R+L=J v.142

[Lord Varys]

Those laws are not binding to the king. And they aren't binding to the Lords assembled in a Great Council, either. They chose who they want, just as kings choose who they want.

Alys Karstark does not want to marry her second cousin once removed, Cregan, and is using the law to defend her case, and Jon Snow is taking Alys' side in this because he is supporting King Stannis in the his campaign against House Bolton (who the Cregan's father and brothers want to betray).

[The Missing Crannogman]

The idea that we can deduce a sort of special status for Aegon as Rhaegar's heir is preposterous, by the way. If Aerys had honoured Aegon's status as Rhaegar's heir he would have been made Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne (which he was not) - not to mention that this is Dany remembering stuff that Viserys told her as a child. It is safe to say that Rhaella did either not tell him about his father's strained relations with his elder brother and his family, or that Viserys did not fully understand what was going there (i.e. why he had been named Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone - or he did not question the king's decision on the matter) or that he chose to not trouble Daenerys with details that would cast a bad light on her parents. After all, Viserys would have told Dany stories of 'home' to resurrect the power and glory of House Targaryen for himself as well as to tell Dany about her dead kin - nobody in such a position would be particularly eager to paint the dead in a bad light.

My understanding of the "Princes of Dragonstone" has always been that they're really just castellans. They don't own Dragonstone, the king just puts them in charge of it. I may be wrong, but has any Targaryen actually inherited Dragonstone? I.e, it was actually passed down upon the prior prince's death instead of just gifted by the king?

Dragonstone is passed down nowadays because Robert actually gave it to Stannis' family, but I don't believe that such was the case with the Targaryens. Aegon being Rhaegar's heir in my mind just means that he got like his personal possessions. Not that he'd get Dragonstone as Dragonstone wasn't Rhaegar's to give, it was Aerys'.

One line says it all:

Cregan Karstark’s lips skinned back from his teeth. “Alys was promised to me.” Though past fifty, he had been a strong man when he went into the cell. The cold had robbed him of that strength and left him stiff and weak. “My lord father—”

“Your father is a castellan, not a lord. And a castellan has no right to make marriage pacts.”

“My father, Arnolf, is Lord of Karhold.”

“A son comes before an uncle by all the laws I know.”

Cregan pushed himself to his feet and kicked aside the furs clinging to his ankles. “Harrion is dead.”

Or will be soon. “A daughter comes before an uncle too. If her brother is dead, Karhold belongs to Lady Alys. And she has given her hand in marriage to Sigorn, Magnar of Thenn.”

Is there some law that excludes the son in favor of the uncle that is not known?

But Aegon is not Aerys' son. He's Rhaegar's son. That's why I'm saying that you have the context wrong. Rhaegar wasn't king, Aerys was. His son is Viserys, not Aegon. This quote says that Viserys would come before Daeron or Duncan in inheriting the Iron Throne, not that Aegon would come before Viserys as Rhaegar wasn't king.

You're applying the "son before the uncle" rule to a context that it doesn't apply to.

[SFDanny]

Sorry, for taking so long to respond, but I've been having problems with getting on today, between needing to do other things.

SFDanny--

In my last post (or maybe second or third to last post -- losing track) in v. 141, I acknowledge the possibility that the KG chose Rhaegar over Aerys, meaning that they considered Jon to be King as heir to Rheagar with the heir to Aerys being irrelevant. I also acknowledged the possibility that #TeamObey is correct, meaning that the KG simply continued to follow the orders of Rhaegar even after his death to guard Lyanna and the baby. I should have also acknowledged your suggestion that the KG are following the vow to protect the innocent.

I agree that looking solely at the situation generally, any of these alternatives are possible. But when I read the conversation closely, none of these alternatives seem plausible. Even if the ToJ conversation is not a word-for-word recounting, it must be consistent with Ned's understanding of what happened. And I think we can safely assume that Lyanna told Ned enough so that Ned would know which of the alternatives is correct.

Let's stop right there. I don't see the basis we can assume Lyanna told Ned anything other than the promises she demanded from this before she died. I seriously doubt she had a conversation about which vow the Kingsguard was following when they fought to the death with Ned. As she lays on the brink of death she has more important things to settle with her brother - the safety of her child. I even think to assume she told him she had married Rhaegar and her son is legitimate is a mistake and is very much an open question. Whether or not Jon is Lyanna and Rhaegar's bastard child, or the legitimate heir of Rhaegar, is not shown by Ned's thoughts or actions after Lyanna's death. Although one reading of the famous scene of Ned riding from Chataya's and thinks of Jon Snow and later that Rhaegar did not frequent brothels would be that Ned thinks of Jon as Rhaegar's bastard. Either way, Robert would kill the child no matter what his status was, and the fear that left Lyanna's eyes when Ned gives her his promises is best explained by a vow to hide the child's identity and to raise him as his own.

So Ned's construction of the conversation must be consistent with what the KG were doing at ToJ.

Ned's construction of the conversation should be consistent with what he thinks the Kingsguard was doing at the ToJ. How much what Ned thinks reflects the reality of the motives behind Hightower, Dayne, and Whent's actions is not known. We can make assumptions, but it is absolutely open to question what Ned knew.

I will address each of these theories as they become relevant by reference to the ToJ conversation between Ned and KG. Here is the conversation again:

So here is my deconstruction of this conversation (with thanks to MtnLion for his assistance in the form of his now well-known analysis of this conversation in his sig). Ned asks about the Trident and the KG respond that Robert -- the Usurper -- would be dead if they had been there. Now this statement is potentially consistent with alternatives -- but calling Robert a Usurper is a bit ironic if the KG are backing Rhaegar as king over Aerys. So this statement seems a little inconsistent with that theory.

My understanding is that Rhaegar tells Jaime he means to call a council after the coming battle of the Trident to presumably settle matters concerning his father's suitability to continue as king. I don't think that means any of the Kingsguard has necessarily decided up to that point that Aerys is no longer the king. So reading some significance into the use of the word "usurper" to describe Robert concerning the possible thoughts the various Kingsguard about the validity of the now deceased Aerys's rule is quite a leap. We can agree, I think, that these men think Robert a usurper of Targaryen rule. More than that, I don't see reading into the word.

Next Ned moves to the issue of Jaime killing Aerys. The KG state that Aerys would still be on the throne if the KG has been there. Again, this statement is technically not inconsistent with siding with Rhaegar, but if the KG really decided that Rhaegar was the rightful king, then why would Aerys sit the IT rather than Jon? Wouldn't Jon become the rightful king after the death of Rhaegar -- and not Aerys -- if the KG "switched" sides from Aerys to Rhaegar? This statement also seems to be a little inconsistent with the "protect the innocent" theory, as this statement is a statement about defending the Targ dynasty rather than the innocent. While Jaime is not really an innocent either, if they are at ToJ for the purpose of protecting the innocent, this reference is a bit out of place.

Again, I'm not sure of the purpose of trying to frame this into a choice by the Kingsguard between Aerys as King or Rhaegar as King. This is clearly not a choice any of them have had to make. It is important to note that Whent and Dayne seem to have played a role in Rhaegar's attempt to bring together an "informal great council" at Harrenhal and the are very likely to be sympathetic to Rhaegar's moves, but that doesn't mean they have decided Aerys is no longer their king, and that Rhaegar is. They haven't had to make that choice yet, and as it turns out they never are confronted with having to do so. Please note that Jon's birth is likely to be right around the time of the sack or a month to six weeks later. There is no choice between Jon and Aerys. Aerys is likely dead when Jon is born. And if he is still alive when Jon is born the time period between his death and Jon's birth is so small that any idea that the Kingsguard trio know of Aerys's death when Jon is born is extremely unlikely.

Now, the choice I described in my last post is very different than the one you seem to want to deal with. That was a choice between Viserys and Jon. A partially similar choice that we know Ser Barristan makes in the decision to abandon Viserys. But, very different choice in that Selmy's is not one in which he had another Targaryen king to protect. In choosing one king over another, especially if they know of the decree, then they are making a choice similar to Lord Commander Criston Cole, the Kingmaker. Do Hightower, Dayne and Whent decide to abandon Viserys as their new king because, like Selmy, the know him to be another mad king in the making? While I don't think this is all that may have gone on in the minds of the three it is an important option to consider when looking for the truth.

Next Ned references others who changed sides to Robert. The KG state that their knees do not bend easily. Again this statement is inconsistent with changing sides to Rhaegar. In that case, their knees did bend easily -- away from Aerys and in favor of Rhaegar. It would make little sense to make this statement if they already did bend the knee easily in favor of Rhaegar over Aerys.

I think I dealt with this in answer to the last part.

Next the conversation turns to Viserys going with Willem Darry to Dragonstone. The KG point out the Darry is a good man but not KG. Here is where the argument for turning sides to Rhaegar really breaks down. If V is the rightful king after the death of Aerys -- V is entitled to KG protection. The suggestion is that it is OK for Darry to be on DS because he is not KG.

No, the suggestion is not that. The suggestion is that these three men believe they swore a vow and that oath demands them to be where they are. What that oath is is what's under discussion. There would be no problem with a member of the Kingsguard being with Rhaella and Viserys on Dragonstone. There may well be a problem with the fact there is no member of the Kingsguard on Dragonstone or on his way there. The decree tells us there should have been in order to fulfill the first duty of the Kingsguard. So we need to figure out whether or not the men just don't know about the decree, or they make a choice not to do what the decree tells them to do.

Even if the KG at ToJ had a different view about who should be king -- if Aerys named Viserys as the new heir and the KG at ToJ knew about it, they would not suggest that it would improper for a KG to go to DS to be with V. The KG are suggesting that Viserys has no right to any KG. But even if these three KG turned to Rhaegar and do not consider Viserys as the king, the KG at ToJ would not expect others to view the situation the same way -- they would expect that others would think that V was the true king. But they make no hint that V could be considered the rightful king under some people's view. This makes sense only if the KG believe that anyone with the knowledge that the KG have would consider Jon and not V to be king.

What other people thought of their choice doesn't enter into it. It is what these men think their duty is that matters. Again, it really boils down to do these three men not know of Aerys's decree making Viserys his heir and think the heir to the throne is with them at the Tower, or do they make a choice based on vows other than following Aerys's order and the fulfillment of that order by discharging their first duty to guard Viserys.

The KG are suggesting that Viserys has no right to any KG. But even if these three KG turned to Rhaegar and do not consider Viserys as the king, the KG at ToJ would not expect others to view the situation the same way -- they would expect that others would think that V was the true king. But they make no hint that V could be considered the rightful king under some people's view. This makes sense only if the KG believe that anyone with the knowledge that the KG have would consider Jon and not V to be king.

The KG further clarify the point about going to DS by stating that KG do not flee -- then or now. This statement is perhaps the biggest issue I have with the theory that they switched to Rhaegar. Yes, if they consider Rhaegar and not Aerys the proper king, then going to V on DS might be fleeing. BUT in the context of a conversation with Ned, it makes no sense. Going to V "now" would not be fleeing -- it would simply be recognizing the choice of Aerys. But they don't say anything like that -- they don't say anything that could possibly suggest that they know Aerys named V but the KG are choosing Rhaegar's son over V. Rather, the statement comes across as something that anyone would understand -- that with the "true king" in the tower, they cannot "flee" to DS. And this "true" king has to be a king that anyone who believed Robert was a Usurper would consider to be king -- not just these 3 KG who took it upon themselves to decide that Rhaegar was a better choice than Aerys. Further, if the KG agree that V was named King and is the rightful king, but they are staying to protect the innocent, then the comment about fleeing is simply absurd. They might say that they cannot go to the new king until they finish their current mission to protect the innocent, but they simply cannot call going to DS to be with the new king fleeing. No one would understand leaving to go to the new king rather than protecting an innocent to be fleeing. That interpretation twists the meaning of the word "flee" beyond recognition.

With all respect, UV, I don't know where you get the idea about a choice to view Rhaegar as their king over Aerys. I didn't make that point and I think I've dealt with what I think of it. The question of the the phrase "the Kingsguard does not flee" has to be seen in what the vow these men make that holds them at the tower, and not fulfilling their first duty on Dragonstone. That the Kingsguard does not flee because their first duty is at the tower does make sense, and I've defended the idea for over eight years, but it doesn't make sense if they know of the decree - unless they have decided to choose a better king than Viserys. If the vow they reference is to obey Rhaegar's last orders then not fleeing makes plenty of sense because loyal members of the kingsguard do not flee in the face of such duty. One should question why they don't send one of there members to Viserys, but that is another question. If the vow is to protect the innocent then they are doing what they need to do to protect Lyanna and her child and fleeing before such duty would not be something they would consider. Again, why one of there members doesn't go to Viserys should be asked here. The truth as I see it is that it is probably a mixture of vows. Obeying Rhaegar's order, protecting the innocent, and deciding that Viserys is not a king they view as worthy.

Finally, the capper is the statement that "They swore a vow." This statement is not just out there in no context. This statement is in the context of why then cannot go to DS. Why it would be a violation of their vows to go to DS. Again, it makes no sense to state that breaking their vow to Aerys and making a new vow to Rhaegar would be something they would want to emphasize when criticizing those who chose Robert over Aerys. Why is the vow of the KG righteous when the vows to Robert are vows to a pretender. I just don't see how this reference to a vow can be a vow to consider Rhaegar as king. As to this reference being a reference to the vow to protect the innocent -- again, in context it makes no sense. No one would understand that They are honor bound to ignore the KG vow to protect the king in favor of a nebulous vow to protect the innocent. In this context -- the context of explaining that their vows prevent them from "fleeing" to DS to be with V -- the vow at issue cannot be the vow to protect the innocent because it would be a statement that somehow that vow is more important than another vow. If they were making that point, they would state something about some vows being more important than others. But they don't -- there is no suggestion of vows being in conflict and choosing one over another. It is simply a statement that their vows require them to stay at ToJ.

I admit I have focused mostly on the issue of choosing Rhaegar over Aerys so I will now turn in more detail to the issue of protecting the innocent. I just don't buy it at all. That vow is a bit nebulous, and it is unclear how it would apply here. There are many innocents in Westeros, and the KG cannot go around protecting all of them. The example of Duncan is a poor analogy. He saw an injustice happening in front of him. He had no real conflicting vows at issue as Aerion was not Duncan's lord. So at great risk to himself, Duncan stepped in to protect the innocent -- quite noble. But Duncan did not forsake his other vows and stop serving his lord (if he even had a lord at that point) in order to continue to protect the innocent. No one -- probably not even Duncan -- would believe that a knight is allowed to just "go rogue" and stop serving his lord in order to roam around and protect the innocent. This "vow" is an aspirational goal that applies on a case-by-case basis but cannot be the primary day-to-day mission of a knight. It makes no sense as a knight is always expected to serve his lord and no one would think otherwise.

All knights swear this vow along with others like following the law. Putting hands on a Prince of the Blood is a violation of the law. The is, of course, a conflict of vows in what Ser Duncan was doing, but he chose the core of what a knight's vow is supposed to be about. And when a Lord is crazy, be it Aerys or Aerion, and he uses his position to abuse the innocent then it is an abuse of a knight's position to do nothing to stop it. But let me be very, very clear I don't know if Hightower, Dayne, and Whent agreed that to abandon Lyanna, and most importantly her child to Robert's "justice" would be a violation of their knightly vows and that is what moved them to the actions they did. What I do know is the effect of what they did was to do just that, and just as importantly for understanding our story, ti is just that which is Ned's touchstone of what it means to be honorable. "For a start, I do not kill children" has to be understood if we are to understand why Ned admires these men. My point being that the motives of Hightower, Dayne, and Whent are likely much more complex than we have given them credit for in the past. Not surprising given our author's love of characters painted in grey rather than black and white.

Hightower specifically has shown he does not view this obligation in that way. Hightower stands guard while Aerys rapes his wife. Is that protecting the innocent? Hightower likely would stop anyone else from raping a woman -- but not his "lord" -- or in this case his King as he is bound to serve the king rather than a lord as KG. Your suggestion that Hightower would say to Ned that he cannot go to serve the new king because it is more important for him to stay at ToJ to protect the innocent is laughable to me. I find it entirely implausible because if a KG thought that way, the KG could not do his job at all. The KG would be forced to leave the king -- who is well protected in RK -- and find innocents to protect. And Hightower would be obligated to stop Aerys from raping his wife.

GRRM is not writing a fairy tale. Duncan acts on impulse to protect the innocent. Given his character, that action is believable. But to suggest that the KG would abandon their central mission -- to ensure that the king has KG protection -- to protect some innocent under their roof -- is absurd to me. I find this way of thinking to be completely counter to the way that GRRM is writing these books and completely counter to the conversation between Ned and the KG. At the very least, if the KG believe Viserys is king -- at least one of the KG goes to DS. The KG vow to protect the king can be met and the desire to protect the innocent can be met if the KG split up. But they don't split up. This behavior -- combined with their words -- demonstrate a belief that they have no duty to Viserys at all. Protecting the innocent -- even if a duty -- does not relieve them of their separate duty to the new king. This case is not a situation in which the KG are forced to choose between conflicting duties. If there is a way to perform both duties -- they might be able to choose to do that. But the KG make no attempt to ensure a KG guard for Viserys -- which means they do not consider him king. So either the KG rejected Aerys in favor of Rhaegar -- and I explain above why that alternative makes no sense to me -- or the KG never got word of the "decree" (or the "decree" does not exist at all). But the notion that the KG completely forsake their vow to have a KG guard the king in favor of a vow to protect the innocent -- especially when in theory they could do both (by splitting up) but do not do so simply is inconsistent with any logical reading of the text.

Actually Hightower is not there when Aerys rapes Rhaella. Darry and Jaime are at the door, and it is Darry who tells Jaime not to interfere. Hightower is at the execution of Lord Rickard and Brandon, but we don't know what he thinks of their innocence.

We come back to Jaime's discourse on all the vows his has had to swear and how one constantly has to break some to keep others. I think that is what the Kingsguard at the tower had to do as well.

[Lord Varys]

Historically, the Princes of Dragonstone actually ruled the place. This is best exemplified in both TWoIaF and especially in TRP where we see Rhaenyra being both named Princess of Dragonstone at the age of eight and then taking personally charge of the island, its holdings, and its properties after she comes of age in 113 AC.

Prince Daeron (later Daeron II) and Rhaegar also resided on Dragonstone - it actually seems that only those Princes of Dragonstone who were actively involved in the governance of the Realm did live at court (for instance, Baelor Breakspear, while he was Hand, and most likely also Daeron the Drunk and Aerion Brightflame while their were Princes of Dragonstone as their royal father called all his sons to court (although we don't yet know how long King Maekar actually could stomach his sons around him - we know that Aemon did serve his brother Daeron at his keep after Maekar took the throne - which then would be Dragonstone).

Did a Prince of Dragonstone predecease his royal father (or uncle) then it was up to the king to decide who would become the next Prince of Dragonstone (and thus become both Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne as well as the incomes that came with the title and its holdings). For instance, Aerys I named three Princes of Dragonstone throughout his twelve-year-reign - first his brother Prince Rhaegel, then Rhaegel's only son Prince Aelor, and then his brother Prince Maekar. It was the king's decision to give Dragonstone to Aelor, and then to Maekar - and in the process he passed over Rhaegel's daughters Aelora and Daenora in favour of Maekar.

In conclusion Dragonstone was not a true lordship under the Targaryens - rather the personal property of the king's chosen heir which was always interconnected with that status. If the king disinherited an heir or did not recognize an heir that person had no rights to Dragonstone. This only changed under Robert when gave it to Stannis. There were attempts under the Targaryen reign to change it, too, but nothing came of that - for instance, Aegon II offered to confirm Rhaenyra as Princess of Dragonstone and allow her to pass the island to her eldest son, Jacaerys Velaryon, should she, in return, recognize him as the true king.

[MtnLion]

My understanding of the "Princes of Dragonstone" has always been that they're really just castellans. They don't own Dragonstone, the king just puts them in charge of it. I may be wrong, but has any Targaryen actually inherited Dragonstone? I.e, it was actually passed down upon the prior prince's death instead of just gifted by the king?

Dragonstone is passed down nowadays because Robert actually gave it to Stannis' family, but I don't believe that such was the case with the Targaryens. Aegon being Rhaegar's heir in my mind just means that he got like his personal possessions. Not that he'd get Dragonstone as Dragonstone wasn't Rhaegar's to give, it was Aerys'.

But Aegon is not Aerys' son. He's Rhaegar's son. That's why I'm saying that you have the context wrong. Rhaegar wasn't king, Aerys was. His son is Viserys, not Aegon. This quote says that Viserys would come before Daeron or Duncan in inheriting the Iron Throne, not that Aegon would come before Viserys as Rhaegar wasn't king.

You're applying the "son before the uncle" rule to a context that it doesn't apply to.

I am applying GRRM's note that Targaryens practice a modified form of Agnatic Primogeniture (as opposed to the Karstarks who allow females to inherit). The system favors the eldest son of the eldest son, if the latter predeceases.

It helps to think of it in terms where Rhaegar is not dead, Aerys dies, and the crown passes to Rhaegar, and then to his eldest surviving son(s) before it goes back to Viserys.

[Lord Varys]

ML,

that SSM has been superseded by TWoIaF. Deal with it and move on.

If Rhaegar had ascended the Iron Throne he could have named heir to the throne, but Rhaegar never was king, and could thus not make Aegon heir to the Iron Throne.

[The Missing Crannogman]

I am applying GRRM's note that Targaryens practice a modified form of Agnatic Primogeniture (as opposed to the Karstarks who allow females to inherit). The system favors the eldest son of the eldest son, if the latter predeceases.

It helps to think of it in terms where Rhaegar is not dead, Aerys dies, and the crown passes to Rhaegar, and then to his eldest surviving son(s) before it goes back to Viserys.

No it doesn't help. Once again you're trying to apply something to a situation that it has nothing to do with.

The son before the uncle amounts to the fact that Aegon inherits Rhaegar's personal possessions before Viserys does. Aegon gets Rhaegar's harp, his sword, his lance, his horse, his armour, and whatever money he'd amassed as Prince of Dragonstone before Viserys does. That's it. Rhaegar did not possess anything else to pass on to his son upon his death. He was Aerys heir because Aerys said he was, not because it was something that he inherently possessed.

IF Rhaegar had been king, you would have a point that Aegon (the son) comes before Viserys (the uncle). Rhaegar was NOT king though. Aerys was. Aerys son is Viserys, not Aegon. Rhaegar does not get to decide who his father's heir is just because he was it himself at one point. He can't pass that status down to Aegon.

Should it have gone to Aegon? Yes, that was the custom. It did not have to though as Ran pointed out in his explanation, nor does the "son before the uncle" comment amount to anything more than the fact that Aegon inherits Rhaegar's personal possessions over Viserys.

[MtnLion]

<snip>

Oh, that's right, you're the one that was pointed out as saying that the tower had no room directly mentioned, hence Lyanna wasn't at the tower. Beg to differ on that one, too. It is a watch tower, and thus would have room(s) associated with it to facilitate the members whose job it was to keep watch. Even if it was a pole with a catwalk atop it, somewhere nearby there would be living quarters.

Agnatic Primogeniture: all sharing the principle that inheritance is according to seniority of birth amongst the agnatic kin, firstly, among the sons of a monarch or head of family, with sons and their male-line issue inheriting before brothers and their issue.

[Lord Varys]

Well, that's a good way to win an argument. Glad to know we are all mature around here.

TMC,

I'm not sure if being 'heir to an heir' is a meaningful concept in this world. Personal possessions aren't all that relevant in the legal sense we are talking about here - and I'm not even sure Aegon would be allowed to keep any coin or wealth Rhaegar had amassed as Prince of Dragonstone as Aerys could decide to bestow that on the new Prince of Dragonstone, too. Being the son of a father who owned pretty much nothing still gives you a claim to your grandfather's fortune - however, if your royal grandfather decides to disown you and pass you over as a child in favour of your uncle you are effectively screwed. You'll grow up with the knowledge that your grandfather the king does not want you to succeed him, and so will the next generation of the Lords of the Realm. The chances that Aegon would have been able to challenge Viserys' claim had Aerys won the war and reigned another twenty years aren't all that good. It may be somewhat different if Viserys had ascended shortly after Aerys' victory, but even then Prince Aegon would have to challenge the claim of his uncle the king in an open rebellion, and would first have to rally sufficient support to his side - and the outcome would be uncertain. We don't know if Prince Maegor ever challenged the claim of his uncle, King Aegon V, as a grown man (we even don't know if Maegor lived into adulthood) but if he did he obviously failed and was either exiled or killed.

Only landed knights, lords, and kings own or hold lands in this society - heirs have to make due with the incomes their fathers kindly provide them with, but they have no right to demand anything or complain about the amount of coin they are getting. Certainly, a royal prince or a Lannister of Casterly Rock - even if they are not the heirs of their fathers - have to represent their houses/dynasties and should thus be able to show off wealth. But if a king/lordly father was to decide that his ingrate son is not allowed to wear regal gowns and has to work in the kitchens, he'd wear no regal gowns and work in the kitchens.

Oh, and Rhaegar could also have of course named Viserys his heir in Aegon's stead if he had wanted to. Say, imagine young Aegon receives a head injury and is incapable of ruling or feeding himself then Rhaegar - if lacking another male heir of his body - might have decided to do just that. Or if Aegon had turned out to be another mad Targaryen combining the worst traits of his royal grandfather, Maegor the Cruel, and Aerion Brightflame.

TWoIaF firmly establishes that there are customs to the succession - especially the succession of the Iron Throne which is discussed on multiple occasions in the book - that kings usually stick to. After all, pretty much every father wants his (eldest) son to succeed him - unless he has reasons to choose another successor (Jaehaerys I, Viserys I, Aegon IV - at least considering disinheriting Daeron in favour of one of his bastards -, Aerys II). And the wishes of the king are usually law in this regard. There is no authority but the king to go to complain about your rights (and we see what good this does Stannis - absolutely nothing).

The heirs of (great) lords can go to the respective lieges of their fathers and complain about the injustice done to them, and those lieges can then rule against the wills and wishes of those fathers (or not), but there is no authority regulating the succession of the king besides the king. The king's wishes either stand or they are (successfully) challenged - but that is usually where the law ends and war begins.

[UnmaskedLurker]

SFDanny--

I think we have taken this discussion as far as we can. I will clarify that my references to choosing Rhaegar over Aerys were meant to address one of the theories put forth (I think by LV) -- that the 3 KG had "switched sides" which is why Hightower stayed at ToJ rather than go back to KL, and preferring Jon over Viserys was simply in furtherance of having switched sides from Aerys to Rhaegar when Rhaegar was still alive. So I was trying to address multiple theories at the same time, which I admit got a bit confusing.

It probably will not surprise you that you have not convinced me, and I am not surprised that I have not convinced you. My reading of the conversation makes "defend the innocent" as the vow they were keeping far-fetched, and you see it differently. I am not sure there is much more to say.

[enoofu]

Personally I believe Rhaegar made the three KG stay at ToJ since Aerys probably wouldn't of had the rest of KG to join Rhaegar except for Jaime if he knew they weren't coming back soon

Rhaegar also probably planned with Twyin the Sack of King’s Landing to remove Aerys

[BearQueen87]

Personally I believe Rhaegar made the three KG stay at ToJ since Aerys probably wouldn't of had the rest of KG to join Rhaegar except for Jaime if he knew they weren't coming back soon

Rhaegar also probably planned with Twyin the Sack of King’s Landing to remove Aerys

How do you figure that last part?

[SFDanny]

SFDanny--

I think we have taken this discussion as far as we can. I will clarify that my references to choosing Rhaegar over Aerys were meant to address one of the theories put forth (I think by LV) -- that the 3 KG had "switched sides" which is why Hightower stayed at ToJ rather than go back to KL, and preferring Jon over Viserys was simply in furtherance of having switched sides from Aerys to Rhaegar when Rhaegar was still alive. So I was trying to address multiple theories at the same time, which I admit got a bit confusing.

It probably will not surprise you that you have not convinced me, and I am not surprised that I have not convinced you. My reading of the conversation makes "defend the innocent" as the vow they were keeping far-fetched, and you see it differently. I am not sure there is much more to say.

No problem, UL. Thanks for the clarification, thanks for the discussion, and most especially for the tone. I look forward to future discussions with you on this topic or others. Take care.

[enoofu]

How do you figure that last part?

Since Twyin probably before the Battle of the Trident was getting ready to march, since he was at King Landing before Robert forces.

Only reason Twyin would march if he already had a agreement with Rhaegar

Would benefit both men since Jaime would probably be kick out of the Kingguard by Rhaegar for disloyalty and Rhaegar wife would probably be murdered by Aerys since she is a hostage and Aerys is mad

Both men would also be forced to sue for peace in a Battle of Trident victory for the Royalist

[BearQueen87]

Since Twyin probably before the Battle of the Trident was getting ready to march, since he was at King Landing before Robert forces.

Only reason Twyin would march if he already had a agreement with Rhaegar

Would benefit both men since Jaime would probably be kick out of the Kingguard by Rhaegar for disloyalty and Rhaegar wife would probably be murdered by Aerys since she is a hostage and Aerys is mad

Both men would also be forced to sue for peace in a Battle of Trident victory for the Royalist

I think you need to prove that first sentence since all the evidence (so far as I know) suggests that Tywin was literally just sitting at Casterly Rock, waiting to see which side would get the upper hand and then go out and fight for them. Also, why would Rhaegar want Tywin to sack the city he was planning on ruling?

[The Twinslayer]

Hello shiny! Did I miss anything revelatory in the last thread?

As to the question on if Ned might be talking about Robb and Theon and not Robb/Jon, I'd say a definitive no. Pretty sure we're supposed to understand that the scene of Ned praying at the heart tree happens upon his return to WF after the Rebellion is done. Why would he need Cat's forgiveness for bringing Theon home? Hostages are incredibly commonplace in Westerosi high lords houses. But Ned bringing home his "bastard son"...that's what Ned is seeking forgiveness for.

I agree that the quote -- let them grow up close, as brothers, or something to that effect, is about Robb and Jon. But I don't think it has anything to do with R+L=J. Ned tells everyone that Jon is his bastard son. He wants Robb to treat Jon a brother and not a lesser half-brother. It is supposed to echo this exchange on AGOT:

" He's our brother," Arya said, much too loudly. "Our half brother," Sansa corrected, soft and precise.

So this is about Ned wanting Robb to take the Arya approach and not the Sansa approach.

As for Ned hoping that Cat will forgive him, it is for this:

The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the world to see.

So, not an R+L=J clue.

How can one be heir to the king, but not heir to the throne?

That can't happen. But you can be the heir of a dead prince even while your uncle is heir to the king -- just as Maegor was the heir to Prince Aerion at the same time as Aerion's little brother was the heir to King Maekar.

[The Twinslayer]

What is curious to me is that Viserys refers to Aegon as Rhaegar's heir. And Yandel refers to Viserys as Aerys's heir. But other than being the heir to the throne, what does is mean to be heir to either the king or crown prince. Did Aerys have anything to give Viserys as heir other than the IT? Did Rhaegar have anything to give Aegon as heir other than becoming next in line to IT? These terms are thrown around but I am not sure what they mean in this context. In nobility, a noble's heir usually means heir to the person's title. But in this case, what title would Rhaegar have to pass on to Aegon other than Crown Prince -- i.e., next in line to the throne? But similarly, what title would Aerys have to pass on to Viserys other than King? So these references seem to be in conflict -- which of course, tends to support your theory that Yandel is mistaken altogether and no decree was ever made.

Can anyone who supports the "decree" theory explain this apparent contradiction?

That is a good question. Here is an answer from the real world. William the Conqueror was Duke of Normandy. He later became king of England. He died leaving three living sons: Robert, Rufus and Henry. His will named Robert heir to the Duchy of Normandy and Rufus heir to the kingdom of England. It also left a personal fortune of (if memory serves) 30 thousand pounds of silver to Henry.

This illustrates the point that Rhaegar could bequeath to his heir anything that was his at the time of his death. A fine horse. Some gold and a fancy sword, if he had those. But not 7 kingdoms, since those were never his.

It also illustrates the point that Aerys could bequeath to his chosen heir anything that belonged to him when he died. Like an Iron Throne.

[Alia of the knife]

Primogeniture was the preferred way of deciding inheritance until it did become more codified later, but early on, (which I think this is what GRRM was alluding to in his statement on the messiness of Medival inheritance laws), it wasn't.

A GC passed over Aerion Brightflames son for fears of madness, (though how they could determine that in an infant, I don't know, especially given that most Targaryens could be mad), so if that body are not bound by those rules, a still-living king would not be, especially if the first son could be accused of treason agianst his father the king.

Aerys may very well have given in to bring Rhaegar home to lead the the royal forces, but had the royal forces prevailed, there is nothing to say Aerys wouldn't have double-crossed Rhaegar in the end, or if they were victorious and Rhaegar still died, there was nothing to stop Aerys from posthumously declaring Rhaegar a traitor, thus Rhaegars bloodline, which he might have done anyway to keep Dorne off the throne.

That is part of the arguement about Ned not telling Cat about Jon. If she knew, she might very well have turned him in due to fears her own children and immediate family would be part of Neds treason.

[Mithras]

A GC passed over Aerion Brightflames son for fears of madness, (though how they could determine that in an infant, I don't know, especially given that most Targaryens could be mad), so if that body are not bound by those rules, a still-living king would not be, especially if the first son could be accused of treason agianst his father the king.

Actually, the World Book suggested that the long period of regency was the real motive for passing over baby Maegor. Most probably the Lords could not come up with a good model to share the bounty regency.

[Ygrain]

Actually, the World Book suggested that the long period of regency was the real motive for passing over baby Maegor. Most probably the Lords could not come up with a good model to share the bounty regency.

Which is consistent with what Roose says when pondering the chances of his children by Walda against Ramsay: Lords don't like children lieges.