R+L=J v.142

[Avalatis]

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 wa

I wouldn't presume Yandel doesn't have his own biases. But in regards to this I doubt he has any reason to lie.

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.

Actually that is exactly what it means. By default Jon would be the heir. Just because it is the default state of things doesn't mean it can't be changed by the King or challenged by a GC. So unless they receive word that Aerys named a new heir (like Viserys) they would have no other reason to suspect Jon isn't the new King.

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.

Well they aren't going to know about Ned and Storm's End as he *just* came from there. Unless they have a Vary's style spy network with direct raven's to the TOJ they wouldn't exactly know what happened there.

As for Aegon, the rumors and stories could have already spread. There is no reason to think the news first broke when Robert was displayed their corpses. Also while Ned was in the city he would have investigated what happened to the rest of the royal family after finding Aerys dead. I doubt this was kept secret until Robert arrived in the city.

[Avalatis]

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.

Their vows deal with their order: The Kingsguard. When the Kingsguard hold their meetings we see that they ensure the protection of the King with non-Kingsguard first before they meet to have their meeting. The problem with the Kingsguard at the TOJ is that they don't even bother to ensure or even verify if the new King Viserys was well protected (and as readers we know he wasn't as he was betrayed and forced to flee Dragonstone eventually).

Generally they will keep at least one Kingsguard with the King to ensure that he is protected. The King can go without Kingsguard if he orders it to be so, though the Kingsguard will still do their best to ensure that he is safe during such a time. I believe such an exchange happened between Barristan and Robert and the boar.

In the case with the TOJ these Kingsguard didn't even bother checking with King Viserys to see what his orders are. So not only are they failing to ensure his protection they aren't even checking to see what he wants done.

So the question is can Prince Rhaegar (dead or alive) orders superseded the Kingsguard Loyalty to the crown? How would Hightower the most dutiful perceive such an order? How would he prioritize it? Why wouldn't 1 of the 3 check in with the new King? I feel the reason is because they *believe* (because they hadn't heard of any change in succession) that the new King was in that tower. That means they needed to ensure their Kings protection before worrying about the King's uncle.

[Avalatis]

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...

Well that's part of the mystery. And as others pointed out the dream had a lot of metaphor and wasn't a detailed recounting of the event. These were emotional/subconscious Ned thoughts giving us hints of the event. Had the dream include a fight sequence I doubt it would have been accurate with the shades and the Kingsguard. Though it might have provided hints in how the fight went down.

It could have been that the numerical advantage meant that Whent died immediately, Dayne killed 3 and almost Ned, and Hightower killed two, but died from one of their blows. Dayne could have been hurt by the time he almost killed Ned.

Or maybe Ned is a better swords fighter than the people on this forum give him credit for. Ned fought in quite a few battles without suffering injury. It's quite possible that he was a good enough sword fighter that with a little help from Howland he was able to beat Dayne (who was the superior fighter of the two). Which means the stories of him defeating Dayne in a 1v1 duel were only slightly exaggerated.

[Amoracchius]

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...

This is extremely interesting, and no, I'd never considered that possibility. Good stuff!

[Ygrain]

/throws in her usual spiel about the net and spear and points out that Barristan was surprised to learn the effect of immobilization on a knight/

[COYStars]

I have to say that I'm not inspired by the degree of convolution in the scenarios. I do hope that the reveal doesn't transpire as a complex web whodunnit-style. Simple is best.

[Lord Varys]

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.

My idea would revolve around the whole Howland-Lyanna thing from Harrenhal. Howland remembering that Prince Rhaegar became enamoured with Lyanna Stark for reason, which then led to her coronation as the Queen of Love and Beauty - that she took the duties of a true knight upon herself and defended (the honour) of an innocent. Arthur as Rhaegar's friend would certainly have known that, and might not have been willing to take up arms against Howland and then Ned after he had recognized him/realized who he was, and spoken to him.

The fact that the man who seems to be inadvertently have caused the Lyanna-Rhaegar romance is at the tower is certainly no coincidence, and it is very unlikely that Howland will turn out to be a mere plot device to tell us 'what truly happened' (especially since we don't actually need Howland for that - Bran can give us the entire scene in a vision). He'll have his own story to tell, a story that may include more than fighting skills and an almost unrealistic portion of luck.

Even if we go with my assumption that Willam Dustin and the others did not care to survive the battle in a Roddy-the-Ruin-like fashion - five against three are very bad odds against the Sword of the Morning and two other very experienced Kingsguard.

Ned Stark is at best an average sword fighter. That has been confirmed by George - which means that he would not have lasted a second against any of these men if actually encountered them in close combat. A possible scenario could be that the five other Northmen are killed by the KG with ease, with Ned and Howland staying somewhat behind (perhaps things were heated and got out of hand against Ned's wishes or those of Ser Arthur). Then there is the Arthur-Howland conversation/interaction, and then Arthur turns against his brothers, quickly dispatches either Gerold or Oswell, but subsequently receives a mortal would while killing the other.

As to the fight scene being depicted in the dream:

Even if we conclude that this would be improper/possibly not even be covered by the dream, the fact is that George remained tight-lipped about the details of the fight anyway. He could have given us a rough description of it - say, who actually killed who, or how exactly Howland saved Ned. But he did not. That is at least noteworthy.

[SFDanny]

Did Benjen see Lyanna get kidnapped and/or let it happened?

We don't know who was with Lyanna when she was kidnapped, but it isn't very likely it was Benjen. There is a tradition that there "must always be a Stark in Winterfell." We know Lord Rickard is on his way south from Winterfell to Riverrun for Brandon's wedding when the kidnapping occurs, and we know Brandon had shortly before seen his father when he hears the news of the abduction. The app and other sources tells us all that. We also know Ned is in the Vale when Aerys calls for his and Robert's heads. So, if the tradition is followed it is likely Benjen is the Stark who was left in Winterfell when all of this takes place. Of course it would be fascinating to know what Benjen knows about all of this (did Lyanna want to have a relationship with Rhaegar? if so, how many Starks knew of her feelings? etc.) but that's also the likely reason the author has either killed him off or kept him off screen for so long. Here's hoping Benjen shows up and enlightens us on some of these facts.

[The Twinslayer]

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.

The reason I say this is not an R+L=J clue is that, while Ned calls Jon his "son" for all the world to see, almost no-one thinks of Jon and Robb as brothers. Jon is repeatedly referred to as Robb's "half brother" throughout Game of Thrones.

When Tyrion says to Jon "[y]ou have more of the north in you than your brothers," Jon corrects hims: "'Half brothers,' Jon corrected."

When Arya refers to Jon as her "brother," Sansa also "corrects" her and says Jon is their "half brother."

So when Ned goes to the heart tree and prays that Jon and Robb will grow up "as brothers," this does not imply that Jon is really Robb's cousin. It implies that Ned wants Robb to treat Jon as a "brother," not as a second-class, bastard "half-brother." Remember, (assuming that R+L=J is true), Ned has no intention of telling Robb "Jon is your legitimate, half-royal cousin, but I want you to treat him like a little brother." He plans to tell Robb "Jon is your illegitimate half-brother, but I want you to treat him like a brother."

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.

I think I understand what you are saying. You are saying that your interpretation of the KGs actions from the toj scene in Game of Thrones is inconsistent with the KGs knowing that Viserys was the new king, and it is inconsistent with their believing that Aegon was still alive. Therefore, you conclude that they could not have known that Viserys was king and they must have known that Aegon was dead. I don't think that is the right approach, because there are alternative readings of the toj scene that make as much or more sense.

So I think the better approach is to look at the big picture and then to try to interpret the toj scene -- which, standing alone, is deliberately ambiguous -- in light of those other factors.

We know the KG swear an oath to follow orders. The KG know Aerys has the power to choose his own successor, that he hated the Dornish, that he favored Viserys, and that Aegon was an infant. We know that communications to the toj were spotty, that Viserys became the heir before Aerys died, that naming an heir is usually a public event, and that the news that Aegon was dead came days after Aerys died. We know that when the KG are ordered to abandon the king to protect someone else (as Thorne and Fell were during the Princess and the Queen), they obey the order.

If you keep these facts in mind while reading the toj dialogue, it is easy to infer that the KG were at the toj because that is where they were ordered to be, and not because they had taken it upon themselves to proclaim a newborn orphan to be the new king without even checking in with Rhaella and Viserys.

[Alia of the knife]

Their vows deal with their order: The Kingsguard. When the Kingsguard hold their meetings we see that they ensure the protection of the King with non-Kingsguard first before they meet to have their meeting. The problem with the Kingsguard at the TOJ is that they don't even bother to ensure or even verify if the new King Viserys was well protected (and as readers we know he wasn't as he was betrayed and forced to flee Dragonstone eventually).

Generally they will keep at least one Kingsguard with the King to ensure that he is protected. The King can go without Kingsguard if he orders it to be so, though the Kingsguard will still do their best to ensure that he is safe during such a time. I believe such an exchange happened between Barristan and Robert and the boar.

In the case with the TOJ these Kingsguard didn't even bother checking with King Viserys to see what his orders are. So not only are they failing to ensure his protection they aren't even checking to see what he wants done.

So the question is can Prince Rhaegar (dead or alive) orders superseded the Kingsguard Loyalty to the crown? How would Hightower the most dutiful perceive such an order? How would he prioritize it? Why wouldn't 1 of the 3 check in with the new King? I feel the reason is because they *believe* (because they hadn't heard of any change in succession) that the new King was in that tower. That means they needed to ensure their Kings protection before worrying about the King's uncle.

I don't knowwwwwwww!!

And that's why I hated nursery rhymes and the fork who ran away with the freakin' spoon. :(

[RumHam]

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.

I think it's a mistake to assume Aerys's wishes would not be respected. It's certainly not inevitable because we have competing claims. Say for example the person in authority (Aerys's hand, presumably? The queen maybe otherwise?) was a firm Aerys supporter. Such a person would not call a great council, they would just see that Viserys III was installed.

I don't know that the Dance really set any precedent. Aegon II decreed that she was no true queen and apparently it wasn't challenged. That certainly did not establish a precedent that the king has no right right to choose his heir or pass somebody over. Just as someone breaking a law does not establish that law as invalid.

Anyway again the issue at hand is not "do people always follow the laws or wishes of a dead king." It's did Aerys have the authority to name his heir, and I think it's clear that he did. Of all people I doubt his Kingsguard would defy his dying wishes, but maybe some of them would being more loyal to Rhaegar. Anyway the situation never came up, as Aegon died right around the same time as Aerys.

For the record I'm pretty sure any of Rhaenyra's supporters would have said that Aegon II and his supporters were in rebellion.

[UnmaskedLurker]

The reason I say this is not an R+L=J clue is that, while Ned calls Jon his "son" for all the world to see, almost no-one thinks of Jon and Robb as brothers. Jon is repeatedly referred to as Robb's "half brother" throughout Game of Thrones.

When Tyrion says to Jon "[y]ou have more of the north in you than your brothers," Jon corrects hims: "'Half brothers,' Jon corrected."

When Arya refers to Jon as her "brother," Sansa also "corrects" her and says Jon is their "half brother."

So when Ned goes to the heart tree and prays that Jon and Robb will grow up "as brothers," this does not imply that Jon is really Robb's cousin. It implies that Ned wants Robb to treat Jon as a "brother," not as a second-class, bastard "half-brother." Remember, (assuming that R+L=J is true), Ned has no intention of telling Robb "Jon is your legitimate, half-royal cousin, but I want you to treat him like a little brother." He plans to tell Robb "Jon is your illegitimate half-brother, but I want you to treat him like a brother."

I think I understand what you are saying. You are saying that your interpretation of the KGs actions from the toj scene in Game of Thrones is inconsistent with the KGs knowing that Viserys was the new king, and it is inconsistent with their believing that Aegon was still alive. Therefore, you conclude that they could not have known that Viserys was king and they must have known that Aegon was dead. I don't think that is the right approach, because there are alternative readings of the toj scene that make as much or more sense.

So I think the better approach is to look at the big picture and then to try to interpret the toj scene -- which, standing alone, is deliberately ambiguous -- in light of those other factors.

We know the KG swear an oath to follow orders. The KG know Aerys has the power to choose his own successor, that he hated the Dornish, that he favored Viserys, and that Aegon was an infant. We know that communications to the toj were spotty, that Viserys became the heir before Aerys died, that naming an heir is usually a public event, and that the news that Aegon was dead came days after Aerys died. We know that when the KG are ordered to abandon the king to protect someone else (as Thorne and Fell were during the Princess and the Queen), they obey the order.

If you keep these facts in mind while reading the toj dialogue, it is easy to infer that the KG were at the toj because that is where they were ordered to be, and not because they had taken it upon themselves to proclaim a newborn orphan to be the new king without even checking in with Rhaella and Viserys.

The bolded clause is where we simply have different judgments. I have read the ToJ scene many times (and you probably have as well). Each time I try to consider the possibility that I am mistaken and these alternative reading make just as much sense as the reading in which the KG consider Jon to be the king. I just cannot get there. I acknowledge those reading of the conversation are possible -- but I find them strained and therefore unlikely. Now if the evidence that the KG would know about the naming of Viserys or would be unlikely to know about the death of Aegon were stronger, then I would be forced to consider the strained reading of the conversation more likely. But without strong evidence regarding the likelihood that the KG knew this information about Viserys and Aegon, I simply cannot consider either possibility more or less likely (without reference to the conversation at ToJ).

In other words, I look at all the available evidence (excepting the conversation) and determine whether I think there is convincing evidence in one direction or the other regarding whether the KG would know these facts about Viserys and Aegon. And I find the evidence scarce and not determinitive. So without reference to the conversation I am completely agnostic on those questions -- I literally have no view as to whether it is more likely or less likely that the KG have this information. I know you disagree. I know you look at the timing of the news of the death of Aegon and the supposed tradition about public pronouncements regarding a new heir and conclude that it is more likely they found out about Viserys but not Aegon. I simply don't find that evidence convincing at all. The timing on Aegon is not far behind the news of Aerys and likely well before the lifting of the seize. I can think of numerous reasons why the news of Viserys would not be sent to the KG. So I find the evidence for your assumptions regarding these pieces of evidence very slim and not convincing.

Then I add the ToJ conversation contents to the mix in terms of my analysis. I don't find it equally likely as not that the KG would make the statements they make regarding not going to DS to be with Viserys if they knew about a "decree" naming Viserys as heir. While possible (and if the evidence they knew were stronger, I would be more prone to view it that way), I find it unlikely they would be so flippant about V being on DS if they knew Aerys named V as heir. The KG indicate that Darry is not KG and thus was free to go with V to DS and the KG don't flee then or now. But if V is the rightful Targ heir, then a KG would have every reason to go to DS to be with V. So to make the statement be consistent with knowing about the naming, one has to believe either that the KG decided to ignore the "decree" for some reason (which seems unlikely given Hightower's personality) or that they think they are obligated to stay at ToJ anyway. But even if the latter is true, it still would not explain the remark about Darry not being KG. To me, that remark only makes sense if the KG don't think that anyone would consider V to be the next Targ king -- because they are talking about the duties of KG generally and not just about the duties of these 3 KG. Even though Aerys was alive when Darry first went to DS, the KG know that Aerys is dead now. So it would make no sense to emphasize that Darry is not KG and thus free to be on DS -- especially given the next statement about not fleeing then or NOW (suggesting that a KG going to DS NOW would be fleeing, which is absurd if V is the rightful Targ King).

Then the last statement is that they swore a vow. I have heard all sorts of arguments about what vow they mean -- the vow to protect the innocent -- the vow to obey the last orders from Rhaegar. I agree these alternatives are possible explanations for their reference to taking a vow -- but if they believe Viserys or Aegon might really be king, it does not make sense to me that they would say that. Without really good reason to believe the KG would make such a seemingly strange statement, I cannot understand how the KG would state that they have to stay to protect the innocent or follow a dead prince's orders when they know that the rightful king has no KG protection. Anyone who knows about the KG know that the King always has at least one KG with him. So knowing that the rightful king (even if not yet coronated, he still needs KG protection to make sure he gets to be coronated) has no KG protection, the KG would have to believe that they must all 3 stay at ToJ to fulfill a vow when they are not fulfilling the vow that is the most central to their purpose for being. Again, while possible, I discount its likelihood without much better evidence to the contrary than you have provided.

Basically, you think the evidence that the KG would know about V being named heir and not know about Aegon being killed is stronger than I believe that evidence to be. And I believe that the evidence in the words of the KG at ToJ in favor of the conclusion that they thought they were guarding the rightful king to be stronger than you believe that evidence to be. And thus we come to different judgments about what we think happened.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I think it's a mistake to assume Aerys's wishes would not be respected. It's certainly not inevitable because we have competing claims. Say for example the person in authority (Aerys's hand, presumably? The queen maybe otherwise?) was a firm Aerys supporter. Such a person would not call a great council, they would just see that Viserys III was installed.

I don't know that the Dance really set any precedent. Aegon II decreed that she was no true queen and apparently it wasn't challenged. That certainly did not establish a precedent that the king has no right right to choose his heir or pass somebody over. Just as someone breaking a law does not establish that law as invalid.

Anyway again the issue at hand is not "do people always follow the laws or wishes of a dead king." It's did Aerys have the authority to name his heir, and I think it's clear that he did. Of all people I doubt his Kingsguard would defy his dying wishes, but maybe some of them would being more loyal to Rhaegar. Anyway the situation never came up, as Aegon died right around the same time as Aerys.

For the record I'm pretty sure any of Rhaenyra's supporters would have said that Aegon II and his supporters were in rebellion.

You completely missed my point about DoD 1.0. Of course Aegon II considered Rhaenyra not to be queen. I never suggested that his view is relevant to this analysis. What is relevant is that all the Westeros history books fail to report Rhaenyra as having been a Queen on the IT. WOIAF has a chapter titled for every Targ ruler of Westeros from Aegon I through Aerys II. There is no chapter for Rhaenyra. She is discussed in the chapters titled for Viserys I and Aegon II, but no chapter titled for her. Why? I think because the outcome of the war was a confirmation that male-preferred primogenture generally controls and the wishes of the King are not automatically respected. Aegon II is not reported in the history books as a law breaker. Arguably, Rhaenyra is the one who is suggested to be the law breaker because she is not listed as ever having sit the IT (even though, in fact, she effectively did).

And apparently, after her death, her supporters did not try to press the issue that she was in the right and her brother in the wrong. Aegon III, Rhaenyra's son, does not seem to try to take any action to recognize his mother as having been Queen rather than his uncle, Aegon II, having been King. Aegon III and all other Rhaenyra supporters seem willing to accept the records of history showing Rhaenyra as having been in the wrong regarding who was Ruler of Westeros during that period of time in which both Aegon II and Rhaenyra claimed the throne by recording Aegon II as king during that entire period.

As to the issue of recognizing Viserys as king, I agree that it is possible that Viserys would have been crowned under my hypothetical and no one would speak up for Aegon or try to call a GC or threaten war. The opposite might also be true if the remaining powers at that time favored Aegon. But in virtually every other case in which there was some question about who had the right to rule, a GC was called (or war as in the case of DoD 1.0). So I consider a GC to be the most likely alternative in such a circumstance. Not the only possibility -- just the most likely.

[RumHam]

You completely missed my point about DoD 1.0. Of course Aegon II considered Rhaenyra not to be queen. I never suggested that his view is relevant to this analysis. What is relevant is that all the Westeros history books fail to report Rhaenyra as having been a Queen on the IT. WOIAF has a chapter titled for every Targ ruler of Westeros from Aegon I through Aerys II. There is no chapter for Rhaenyra. She is discussed in the chapters titled for Viserys I and Aegon II, but no chapter titled for her. Why? I think because the outcome of the war was a confirmation that male-preferred primogenture generally controls and the wishes of the King are not automatically respected. Aegon II is not reported in the history books as a law breaker. Arguably, Rhaenyra is the one who is suggested to be the law breaker because she is not listed as ever having sit the IT (even though, in fact, she effectively did).

And apparently, after her death, her supporters did not try to press the issue that she was in the right and her brother in the wrong. Aegon III, Rhaenyra's son, does not seem to try to take any action to recognize his mother as having been Queen rather than his uncle, Aegon II, having been King. Aegon III and all other Rhaenyra supporters seem willing to accept the records of history showing Rhaenyra as having been in the wrong regarding who was Ruler of Westeros during that period of time in which both Aegon II and Rhaenyra claimed the throne by recording Aegon II as king during that entire period.

As to the issue of recognizing Viserys as king, I agree that it is possible that Viserys would have been crowned under my hypothetical and no one would speak up for Aegon or try to call a GC or threaten war. The opposite might also be true if the remaining powers at that time favored Aegon. But in virtually every other case in which there was some question about who had the right to rule, a GC was called (or war as in the case of DoD 1.0). So I consider a GC to be the most likely alternative in such a circumstance. Not the only possibility -- just the most likely.

No I'm pretty sure I understood your point, I just don't agree. Rhaenyra not being considered a true queen by history does not set a precedent that kings can't name their heirs. What you're saying is that since the Dance primogeniture is binding, and we know that it's not. "Especially for a king."

[Lord Varys]

The Dance was later considered another precedent against female inheritance, but it didn't even settle this question 'once and for all'. Baelor I apparently did not name an heir, and there were people backing Princess Daena's claim against Viserys II following Baelor's death. If the Dance had killed female inheritance for good, this thing wouldn't have come up again in 171 AC, nor would Vaella's claim have been discussed at the Great Council of 233 AC - after all, she was both mentally challenged and female.

We also see kings choosing and naming heirs all the time after the Dance - Aegon III named Prince Daeron, Viserys II Prince Aegon, Aegon IV Prince Daeron, Daeron II Prince Baelor and later Prince Valarr, Aerys I Princes Rhaegel, Aelor, and Maekar, Maekar Princes Daeron and (presumably) Aerion, Aegon V Princes Duncan and Jaehaerys.

Sure, by and large they followed the custom with this - but it is obvious that they did and name and recognize heirs, and especially the Great Council of 233 and Prince Duncan's abdication showed that primogeniture was, in fact, far from binding. We don't need Ran to confirm that. The history of Westeros exemplifies it.

This is not a matter of interpretation and theory-building. It is a matter of accepting the facts. And those facts are in themselves strong circumstantial evidence that the Kingsguard at the tower wouldn't consider a child of Rhaegar and Lyanna's the true king without knowing the wishes of the king on the matter. Not if they were loyal to the king (i.e. Aerys). Nothing suggests that the KG swore an oath to uphold some law of inheritance, after all.

General Kingsguard stuff:

Can anybody explain to me how the Kingsguard should react if the succession is unclear in another scenario and, say, the previous king/heir has entrusted a bunch of KG with the safety of a young prince who has a strong claim? Should they also decide - as UL and others claim - that this prince was king now, even if the Hand and other members of the royal family and court favoured another? Should Prince Maegor's sworn shield - if we assume he had one, and that this knight was a member of the KG (which is far from confirmed) - have decided that this child was the king now as King Maekar had not named an heir but should have named Maegor?

Something like that simply does not happen unless the KG is part of larger political party backing one claimant over the other. And, again, we see that Prince Aegon is not King Aegon VI despite the fact that he was Rhaegar's heir, and is, by the time of ADwD, the sole surviving male Targaryen descendant of King Aerys II. If Jon Connington does not yet think of Aegon as his king, then why the hell should we even contemplate the idea that the knights at the tower crowned an infant to their king, and actually risked to further fragment the remaining Targaryen loyalists in Westeros? There was no need for that.

[COYStars]

Then I add the ToJ conversation contents to the mix in terms of my analysis. I don't find it equally likely as not that the KG would make the statements they make regarding not going to DS to be with Viserys if they knew about a "decree" naming Viserys as heir. While possible (and if the evidence they knew were stronger, I would be more prone to view it that way), I find it unlikely they would be so flippant about V being on DS if they knew Aerys named V as heir. The KG indicate that Darry is not KG and thus was free to go with V to DS and the KG don't flee then or now. But if V is the rightful Targ heir, then a KG would have every reason to go to DS to be with V. So to make the statement be consistent with knowing about the naming, one has to believe either that the KG decided to ignore the "decree" for some reason (which seems unlikely given Hightower's personality) or that they think they are obligated to stay at ToJ anyway. But even if the latter is true, it still would not explain the remark about Darry not being KG. To me, that remark only makes sense if the KG don't think that anyone would consider V to be the next Targ king -- because they are talking about the duties of KG generally and not just about the duties of these 3 KG. Even though Aerys was alive when Darry first went to DS, the KG know that Aerys is dead now. So it would make no sense to emphasize that Darry is not KG and thus free to be on DS -- especially given the next statement about not fleeing then or NOW (suggesting that a KG going to DS NOW would be fleeing, which is absurd if V is the rightful Targ King).

Then the last statement is that they swore a vow. I have heard all sorts of arguments about what vow they mean -- the vow to protect the innocent -- the vow to obey the last orders from Rhaegar. I agree these alternatives are possible explanations for their reference to taking a vow -- but if they believe Viserys or Aegon might really be king, it does not make sense to me that they would say that. Without really good reason to believe the KG would make such a seemingly strange statement, I cannot understand how the KG would state that they have to stay to protect the innocent or follow a dead prince's orders when they know that the rightful king has no KG protection. Anyone who knows about the KG know that the King always has at least one KG with him. So knowing that the rightful king (even if not yet coronated, he still needs KG protection to make sure he gets to be coronated) has no KG protection, the KG would have to believe that they must all 3 stay at ToJ to fulfill a vow when they are not fulfilling the vow that is the most central to their purpose for being. Again, while possible, I discount its likelihood without much better evidence to the contrary than you have provided.

Basically, you think the evidence that the KG would know about V being named heir and not know about Aegon being killed is stronger than I believe that evidence to be. And I believe that the evidence in the words of the KG at ToJ in favor of the conclusion that they thought they were guarding the rightful king to be stronger than you believe that evidence to be. And thus we come to different judgments about what we think happened.

This is where I am at.

[Mithras]

...Can anybody explain to me how the Kingsguard should react if the succession is unclear ...

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.

[Lord Varys]

Exactly. Which is why loyal and smart Kingsguard would not have tried to cause a succession crisis/infighting within the Targaryen dynasty by naming or proclaiming an infant king without checking with the other members of the royal family first.

[Mithras]

Exactly. Which is why loyal and smart Kingsguard would not have tried to cause a succession crisis/infighting within the Targaryen dynasty by naming or proclaiming an infant king without checking with the other members of the royal family first.

Why not? There is no right answer. There is no law, no tradition, no precedent, nothing that supplied a clear answer for what they were supposed to do in such a situation. They had many vows and many orders and many duties that were in conflict with each other. Even inaction is a choice that has equally significant consequences with whatever option they had in front of them.

[UnmaskedLurker]

No I'm pretty sure I understood your point, I just don't agree. Rhaenyra not being considered a true queen by history does not set a precedent that kings can't name their heirs. What you're saying is that since the Dance primogeniture is binding, and we know that it's not. "Especially for a king."

I did not think you understood my point because you made a point about Aegon II not recognizing Rhaenyra, and my analysis was not based in any way in regards to him not recognizing her. Your statement here also suggests you misunderstood my point because I am NOT arguing that after DoD male-preferred primogeniture is binding. What I am arguing is that the King naming a heir is NOT binding. Neither is binding. Nothing is binding. But GC 101 and DoD set the precedent that absent other factors, the “normal” rule is male-preferred primogeniture. So if the King names someone else as heir, the King is risking a succession dilemma after his death. Maegor I was prior to these precedents and was a case in which he had killed some rivals (e.g., Prince Aegon) and any backers for Jaehaerys were careful enough merely to back down and wait for Maegor to die. So that precedent is not really relevant to this analysis.

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.

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. But both Stannis and Dany view themselves as the rightful King/Queen based on the rules of primogeniture – because they are the default rules.

So back to my hypothetical – Targs win the war, Rhaegar died in the war, Aerys names Viserys as heir and then Aerys dies with Aegon and Viserys still alive. It is possible that Viserys will become King either through GC (most likely course in my view), civil war or Aegon merely having no support in court. But Aegon also might become king at that point for similar reasons. The argument is NOT that primogeniture in binding or that the King naming an heir is binding. The point is that the “normal” person to become king under male-preferred primogeniture will generally always be seen as having a legitimate claim. If the King names someone else, then that person likely also will be seen as having a legitimate claim. So naming a different person sets up a likely conflict after the king’s death. The argument that Viserys would have had the “better” claim because Aerys named him heir simply is not supported by history (in particular DoD). But saying V does not have the better claim is different than saying V has no claim or that circumstances might not result in V becoming King over Aegon. The King simply cannot eliminate Aegon’s claim by naming Viserys. DoD proves that point.

To bring this discussion back to its relevance for the ToJ situation – as I have noted many times, the theory I find most convincing based on my interpretation of the conversation at ToJ is that the KG consider Jon to be King. Some have argued that this conclusion is inconsistent with the knowledge of the KG that the King can always name a different heir and without confirming whether the King did so, the KG could not be certain that Jon was the only real claimant to the Targ throne. According to this theory, at a minimum, the KG needed to inquire with the remaining Targ loyalists (e.g., Queen Rhaella) whether the King named a different heir.

There are a few possibilities as to why the KG did not consider it necessary to inquire about the naming of a new heir. Before addressing that issue, however, I will note that obviously this theory relies on the assumption that the KG did not receive actual word that Aerys named Viserys to be heir. I have addressed this issue many times so I won’t detail here why I think it is reasonable to conclude they never got word of any such “decree” regarding Viserys. But back to the question at hand – why would they not feel the need to inquire here? I think one possible reason is that Aerys is now dead and KL has fallen – so any record of a naming would not be accessible to them. Risking going to DS on the chance that during the short period between the death of Rhaegar and the death of Aerys that Aerys named someone other than Aegon as heir would increase the risk to Jon by leaving him with fewer KG. Unless they had some good reason to think Aerys actually formally named an heir – the safer course was to consider Jon the King until they could get away from Westeros.

The issue of the King naming an heir also might not have entered their minds. The last time that a King naming an heir was actually relevant in any way to who became the next rule of Westeros was DoD – and we know that instance did not go well. So even though other Kings have gone through the process of naming a new Prince of Dragonstone, we have no other example where the King names someone other than the “normal” next-in-line where the naming then became relevant after the King’s death. So the KG simply might not have thought about the issue.

Finally, one speculation I have read is that Hightower was able to get Rhaegar to go back to KL because Aerys sent the message that he would promise Rhaegar that if he died in battle, Aerys would name Aegon as heir. If Hightower passed such a message to Rhaegar, Hightower might not consider that Aerys would go back on his word and name Viserys. Of course, this possibility is mere speculation, but I am simply giving examples for why the KG might have considered Jon to be King and not thought Viserys to be a potential rival claimant.

I am not trying to conclude which possibility for why the KG did not consider the possibility that Aerys named Viserys as heir is the correct one. We don’t have enough information. But the fact that I can come up with multiple possibilities convinces me that it is reasonable to conclude that the KG might consider Jon to be the rightful Targ heir to the throne and not contemplate Viserys as a potential rival claimant. With that possibility in mind, I retain my view that the most natural reading of the ToJ conversation is that the KG consider Jon to be the rightful King – based on their words in context. And there is not sufficient evidence that such a conclusion by them would be unlikely – so I retain my interpretation of the conversation based on the natural meaning of their words as I best interpret them.