whole council and court (including his Hand, Ser Otto, who was one of the architects of that decree). At that time Viserys I had no other child. What he did was not to change the succession later on after he had married Alicent and had three sons from her. In that sense, Aegon the Elder was never 'disinherited' but rather never named heir of his father - that is an important difference. And while Viserys I was alive nobody ever openly challenged the fact that Rhaenyra was Viserys' heir, not Aegon. The ascension of Aegon II was a coup staged against the will of Viserys I.

Just because two chosen heirs - Aenys' son Aegon and Rhaenyra - were not recognized as monarchs does not mean that kings can't name heirs. It simply means a rival claimant won a war.

6. If Princes Maegor or Aegon had been raised as having no claims to the throne by their royal uncles/grandfathers (Aegon V or Aerys II/Viserys II) it is very unlikely that they would have had the strength to challenge the claims of their royal uncles - either at the latter's ascension or at one point during their reigns. Scenarios are possible in which misrule and such could cause ambitious lords to gather round Aegon to depose Viserys (or around Maegor to depose Viserys III) but a king has the power to prevent that by ruling wise and justly. Nothing suggests that Aegon or Maegor would have challenged their uncles simply because they found they should be king - or because it was law that they should rule - if they had raised to accept things as they were, and if they had been kept away from court. They don't have to join an order or go into exile to ensure that (although those are possibilities, and many people speculate that Daenora and Maegor were either exiled or voluntarily chose exile after the Great Council).

Renly Baratheon only had the power and influence to challenge Joffrey because Robert named him Lord of Storm's End. Had Robert named Joff Prince of Dragonstone, and Tommen Lord of Storm's End neither Stannis nor Renly had had the power or the coin to push their claims against Robert's sons.

Oh, and abdication doesn't unmake your claim, either. Prince Aemon effectively gave up his claims when he became Maester Aemon. Yet some lords still tried to install him as king during the Great Council. Thus we could also assume that ambitious lords could have found a way to install King Duncan I against Jaehaerys II or Aerys II if the former had survived Summerhall. All Duncan would have needed to do was to say that he was forced to abdicate.

7. There is no such thing as a normal heir. Heirs are raised, recognized, and installed as such. If an heir is installed as such - regardless if he is the son, grandson, uncle, nephew, or cousin of the king - his ascension is much securer then if he is first considered as heir on the day the king died.

Considering Doran's caution it is very unlikely that Dorne would have pushed Aegon's claim against Viserys III if he had to fight against the other six kingdoms to do so.

And the Tyrells had actually pretty good precedents in favour of Renly's ascension against both Stannis and Cersei's children - Maegor I, Prince Baelon, Viserys I, Aegon V, Jaehaerys II, and Viserys III all were precedents Renly could use against Joffrey and Tommen. And, of course, Robert's ascension - which he did use. If you can win the loyalty of both the Reach and the Stormlands as a third son then it is pretty obvious that half the Realm or more don't care all that much about male primogeniture nor do they think younger sons have bad claims - quite the opposite, actually. And if the king also names such a younger son his heir and gives him the power and wealth to enforce his claim, he will be king. Robert didn't name Renly his heir, but he gave him the wealth and the power to challenge the claims of his sons.

[Lord Varys]

TMC,

well, this could settle the frog spear thing. Or not, I'm not willing to take all that much about this dream at face value. Howland carrying a sword does not mean he actually used it. And I'm pretty sure there was actually a fight between the knights and Ned's companions - the question is whether Ned's men actually slew any of the KG, or whether Ser Arthur turned against his brothers (or something else happened). I'm not sure how likely I find my own idea but it could give us a better explanation as to why Ned specifically praised Ser Arthur later on - he does never mention Gerold or Oswell, which is often conveniently ignored by the people arguing that Ned found it great that Arthur died for his king - if that was the case, one would expect Ned would speak of all three of them.

[RumHam]

I have already addressed most of these points in my response to LV above, but I will summarize relevant issues here.

I am not arguing that people ignoring the King's wishes is what sets the precedent. What I am arguing is that Rhaenyra actually sat the IT for some time, but nevertheless, historically, no one considers her to have been Queen on the IT. The only possible explanation for that treatment in Targ history is that she is not considered to have been the legitimate queen by anyone after DoD. DoD is seen to have settled the male-preferred primogeniture issue. It is not just that people did not follow the King's wishes. It is that many people actually DID follow the King's wishes, but after the fact, everyone acts as though the King's wishes were not followed. The only possible explanation is that no one thinks that the king's determination of an heir is binding after his death. It is not a case of ignoring the King's right to name an heir. It clearly is a case of everyone that came after DoD agreeing that the king never had the unilateral right to name his heir. Remember that after the death of Aegon II, Rhaenyra's son, Aegon III, came to power. So he or his progeny could have set the record straight and added her to the list of Targ rulers. But they don't (perhaps because the bias against female rulers apparently was strong and most everyone agreed to treat DoD as confirmation that male-preferred primogeniture was an important rule). If Rhaenyra was physically kept from the IT or killed immediately -- maybe you would have a point. But that is not what happened in DoD. She ruled from KL for some time. But she is not acknowledged as ever having been ruler of Westeros -- even though she was named by the King as his heir. So even thought the King named his heir, and even though she in fact rules for some time from the IT, no one considers her to ever have been Queen of Westeros. In other words, the King does not have the absolute right to name his successor -- DoD proves that point.

I strongly disagree. How does nobody considering her to be a legitimate queen undermine a future king's ability to name an heir? Whatever circumstance led to her brief rule being scrubbed from the history books does not to effect a king's ability to choose his heir. Just as Cersei tearing up Roberts will doesn't establish that a king's will is void. Just as Robert's side winning the rebellion doesn't establish that a ...whatever Robert's familial relation to Aerys comes before a son (Viserys.) If the Dance somehow established this we wouldn't have all the threats of disinheritance of firstborn sons or of course the example of Aerys naming Viserys over Aegon.

(For the record I think one would have a very hard time establishing a precedent that a king can't do something, as they are the ultimate authority.)

As to why the KG viewed Jon as king rather than viewing competing claims, I am not sure. I conclude that they must not have known about the naming of Viserys by Aerys because then they certainly would have had a difficult time arguing that Viserys did not have a strong claim. Jon also might have a strong claim under the DoD precedent, but certainly V would have decent claim. But without knowing about the decree, Viserys's claim becomes much weaker. Yes, Aegon V became king via GC under similar circumstances. But I have explained in my response to LV that there are multiple reasons why the KG here might view it different. Primarily, KL was lost to the Targs. The Lords all declared for Robert. So no GC was possible. Without a GC -- and without knowledge that Aerys named a new heir -- the KG would basically have to rely on the "general" rule of primogeniture. And that rule leads to Jon and not Viserys as king.

I agree that it's possible they did not know, though I think it's very selective to assume they got all the other news of the trident and the sack, but not this news. At this point I think regardless of Jon's legitimacy it makes more sense to assume they were following Rhaegar's orders than taking it upon themselves to establish Jon as their king. You simply don't need "They viewed Jon as legitimate/the king/the rightful king" to explain their presence, as many have long argued.

Edit: Of course all this stuff to that effect, the SSM about how they would follow orders, this Viserys thing could all be an attempt by the author to cast doubt on R+L=J or the idea that Jon has a strong claim to the throne. I'm still about 50/50 on Jon being considered legitimate. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss the Viserys news out of hand.

Edit again: Also, as to the actual meta reason why Rhaenyra isn't considered a true queen. I've seen it suggested that the reason she's not is because that aspect was something decided back in the 90's when she was only a year or two older than Aegon II and married to a Strong. Later Martin actually wrote the story of the Dance and she sat the Iron throne for half a year. So the idea is that:

“Rhaenyra was never a queen,” the king declared, insisting that henceforth, in all chronicles and court records, his half sister be referred to only as “princess,” the title of queen being reserved only for his mother Alicent and his late wife and sister Helaena, the “true queens.” And so it was decreed.

Is basically a way of rectifying the newly written stuff with what had been established in the novels. I add this because I think it's interesting, not because I think it really affects the debate. As I've said I don't see the Dance as establishing that a king can't name an unusual heir.

[The Missing Crannogman]

TMC,

well, this could settle the frog spear thing. Or not, I'm not willing to take all that much about this dream at face value. Howland carrying a sword does not mean he actually used it. And I'm pretty sure there was actually a fight between the knights and Ned's companions - the question is whether Ned's men actually slew any of the KG, or whether Ser Arthur turned against his brothers (or something else happened). I'm not sure how likely I find my own idea but it could give us a better explanation as to why Ned specifically praised Ser Arthur later on - he does never mention Gerold or Oswell, which is often conveniently ignored by the people arguing that Ned found it great that Arthur died for his king - if that was the case, one would expect Ned would speak of all three of them.

It's nothing conclusive of course. Howland is neither a wraith, nor did anyone likely fight with shadow swords, but he is depicted to have been about to start the fight with a sword according to the dream, and not with a spear and net. So assuming he fought with spear and net requires one to ignore the fact that he's not depicted as having them (even if that's how Howland later taught Meera to fight). He could have used a spear and net, and Ned's subconscious is just remembering him with a spear for the sake of convenience or symbolic reasons, but it shouldn't be ignored that he's said to have been there with a sword.

The lack of praise by Ned for Gerold and Oswell is also a good point. Of the three who were at the TOJ, he only ever says that Arthur was praise worthy. Which is particularly problematic if like you say they were all there doing the exact same thing. How could Arthur be more praise worthy than Gerold and Oswell if all three were trying to accomplish the same task? So either Arthur did something that distinguished himself from the other two during Ned's encounter with him, or Ned's praise for Arthur has absolutely nothing to do with that encounter.

[Lord Varys]

TMC,

yeah, another take would be that Ned had a special relationship with Arthur going back to Harrenhal, possibly connected to the whole Ashara thing. George has said that things that could fill entire novels happened at Harrenhal, and if that's the case then very much intense stuff happened there. But it might also be a hint to something Arthur did at the tower.

The only other thing in regards to the KG is that Ned considers them a shining example to the world back in Aerys' days. But that would include all of Aerys' Seven, not just the three, and it is done in comparison to the new KG of which the Kingslayer is still a member (and Robert has named men who aren't exactly the best of the best).

Rhaenyra's status and what makes a rightful king:

I tried to find some criteria what makes a rightful king in the wake of TWoIaF. From the fact that Maegor I is considered a rightful king rather than a usurper we can deduce that Maegor had something Aegon did. We know he essentially won the Iron Throne during a Trial of Seven which essentially made him king in the eyes of the Seven.

From Aegon I we know that an essential element of a true king is to be crowned/anointed by the High Septon. I imagine Maegor forced the High Septon to do this when he went to Oldtown. We also know that a true king sits on the Iron Throne and wields Blackfyre, the sword of the Conqueror (although that's a royal symbol that evolved as such overtime as Aenys I was king despite the fact that he gave Blackfyre to Maegor - although doing that could be a hint why people later considered Maegor Aenys' rightful successor rather than Prince Aegon).

Since the Greens kept the news about Viserys' death secret from Rhaenyra as long as they could, they were able to crown and anoint Aegon II (although not by the High Septon) before Rhaenyra could crown herself on Dragonstone. Aegon II was proclaimed and crowned first, and he also outlived his half-sister. Similarly, history would consider Stannis a false king/pretender in a scenario in which Joffrey is crowned first, KL then taken by Stannis during the Blackwater and Joff forced underground only to be restored to the throne after Stannis is killed. Despite the fact that Stannis sat the Iron Throne for a time he would then not considered to be a true king. Vice versa, Stannis himself would only count his reign from the day he ascended the Iron Throne - just as Jaehaerys I did - rather than from the day Robert died (as he did not really rule over the Realm from that day).

Had Rhaenyra taken and executed Aegon II when she took KL only to be eventually defeated in battle and succeeded by Aemond, Daeron, or Jaehaera history would most likely have considered to be the true queen for the short time between Aegon's death and her successor's ascension/coronation.

Summary: The Iron Throne, the anointment of the High Septon, and Blackfyre (up until Aegon IV) constitute a rightful King on the Iron Throne. If there is a war then the pretender left standing is the rightful king, of course, but if he is also the first to be crowned/to hold the throne he'll be considered the rightful king throughout the whole war even if he/she is forced to spent large portions of the war in exile or in hiding.

[Avalatis]

Avalatis, KCDFTT.

I don't understand. And Google isn't helping me with the acronym.

[MtnLion]

I don't understand. And Google isn't helping me with the acronym.

Did you look at my signature?

[Avalatis]

snip

Nice job keeping your cool. I can imagine how frustrating this is for you.