Jump to content

R+L=J v.142


Jon Weirgaryen

Recommended Posts

Well, one could argue that Bloodraven would have been able to give the Realm peace and prosperity had he consented to continue to serve as Lord Regent and Hand for King Maegor II. The troubled regency of Aegon III was an outgrowth of the fact that it was decided that a regency council would rule - the intention being that both former Blacks and Greens would have a say in the government of the Realm, and help overcome their differences in the process. But that greatly backfired as this many regents greatly encouraged infighting and intrigue.



Nothing suggests that King Maegor's regency would have to be based on that model - Alyssa Velaryon and Robar Baratheon co-ruling the Realm spring to mind as does the regency under Kings Joffrey and Tommen later on.



But Great Councils discussing claims are essentially popularity contests - children and infants always use to grown-ups as they are not exactly impressive. Young Laenor Velaryon had no chance to win against charismatic Viserys, and neither did Vaella and Maegor stand a chance against both Aegon and Aemon (or Aenys Blackfyre, one presumes). However, that's only the case if there is a Great Council and pretty much all the Lords of the Realm are asked for their opinion, not merely those close to the throne and the royal family.



The unabridged Westerlands section suggests that Maekar's sudden death caused a massive succession crisis, and open war was only prevented because Bloodraven called a Great Council. Which means there were at least two powerful factions at court who were willing and capable to go to war over this matter. Those factions are usually characterized as Egg's friends and supporters and Aerion's cronies who would be supporting Daenora and Maegor against Prince Aegon.



At court ambitious and powerful men would have gladly accepted an infant king as this would have given them more power, but the average lord would have looked at the age of the prince, remembered the cruelty and madness of his father, and realized that he, personally, would not exactly profit from a long regency.



In Roose's case I'm not sure he means what he says about his children by Walda. I'm sure he does not want hand over the Dreadfort and the North to a boy lord, but I'm also quite sure he does not intend to die in the next 20-30 years, so a son by Walda would not necessarily be a boy lord upon Roose's death. Roose actually stating matter-of-factly that Ramsay will probably kill Walda's children could be a code to Ramsay that he better not try to do this as Roose is expecting it. Not to mention that Roose most likely intended to rid himself of Ramsay permanently after 'Arya Stark' had given birth to a son.



As to medieval inheritance laws:



George has oversimplified stuff with his concept of the eldest son/child inheriting everything. That is relatively modern development, and thus greatly at odds with the overall primitive and unsophisticated feudal society of Westeros - inheritance should actually be very unclear.



William the Conqueror is a good example, but in the early middle ages whole realms were actually split apart among the children (not necessarily only sons) of kings - the great continental dynasties of the Merovinginans and Carolingians did that, too, and it was also done later on when one branch of House Hapsburg got Spain, and the other what would later become Austria-Hungary. Queen Victoria also had to hand over the Kingdom of Hanover to her male kin as she could not inherit it as a female.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is what GRRM was saying, the messy nature of succession laws of the times was exactly what he based his scenarios on.

GRRM may have said that in interviews, but the story he has written suggests that the Targ dynasty (at least since 101 AL) set up a system in which there was a "normal" rule -- a male-preferred form of primogeniture -- but that at times, exceptions were made (usually by GC). Notwithstanding the actions of Maegor I (who basically took the throne by force) and DoD 1.0 (where competing rulers went to war), the rules for the IT seems a bit more established (again, at least after 101 AL) than early middle ages perhaps were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM may have said that in interviews, but the story he has written suggests that the Targ dynasty (at least since 101 AL) set up a system in which there was a "normal" rule -- a male-preferred form of primogeniture -- but that at times, exceptions were made (usually by GC). Notwithstanding the actions of Maegor I (who basically took the throne by force) and DoD 1.0 (where competing rulers went to war), the rules for the IT seems a bit more established (again, at least after 101 AL) than early middle ages perhaps were.

But you do accept that primogeniture is not binding, right? Apart from the Viserys thing we have a couple examples of kings threatening to disinherit their heirs.

Edit: and of course Ran telling us so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip

Nice analysis of those theories in regards to the text. I'm not sure how many times I've brought up Hightower as being crucial to understanding that sequence as we have clear instances of how he chose to act. I only recall one theory that tries to explain Hightower away and it assumed he was dull witted and easily confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GRRM may have said that in interviews, but the story he has written suggests that the Targ dynasty (at least since 101 AL) set up a system in which there was a "normal" rule -- a male-preferred form of primogeniture -- but that at times, exceptions were made (usually by GC). Notwithstanding the actions of Maegor I (who basically took the throne by force) and DoD 1.0 (where competing rulers went to war), the rules for the IT seems a bit more established (again, at least after 101 AL) than early middle ages perhaps were.

I tend to take what GRRM says as what motivates him to write certain scenarios, and the history of successon struggles, chaos and war in real history are his reference points as he has said.

The "normal" rule was a historically traditional rule as well, however, it wasn't binding in the way it would be in a court of law today, so if a better, more viable monarch with a blood claim could be put into place, they would indeed stray from the "normal" rules, and the eight year old second son of a still-living king and queen would be preferrable to the infant son of the Crown Prince who was never king, and whose mothers family is considered "foreign," and not to be trusted.

This is the scenario in War of the Roses where they passed over the line of Henry of Lancaster, and Margaret of Anjou for York, and specifically the son, Edward of York after his father and older brother, Edmund, were killed.

And then, Edward had to contend with the machinations of Warwick and his wanting to put Edwards younger brother George on the throne when the old rumors of Edwards bastardy started to "mysteriously" crop back up.

So, Martin is basically recreating the chaos of the times for the reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you do accept that primogeniture is not binding, right? Apart from the Viserys thing we have a couple examples of kings threatening to disinherit their heirs.

What I accept is that after GC of 101 AL and after DoD 1.0, the "normal" rules were set and everyone basically agreed on what they were. I also agree that a GC can be called to "change" the rule for a specific case that justified an exception, but in general such an action (like naming Aegon V as king) would not be viewed by anyone as "changing" the rules going forward or setting a new precedent for a change in the rules but would be viewed merely as an application of the overriding rules that a GC may make exceptions on a case-by-case basis where viewed as justified.

I also accept that Kings can attempt to name an heir who is different than the person who would become king under the "normal" rule (such as Viserys over Aegon), but that the King would have no assurance that this selection would be respected, and more likely a GC would be called after the King's death to assess the strength of the competing claims between the "named" heir and the heir by right of male-preferred primogeniture (and possibly another war like DoD would break out, which is why naming an heir other than the "normal" heir can be a risky decision). For example, if the Targs had won the war and Aegon survived (but Rhaegar did not) -- and assuming Aerys named Viserys as the new heir -- on the death of Aerys, I suspect that a GC would be called to choose between Aegon and Viserys, and no one would believe that Aerys had the unilateral right to change who would succeed to the IT -- although a GC could ratify that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Ran, on 10 Mar 2015 - 3:03 PM, said:snapback.png




Not an error. Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king. We have other examples of people being passed over, or potentially passed over, for others.



Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time.







I've responded to this before with no real rebuttal from anyone.



"Not an error."



It was not an error on Ran or Linda's fault. It was meant to go in there. This is not a confirmation of the validity of the text.



"Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king."



Which means it can change, but is unusual.



"Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time."



This is not a statement (as people are falsely stating in this thread) that there is a document of Viserys being made heir. This is a generalized statement of Yandel using historical records of the time to write this book. These records could include testimonies from Pycelle. That doesn't mean there are not official documents, it just isn't a confirmation from Ran of that fact. This is also a caveat that this was the best information the character had to write the book (so not 100% factual).


So in the segment where "Aerys new heir Viserys" it says "it was said" to preface it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to take what GRRM says as what motivates him to write certain scenarios, and the history of successon struggles, chaos and war in real history are his reference points as he has said.

The "normal" rule was a historically traditional rule as well, however, it wasn't binding in the way it would be in a court of law today, so if a better, more viable monarch with a blood claim could be put into place, they would indeed stray from the "normal" rules, and the eight year old second son of a still-living king and queen would be preferrable to the infant son of the Crown Prince who was never king, and whose mothers family is considered "foreign," and not to be trusted.

This is the scenario in War of the Roses where they passed over the line of Henry of Lancaster, and Margaret of Anjou for York, and specifically the son, Edward of York after his father and older brother, Edmund, were killed.

And then, Edward had to contend with the machinations of Warwick and his wanting to put Edwards younger brother George on the throne when the old rumors of Edwards bastardy started to "mysteriously" crop back up.

So, Martin is basically recreating the chaos of the times for the reader.

I am not an expert in the War of the Roses, but I think the difference between WotR and what I was addressing is that the back-and-forth between Lancaster and York were done mainly through war. Of course, someone with a "claim" can use an army to take over the throne. In some respects, Maegor I did precisely this -- by killing or intimidating any rivals. Of course, Robert took the throne through war. And I know that GRRM used WotR as partial inspiration for the IT. But looking at historical situations of "might makes right" does not really address the question of whether in the story we are being told, what are the rules and how have they been applied.

But to bring this discussion back to RLJ, I think the significance of the existence of fairly well-understood rules matters in terms of the likelihood that the KG at ToJ -- absent knowledge that Aerys named Viserys as the new heir -- would think they were acting as "kingmaker" by treating Jon as the rightful King of Westeros (assuming Rhaegar and Lyanna were married). Now if they had knowledge that Aerys formally named Viserys as the new heir, then I don't think they would feel within their right to consider Jon as the new king because Viserys would have a competing claim that would need to be resolved (presumably through a GC, if such a thing could even be done with all the Lords declaring Robert as King). So if the KG considered Jon to be King, then I think it means that readers can conclude that Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and that either Yandel was mistaken about Aerys naming Viserys or the KG never found out that Aerys named Viserys (and thus had no reason to question the "normal" rules of succession).

I know that others think that the KG might consider Jon to be King for other reasons (such as having switched to Rhaegar from Aerys before Rhaegar died or simply acting as "kingmaker" with respect to the competing claims), but I don't find those theories persuasive (possible, but just not convincing to me).

Because the conversation at ToJ makes most sense to me only if the KG consider Jon to be king, I form the conclusion that I do about the likelihood of a marriage and whether the KG knew of any "decree" regarding Viserys. But this entire analysis falls apart if the KG don't think there are any rules to govern who is the next king. I think they considered the "customary" rules to be applicable because there was no reason they knew about to consider any exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

UL,



George has used the whole history of the Targaryen dynasty in TWoIaF to exemplify that there was no basic set of rules. Custom is in favour of male primogeniture, but it is not binding. Not to the King, and not to his Hand. It is a common misconception that the Great Councils have the authority to name kings or heirs. They don't. They are not Ironborn kingsmoots, they are assemblies of the lords of the Realm who discuss a question that is put before them by king or his government. Jaehaerys I asked about the lords opinion on his succession, Grand Maester Munkun (as regent and Hand of Aegon III) asked for the appointment of new regents by lot (and possibly other things we don't know yet), and Bloodraven asked them on their opinion on the succession of Maekar I.



In all three cases the Great Council was presided over by the king or his Hand, speaking with his voice, and the decisions were later confirmed by the king or his Hand - which means the king was not bound to go through with this (although it seems that the kings usually did as they are not forced to call Great Councils and would only do so if they were actually interested in what the majority of their lords had to say on the matter laid before them).



If there were binding succession laws - which there are not - then there is also no reason to assume that a Great Council was somehow free to ignore them but the king himself could not. That makes no sense in a society in which the king is both the only source of law as well as above the law. It is also quite clear that every act of naming an heir is considered a precedent - the ones cited in TWoIaF explicitly are 92, 101, and the Dance.



People in the books cite or refer to succession laws or state who should succeed who 'by law', but this does not mean that they actually state binding law or are always right. After all, the characters doing so have their own political agendas and goals, and use legal argumentation to justify their actions.



We have all made a big fuzz out of the whole 'no female inheritance after the Dance' SSM, but this was never strictly true or supported by the books as Myrcella and Dany are considered to be the heirs of their respective royal brothers, and the Great Council of 233 AC actually considered the claim of Vaella the Simple, only child of Maekar's eldest son, Prince Daeron (which it would not have done if she had no claim 'by law').



What we also learn in TWoIaF is that kings actually name and recognize heirs in formal legal acts, and that this is a crucial thing for them to succeed their fathers smoothly. Daeron II's rise to the throne was endangered by the fact that Aegon threatened to disinherit his son in favour of one of his bastards, and had Maekar named an heir prior to his sudden death in 233 AC I imagine there would have been no succession crisis (or a smaller one).



Naming and installing heirs is a crucial thing of real world medieval culture as is the prerogative of the king to choose his own successor.



What Westeros lacks is the real world parallel of all children inheriting which then slowly evolved into only the eldest child/son inherits everything. For some weird reason, it is custom even in ancient times that one Stark, Lannister, Arryn, etc. gets everything. A more realistic feature would have been if powerful warrior kings had left each of their children smaller kingdoms to rule, which then had to be reunited again through conquest. Usually, the 'one son gets it all' is an improvement that came when a state bureaucracy of sorts was developing and it became impractical/impossible to rip the land apart just to satisfy the hunger of the king's sons for their own independent kingdoms.



Oh, and in regards to Maegor:



He is universally accepted as a King on the Iron Throne. He is not considered a usurper, nor are Prince Aegon and Prince Viserys styled 'rightful/true kings' by the historians. Aegon tried to win the throne, and failed, and Jaehaerys' reign is not counted from the day Viserys died, either, but only began after Maegor died. In that sense, Maegor set a very strong precedent against male primogeniture, and Jaehaerys I may have actually followed Maegor's and his own example (succeeding to throne by passing over Aerea and Rhalla) when he named Baelon heir in 92.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also accept that Kings can attempt to name an heir who is different than the person who would become king under the "normal" rule (such as Viserys over Aegon)

Ok, that's all I was asking. I don't think the argument is "can we be certain Aerys's wishes would be respected after his death." As we've seen shit can happen like with Viserys I and Robert.

For example, if the Targs had won the war and Aegon survived (but Rhaegar did not) -- and assuming Aerys named Viserys as the new heir -- on the death of Aerys, I suspect that a GC would be called to choose between Aegon and Viserys, and no one would believe that Aerys had the unilateral right to change who would succeed to the IT -- although a GC could ratify that decision.

And here you lose me again. He's the king, he has a unilateral right to do just about anything. Even if we were just talking about a lord primogeniture is not binding. Also it's not a given that a great council would be called, someone in a position of royal authority has to call one. The lords can't just get together and say "fuck the king's wishes, lets vote." That's a rebellion, not a great council.

It was not an error on Ran or Linda's fault. It was meant to go in there. This is not a confirmation of the validity of the text.

Right.

"Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king."

Which means it can change, but is unusual.

No argument there.

"Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time."

This is not a statement (as people are falsely stating in this thread) that there is a document of Viserys being made heir. This is a generalized statement of Yandel using historical records of the time to write this book. These records could include testimonies from Pycelle. That doesn't mean there are not official documents, it just isn't a confirmation from Ran of that fact. This is also a caveat that this was the best information the character had to write the book (so not 100% factual).

It's not totally clear to me if Ran is speaking specifically about the reporting of this fact, or just generally. Anyway the importance of this part isn't proving that there are or are not official documents (though I'd imagine there are) it's that it means Yandel is not making this fact up in an attempt to make the Lannisters look better, as some had suggested. He's reporting on what was recorded back then.

So in the segment where "Aerys new heir Viserys" it says "it was said" to preface it.

It's a bit of a stretch to take the "it was said" from "it was said he cursed the Dornish" and apply it to everything else that follows. Some things are gonna be thoroughly documented, others not so much. Naming an heir seems like the kinda thing that would be documented, whereas the king cursing an entire group of his subjects probably didn't make it into any official records. There's a high likelihood he would have publicly spread the word of his new heir. Not so likely he sent out ravens and riders bearing the message "fuck those Dornish pigs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ran, on 10 Mar 2015 - 3:03 PM, said:snapback.png

"Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king."

If you accept that this is true, then the 3 KGs' presence at the toj can't be explained by the theory that they are there to guard the king. Unless all three of them are unaware of how the succession works, they know that Aerys was not bound by primogeniture and that he had the power to name a new heir. Even if there was a possibility that Aerys' decree could be challenged by a great council, or by civil war, the 3 KGs would have to know that Jon (if he's a "legitimate" child of Rhaegar) would not automatically become king. In other words, even if they did not know that Viserys had been confirmed as heir, the fact that they knew it was possible that Aerys named a new heir means that even if Rhaegar and Lyanna were married, they don't know who their new king is.

It is also worth pointing out that the most natural reading of the toj dialogue suggests that the 3 KG knew about Rhaegar's death on the Trident and the death of Aerys, but that the did not know that Ned had lifted the siege of Storm's End or that Mace Tyrell had surrendered. This has some interesting implications.

Specifically, when Ned mentions "the Trident," they know what he is talking about. Whent says "woe to the Usurper" if they had been present, so they know that Robert won.

Also, they know exactly what he is talking about when Ned says that Jaime killed Aerys: if they had been there, "Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne, and our false brother would burn in seven hells."

But when he talks about lifting the siege of Storm's End, he is apparently telling them something they don't already know:

"I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege," Ned told them, "and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dipped their banners, and all their knights bent the knee to pledge us fealty." Ned would not be "telling" them this if they already knew it.

So, they knew that both Rhaegar and Aerys were dead. Since Viserys became the "new heir" after Rhaegar died but before Aerys died, it is likely they knew Viserys' status as the new heir. Given their remote location, it is logical to infer that they received one message that reported on all of the events up to and including Aerys' death.

We also know that the news of Aegon's death did not become public until some time after the Sack. Ned arrived in KL during the Sack, but Robert was left behind at the Trident to recover from the wound he received from Rhaegar. So Robert got to King's Landing some days after the Sack. It was only after Robert arrived, and sat on the Iron Throne, that Tywin revealed the bodies of Rhaenys and Aegon -- meaning that several days at least passed between the news getting out that Aerys was dead and the news getting out that Aegon was dead. So it is unlikely that the 3 KG knew that Aegon was dead before Ned arrived at the toj.

Then, consider the fact that Aegon's fate is never mentioned by Ned or the 3 KGs. This means that the most likely scenario is that the 3KG died believing that Viserys was their new king and that Aegon was still alive -- putting two legitimate Targaryen males between Jon and any claim to the Iron Throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the conversation at ToJ makes most sense to me only if the KG consider Jon to be king, I form the conclusion that I do about the likelihood of a marriage and whether the KG knew of any "decree" regarding Viserys. But this entire analysis falls apart if the KG don't think there are any rules to govern who is the next king. I think they considered the "customary" rules to be applicable because there was no reason they knew about to consider any exceptions.

And Jon's being the true heir and king could have been part of the reason they were there, but if the primary oath that supercedes all others is that they guard the king and serve others only at the kings pleasure, why were they never with Aerys?

Either they had orders from Aerys to keep protecting Rhaegar, even at the TOJ,(which would certainly shine an entirely new light on what Aerys knew about Rhaegars activities, and perhaps he might have still been trying to protect his son, going back to what seems to be a love/hate relationship between both of the them, and which might also mean that Aerys was indeed sincerely offended over Brandons threat to his son).

In other words, he might abuse his family all day long, but no one else would.

Or, they didn't, and made a choice of who they considered king with the exception of Hightower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Ned hoping that Cat will forgive him, it is for this: So, not an R+L=J clue.

It is an R+L=J clue, to the extent that it clearly indicates that the context of the whole prayer is Jon (and Robb). i.e. not Theon or anyone else.

So "like brothers" is indicative that Robb and Jon are not brothers. Assuming that he would have considered them brothers had they been half brothers.

That said, I'm of the view that Ned would never have been unfaithful and therefore that Jon is definitely not Robb's brother... but that doesn't mean he's a Targ heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Jon's being the true heir and king could have been part of the reason they were there, but if the primary oath that supercedes all others is that they guard the king and serve others only at the kings pleasure, why were they never with Aerys?

Either they had orders from Aerys to keep protecting Rhaegar, even at the TOJ,(which would certainly shine an entirely new light on what Aerys knew about Rhaegars activities, and perhaps he might have still been trying to protect his son, going back to what seems to be a love/hate relationship between both of the them, and which might also mean that Aerys was indeed sincerely offended over Brandons threat to his son).

In other words, he might abuse his family all day long, but no one else would.

Or, they didn't, and made a choice of who they considered king with the exception of Hightower.

We know that Kings didn't consider it necessary to have all seven KG with them at all times. Arys Oakheart accompanied Myrcella to Dorne, for example. When there, he is to use his initiative but keep the Princess safe.

It seems reasonable that the Crown Prince would have two KG with him as a rule - he'd clearly be a target and a prize. They must in that scenario be used to following Rhaegar's commands and not forever going back to Aerys for ratification. I mean, they will have been with Rhaegar hundreds of miles from Aerys, and with no quick and easy and safe way of communication - I assume that they love the one they're with, in the absence of evident contradiction.

Hightower was added when Aerys sent him to get Rhaegar. By that stage, let's assume, we were in a war situation and Lyanna couldn't easily be moved and was potentially exposed where she was. Rhaegar was going to join the Targ army and didn't particularly need the KG with him - it was reasonable for him to ask the three KG to stay and keep Lyanna safe and reasonable for them to follow and not disobey that order. What was their choice - to disobey Rhaegar's order and risk the wrath of Aerys when he backs up his son and challenges their disobediance? The order to remain at the ToJ did not have to be a contradiction of any order given by Aerys and would not have been in contravention of their vows (other than the fact that, as it turned out, the King was inadequately defended - but they weren't to know that). There were still four KG with Aerys and Rhaegar, plus the loyalist army.

I don't think they had to have considered Rhaegar to be King.

ETA: There is also the added complication that, if the worst happened and all of the Targs were slain, then Lyanna's child (whichever gender) would be the last remaining Targ heir. Rhaegar could not have known at that stage that Viserys had been sent to Dragonstone. So it was even more reasonable to say - keep her and the child safe, the child may be the next Targ ruler. A form of insurance policy/back-up plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here you lose me again. He's the king, he has a unilateral right to do just about anything. Even if we were just talking about a lord primogeniture is not binding. Also it's not a given that a great council would be called, someone in a position of royal authority has to call one. The lords can't just get together and say "fuck the king's wishes, lets vote." That's a rebellion, not a great council.

Here is the distinction that I believe applies here. LV mentioned that other GC were merely advice to the king, which the king might or might not accept. But if the GC is advice to the king, then the king must still be alive. I agree that any GC called during the life of a king is not superior to the king. But the situation at issue is one in which the King is dead. So the King is not there to be rebelled against -- no rebellion -- as long as the GC is called to decide among competing claims regarding alternative successors to the king (i.e., I think if they merely picked someone who had no blood connection to the ruling dynasty, that would be a coup and not within the normal powers of a GC).

I agree that someone in some position of authority needs to call the GC. I simply am positing that if we go back to the example where the Targs won the war and Rhaegar dies, Aegon and Viserys live and Aerys names Viserys as heir, upon the death of Aerys, someone in some position of authority will call a GC. It is inevitable because we have competing claims. I don't think everyone would merely accept that they have to respect the "decree" of the dead king. DoD 1.0 is clear precedent that the naming of an heir by the king is not required to be respected -- the history books don't even record Rhaenyra as ever having been Queen (even though her progeny eventually became the line of kings and she in fact actually ruled for a time from the IT -- but nevertheless is not treated by the official history as ever having ruled).

So the one example in the books (the ONLY example in the books) that we have where the king dying -- and prior to his death, he officially named a successor as someone other than the person who would become king/queen under the "normal" rules of male-preferred primogeniture -- and his wishes are not followed (or at least not considered binding by the historians who record who were the rulers of Westeros). And no one thinks that the supporters of Aegon II were engaged in rebellion. There were competing claims -- and in the end, even Rhaenyra's son, Aegon III, seems to accept that the rules of male-preferred primogeniture trumped the right of the king to name his successor -- and Rhaenyra is denied recognition in the history books as a ruling Queen of Westeros.

So the King naming an heir gives that person a claim. But after the king's death, if the person who would otherwise become king (or someone on his behalf, if a child) under the "normal" rules challenges the right of the other person to become king, a GC would have to reconcile the competing claims. DoD 1.0 makes it clear that the naming of any heir by the King is NOT binding after his death. The King is only required to be obeyed while he is alive -- not after he is dead.

We also know that the news of Aegon's death did not become public until some time after the Sack. Ned arrived in KL during the Sack, but Robert was left behind at the Trident to recover from the wound he received from Rhaegar. So Robert got to King's Landing some days after the Sack. It was only after Robert arrived, and sat on the Iron Throne, that Tywin revealed the bodies of Rhaenys and Aegon -- meaning that several days at least passed between the news getting out that Aerys was dead and the news getting out that Aegon was dead. So it is unlikely that the 3 KG knew that Aegon was dead before Ned arrived at the toj.

Then, consider the fact that Aegon's fate is never mentioned by Ned or the 3 KGs. This means that the most likely scenario is that the 3KG died believing that Viserys was their new king and that Aegon was still alive -- putting two legitimate Targaryen males between Jon and any claim to the Iron Throne.

Here is where your logic breaks down for me. The news of Aegon's death was not as long after the Sack as the news that Ned lifted the seige at SE -- and it comes from a different source (KL rather than SE). So even if you are correct (and you very well might be) that the KG had no knowledge of the lifting of the seize, it does not imply in any way that they also had no knowledge of the death of Aegon. More likely, the source of information that let them know that Rhaegar and Aerys were dead had more than enough time to let them know that Aegon was dead once that information became known.

But knowing about the death of Aegon does not mean they knew about a "decree" from Aerys regarding Viserys as the new heir (assuming such a decree/will/pronouncement existed as all). I have been through this recently over and over again, so I hesitate to repeat myself, but there are many reasons why the source of information for the KG would know about the death of Aegon but not the naming of Viserys (or wouldn't think it important enough to put in a raven message as the messages likely were focused mostly about the progress of the war and not internal Targ politics). So we cannot assume that the most likely scenario is that the KG did not know about the death of Aegon and knew about the naming of Viserys. Rather, we don't have enough information to make any presumption one way or the other. So the words of the KG are the best clues as to what they knew, and their words are most consistent with knowing about the death of Aegon and not the naming of Viserys -- because they appear to consider Jon to be the uncontested rightful King of Westeros -- they don't seem to think that any other Targ males stood between Jon and the throne. And for that to be true, they must know about Aegon being dead and not know about the naming of Viserys. And given that we don't have any other information to guide us on what the KG knew, I think that conclusion is the most likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhaenyra Targaryen, then the Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne of Westeros, only had one sworn shield assigned to her - first Ser Criston Cole of the Kingsguard, the Ser Harwin Strong (not a member of the KG!), and finally Ser Erryk Cargyll.



In THK, three KG are present at Ashford - one might be assigned to Prince Baelor, another to Prince Maekar, and the other to Prince Valarr.



The Prince of Dragonstone does thus not have assigned to KG to his personal safety all the time as a rule.



In fact, we don't even know if Arthur or Oswell actually were assigned to Rhaegar - perhaps one of them was, perhaps not. If not, then it is entirely likely that one or both acted against the king's explicit orders when they decided to accompany Rhaegar when he left.



The succession situation is clear. This is not a theory or speculation, we have actually investigated the textual evidence for this.



Kings name heirs. Kingsguard obey. They do not choose or proclaim kings, not even Ser Criston Cole did that with Aegon II - he was one among many courtiers backing Ser Otto Hightower's coup against Rhaenyra. Since they were in-universe characters, Gerold, Arthur, and Oswell would have been aware of the fact that kings choose their heirs. They were also aware of the fact that there was trouble between father and son, and the king was contemplating to disinherit Prince Rhaegar, and very much taken by his second son, Prince Viserys. He was also making statements suggesting that he despised Rhaegar's wife, her family, and the children she had born to Rhaegar.



All that would make it very unlikely for them to go with the assumption that Lyanna's child was Aerys' rightful heir - and thus the Targaryen king - even if we assume that they knew everything that had transpired at the Trident and in KL but the fact that Aerys had named Viserys his heir. The cautious (and loyal) thing to do would have to reunite the child with his royal grandmother and uncle to decide who should be proclaimed king.



Even more importantly, hidden princes usually aren't proclaimed king if Prince Aegon is any indication - Prince Aegon, not King Aegon VI. Jon Connington is no less loyal than the knights at the tower, and he did not decide to proclaim Aegon king, not even amongst their inner circle where everyone knew that he was Rhaegar's son. This is actually another hint that Viserys was Aerys' heir as he lived until very recently, and the fact why Aegon was crowned may have to do with the fact that his supporters acknowledged Viserys III as the rightful Targaryen king.



As to Great Councils:



Only the king can call Great Councils or a person with the king's authority (i.e. a regent or the Hand). I've listed the Great Councils we know of above, and one was called by a king, the other two by Hands/regents. We know next to nothing about the Great Council of 136, but we do know that Bloodraven presided over the Great Council of 233, and continued to rule the Seven Kingdoms in Maekar's name until a new king was crowned. How do we know that? Because Bloodraven had the authority and the power to seize and execute Aenys Blackfyre once he sat foot into the capital to attend the Great Council. Neither did the assembled lords intervene (which most likely included some Blackfyre loyalists) nor was the royal family - Prince Aegon, Maester Aemon, Princess Daenora, Egg's sister, if still alive - able to stop Bloodraven.



Without a clear heir and without a powerful a powerful, universally accepted Hand interested in assessing the succession impartially there will be no Great Council. And most likely also not without the consent of the claimants whose claims are supposed to be discussed at the Great Council. If Egg had proclaimed that he was the rightful heir, and stated that Bloodraven had no right to call a Great Council, and told his supporters to not go to the council, then this thing would have been a farce/not prevented a war for succession.



There is no basis for the assumption that Prince Aegon had ever challenged Viserys' ascension if Aerys had won the war, and died shortly after the war. With Rhaegar out of the way, his party would soon have disintegrated, and the Dornishmen were disgraced after Prince Lewyn's alleged betrayal at the Trident. Alone they could not rise enough swords to challenge Viserys' ascension to the Iron Throne, and neither could Doran or Oberyn broker marriage contracts for Aegon or Rhaenys since Elia and her children would be in Aerys' hand until his death.



A good and loyal Kingsguard would be well advised to keep himself and his whole order out of any succession crisis. That is, he would protect and honour any claimant to the throne as well as his family. If he chose to back a claimant over the other he may find himself in a position in which he was actually fighting against the true king, and would thus break his vows.



But there is a way out of this mess:



We can assume the knights had sworn/accepted the duty to protect Lyanna and her child until further notice. If the knights were loyal to Rhaegar Ned's dream conversation would always sound the way it does - if the child had been female, if it had been stillborn, if they were actually keeping Lyanna prisoner against her will (although Ned most likely would then not have considered Arthur Dayne a great guy).



But the additional assumption that they would impartially assess the evidence, consider that Lyanna's child is 'the true king', not consult about this with Rhaella take it upon themselves to protect him from every real and imagined threat - even against Lyanna's brother and her friends.



This literal understanding of the primary duty of the Kingsguard is also an outgrowth of interpretation that is not explicitly backed by any textual evidence. Yes, the KG is supposed to protect the king, that is their duty. However, this does not force to come up with some elaborate hierarchy of KG duties. If the king dies, his last orders still stand. I've given examples for this time and time again, the best is actually in the series itself when Arys Oakheart does not have to double-check with King Tommen whether it is still his duty to protect Princess Myrcella rather than return to KL to fulfil his 'primary duty'. Tyrion gave Arys said order in Joffrey's name and it stands until Joff himself (or somebody speaking in his name), Tommen, or another king contacts Arys and tells him that this assignment is over.



This is how things works best without having to invent or twist or assert stuff (like 'there were a binding succession law unless challenged by a Great Council'). And if one likes, one can still imagine or assume that the knights at the tower - being essentially loyal to Prince Rhaegar - may have hoped or wanted that his son by Lyanna would one day become king. But there is, as of yet, no evidence for that.



Completely different thing:



Has anybody ever considered the possibility that Howland Reed saved Ned's life by convincing Ser Arthur to turn against his Kingsguard brethren (only to die then in a fight against Oswell or Gerold)? We have on textual evidence for Howland killing Ser Arthur or Howland fighting at all. I cannot see both Ned and Howland standing a chance against one KG, let alone three (which means it was effectively three against five, not three against seven). More importantly, it is strange/interesting that George did not give us the fight scene in the dream. He could have cut/blurred the dialogue without giving anything away about Jon and Lyanna. The fact that we don't know anything about that battle is a pretty big hint that we don't actually know what happened there...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...