R+L=J v.151

[Bael's Bastard]

Actually, it does not say that.  It says that Viserys and Rhaella went to Dragonstone, and with 20/20 hindsight Viserys is Aerys' heir, because the only heir that Yandel knows of ahead of Viserys was Aegon who was murdered by Aerys, as Yandel narrates. 

 

Aegon was still alive when the "new heir" Viserys was sent to Dragonstone. Yes, Yandel could be applying this in hindsight, but that isn't the only explanation, and I don't think it is the simplest explanation.

[UnmaskedLurker]

Actually, it does not say that.  It says that Viserys and Rhaella went to Dragonstone, and with 20/20 hindsight Viserys is Aerys' heir, because the only heir that Yandel knows of ahead of Viserys was Aegon who was murdered by Aerys, as Yandel narrates. 

I don't think you meant to say that Aegon was murdered by Aerys, did you? I agree with the basic point you are making, however (at least as a plausible explanation).

[SFDanny]

@Carbon from previous thread

 

Sorry I should have clarified. "The news" is specific to the announcement that Aerys declared Viserys his new heir after Rhaegar died. There have been previous debates about this. SFDanny was of the position that it was highly likely that the 3 KG knew "the news". But as SFDanny doesn't respond to any of my posts I suspect I've been blocked/ignored if there is such a feature on this forum.

 

As for making mistakes that is clearly true. When he goes to Dany he pretty much confesses to such.

 

As for Barristan's actions I thought it was more clear cut because I remembered the show's version more so than the book's. The Khal Who Rode West gave this quote last thread:

 

 

It looks like he did not know the contents of the letter. He also didn't act against Ned completely, well there was hesitation so he didn't really have a chance to. If  he had known the full contents of the letter: Ned being Regent and Lord Protector Cercei would have had zero power in that throne room during that exchange. Joffery (the heir) was not fit to be King yet based on the command of the previous King Robert. Which means all judgements were to be deferred to Ned who was chosen for the task.

 

Sorry, Avalatis for not replying. No, you are not on my ignore list, nor am I purposely ignoring you. The truth is much less dramatic - I missed your post. With too little time to read and respond to every post I miss some sometimes. I see the conversation has gone on beyond your question, or at least I think it has, so let me just say I will make a point of looking to see your posts in the future, as time allows, and will make every effort to respond if you ask me a question or seek my viewpoint.

[Bael's Bastard]

Doesn't that quote from Dany support the proposition that Viserys being named as the heir was not widely known? Apparently even Viserys did not know it (or if he did, he did not tell Dany, which would seem unlikely). That quote is a great addition to this analysis of the circumstances surrounding the naming of the new heir. If Aerys named Viserys as the new heir (and I reiterate that I am not 100% convinced that he did, but acknowledge he might have and assume so here), I think this quote from Dany supports what I have been saying -- it was not universally known. I am not claiming it was done in "secret" but I don't think it was widely reported. Specifically, I don't think anyone sent ravens out pronouncing the naming the new heir. It might have been known around KL by those at court, but I think we now have additional evidence that the information never went further.

 

Yes, I would say that it could support the idea that Aerys' naming Viserys his heir, if he did indeed, was not widely known, or that few of those who did know made it out alive, or cared to make it known. Yandel happens to have Pycelle as a source, which gives us a good reason why he knows (and Pycelle could have made it up), and IIRC TWOIAF has yet to actually be made public "in world" up to Tommen's reign.

[UnmaskedLurker]

 

Aegon was still alive when the "new heir" Viserys was sent to Dragonstone. Yes, Yandel could be applying this in hindsight, but that isn't the only explanation, and I don't think it is the simplest explanation.

I agree it is not the only explanation -- but I think it actually is the simplest. You just found two GREAT quotes that state in pretty much uncontravertable terms that Dany assumed Aegon came before Viserys in the succession order after the death of Rhaegar. I think that is decent evidence that a formal naming might never have happened. Dany should have known about the naming, right? As I noted above, it means it likely either was not widely distributed -- or alternatively, never happened. The statement in WOIAF is oblique -- no direct statement that a naming occurred. We also know that Aegon died soon thereafter. We know that Viserys is crowned by his mother on DS -- so treated by his family as Aerys's heir (after Aegon is dead). We know that nowhere in any of the main books is there any hint that Viserys was named ahead of Aegon. Why isn't it the simplest explanation most consistent with all the other facts we know?

[Consigliere]

 
Well when you think about it the three Kingsguard should not just be assuming anything about who the next king is. Especially during a civil war that's all but lost for the Targaryens. It's not their place to crown a king. I think they would have at least been aware of the rift between Aerys and Rhaegar. The whole thing is complicated by the possibility that at least some of them were probably working with Rhaegar to seize control from Aerys at some point. 

Would it be reasonable for them to assume that under the normal line of succession a legitimate son of Rhaegars would come before Viserys? At the end of the day, a decision had to be made. Robert is referred to as usurper so it is clear that their allegiance does not lie with him. They also consider going to DS as fleeing and that Willem Darry is a good man but not of the KG. So I think that it is reasonable to infer from all this that the KG made a decision on whom they consider to be their king.

[Bael's Bastard]

I don't think it is the simplest explanation because, IMO, the wording indicates he was the "new heir" at the time he was sent to Dragonstone, when Aegon was still alive. As Aerys and Aegon died at pretty much the same time, when would Viserys have ever been Aerys' "new heir"? He didn't become Aerys' heir after Aerys' died, he became his successor.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I don't think it is the simplest explanation because, IMO, the wording indicates he was the "new heir" at the time he was sent to Dragonstone, when Aegon was still alive. As Aerys and Aegon died at pretty much the same time, when would Viserys have ever been Aerys' "new heir"? He didn't become Aerys' heir after Aerys' died, he became his successor.

No. He is his heir between the time of the death of Aerys and the coronation of Viserys. For example, when a person dies, it has to be determined who is the heir (or heirs) to the dead person to figure our where the dead person's property should be transferred. Someone does not cease to be the heir just because the person of whom they are the heir dies.

[Bael's Bastard]

No. He is his heir between the time of the death of Aerys and the coronation of Viserys. For example, when a person dies, it has to be determined who is the heir (or heirs) to the dead person to figure our where the dead person's property should be transferred. Someone does not cease to be the heir just because the person of whom they are the heir dies.

 

I agree that there is a lot to be cleared up, but IMO, the simplest explanation is that Yandel uses "new heir" to refer to Viserys at the time he was sent to DS, because that was during the short period of time that he was the "new heir," or at least that is what Yandel has been led to believe. Yandel has nearly two decades of hindsight after Viserys' coronation. So I find the application of "new heir" to him while describing him being sent to DS to be odd if it is actually just referring to his status for the sliver of time between Aerys and Aegon being killed and him being crowned. Don't get me wrong, I could buy something along the lines of Pycelle making it up, and Aerys never really naming Viserys his heir, but for now, I find that the simplest explanation of Yandel's statement is that he has been led to believe that Viserys had been named Aerys' heir at that time.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Dany has already acknowledged in the books that Aegon would have been the sixth Aegon if he hadn't been murdered, so I think it would be pretty sloppy for her to suddenly start claiming she had a better claim based on Viserys being named heir (though I accept that Viserys was really named heir while Aegon still lived).
 
 

Perhaps as in 'if everything had gone as it should have gone', or, in other words, 'if no one had been murdered/if there had been no rebellion/if Rhaegar had lived to take the throne'.

[SFDanny]

Doesn't that quote from Dany support the proposition that Viserys being named as the heir was not widely known? Apparently even Viserys did not know it (or if he did, he did not tell Dany, which would seem unlikely). That quote is a great addition to this analysis of the circumstances surrounding the naming of the new heir. If Aerys named Viserys as the new heir (and I reiterate that I am not 100% convinced that he did, but acknowledge he might have and assume so here), I think this quote from Dany supports what I have been saying -- it was not universally known. I am not claiming it was done in "secret" but I don't think it was widely reported. Specifically, I don't think anyone sent ravens out pronouncing the naming the new heir. It might have been known around KL by those at court, but I think we now have additional evidence that the information never went further.

 

Who do you think it is most important for Aerys to have communicated his decision to name Viserys his new heir after the death of Rhaegar? His loyal bannermen. He doesn't want, as any king wouldn't want, those bannermen (the Martells, the Tyrells, still at this point the Lannisters, and all of their most powerful lords) deciding who can succeed him. The idea that ravens didn't fly with the news, doesn't fly with the understanding of what the purpose of this decree is. Aerys isn't talking to just his small council, or to the small folk of King's Landing, he is telling his loyal nobles who they have to follow after him because those are the men with the armies to make it come true.

 

As to Daenerys's quote, it is interesting in that it may have an impact on whether Daenerys would have considered herself Viserys's heir if Aegon was alive. Obviously, something to consider if Daenerys ever accepts Young Griff's claim, but it says nothing about her not believing Viserys was Aerys's heir after the death of Rhaegar. Note that when these quotes take place Viserys is dead. If she thinks Aegon would be Viserys heir before her they make as much sense as if there had never been a change. What it does do is reinforce the idea that Aegon was not disinherited, but that Viserys was only set in front of him in the line of succession. 

[Bael's Bastard]

Also, I want to make clear that I don't discount the possibility that Dany could still be led to believe in the future that Aerys had named Viserys his heir. Perhaps Yandel and his work may even enter the equation in the main series as part of that. It's just that, after explicitly stating that her nephew would have been the sixth Aegon, I would hope that she would have to be told and convinced of it, and won't be portrayed as if she had knowledge of it all along.

[SFDanny]

Also, I want to make clear that I don't discount the possibility that Dany could still be led to believe in the future that Aerys had named Viserys his heir. Perhaps Yandel and his work may even enter the equation in the main series as part of that. It's just that, after explicitly stating that her nephew would have been the sixth Aegon, I would hope that she would have to be told and convinced of it, and won't be portrayed as if she had knowledge of it all along.

 

Again, the quotes don't contradict Viserys being named heir after Rhaegar's death or indicate Daenerys doesn't know that fact. It only points to who she thinks should succeed Viserys after his death. That Viserys named her his heir seems clear, but thinking of the hypothetical case where Aegon was alive along with Viserys and with Daenerys the quotes make perfect sense if she thinks she would have never been named Viserys heir over Aegon.

[Lord Varys]

ML,

 

I should keep 'the argument from hindsight' in mind for my own history thesis since, well, I do know a lot of the stuff that happened in the last two millennia - why thus not pretend everybody living a thousand years ago did, too?

 

No historian would refer to Erzherzog Franz-Ferdinand of Austria as Heir Apparent of Emperor Franz-Joseph while Crown Prince Rudolf had not yet committed suicide and while the Emperor's brother and Franz-Ferdinand's father were still alive. But then, the stuff happening in between would be important, too. Yandel also knows that King Tommen would ultimately succeed King Robert, yet that's no reason to omit the ignominious end of King Joffrey from the historical record.

 

As to Dany and Aegon:

 

Dany more or less acknowledges that Aegon would have been king if he had lived - and assuming that Aerys had prevailed and reconciled with Dorne, it is not impossible that Aerys had changed the succession in Aegon's favor when he had come of age. Not to mention that Aegon most certainly would have become king had Rhaegar succeeded his father. But Dany clearly was the heir of Viserys III who was crowned on Dragonstone after the death of his father - and the alleged death of Prince Aegon, and thus Dany would as his heir have a pretty good claim against a real Aegon in any case.

 

Whether Aegon and Rhaenys (and Lyanna's unknown child) were disinherited or merely placed behind in the line of succession is difficult to say. The fact that Aerys seemed to consider Elia and her children his hostages rather than his family could suggest the former.

[UnmaskedLurker]

 

I agree that there is a lot to be cleared up, but IMO, the simplest explanation is that Yandel uses "new heir" to refer to Viserys at the time he was sent to DS, because that was during the short period of time that he was the "new heir," or at least that is what Yandel has been led to believe. Yandel has nearly two decades of hindsight after Viserys' coronation. So I find the application of "new heir" to him while describing him being sent to DS to be odd if it is actually just referring to his status for the sliver of time between Aerys and Aegon being killed and him being crowned. Don't get me wrong, I could buy something along the lines of Pycelle making it up, and Aerys never really naming Viserys his heir, but for now, I find that the simplest explanation of Yandel's statement is that he has been led to believe that Viserys had been named Aerys' heir at that time.

I am not suggesting that Yandel is literally just talking about that sliver of time. My point is that Yandel knows that at the time of Aerys death, Viserys is the heir. The point in time when it really becomes relevant as to the identity of the heir is at the time of death. So I think that the simplest explanation is that because Viserys actually became the heir at death (because Aegon was dead), Yandel is conflating the time and simply referring to Viserys as the new heir after the death of Rhaegar. Technically a sloppy use of words -- but still the simplest explanation. Not the only explanation, but I think given the other information we have, the simplest.

 

 

 

 

Again, the quotes don't contradict Viserys being named heir after Rhaegar's death or indicate Daenerys doesn't know that fact. It only points to who she thinks should succeed Viserys after his death. That Viserys named her his heir seems clear, but thinking of the hypothetical case where Aegon was alive along with Viserys and with Daenerys the quotes make perfect sense if she thinks she would have never been named Viserys heir over Aegon.

 

That makes no sense to me. Her statements only make sense if Dany thinks Aegon would have succeeded Aerys -- not Viserys. Are you suggesting that Dany is asserting that if Aegon had lived he would have gone around Essos with them, recognized Viserys as King, and then, when Drago killed Viserys, Aegon would have been king? I highly doubt that is what she meant and think it is a very strained reading of the text. What she seems to be suggesting is that if Aegon had not been killed -- and presumably if the Targs had won the war -- Aegon would have been next in line after Aerys. If Aegon had lived, Dany could not be sure he would have outlived Viserys, Their lives in Essos were rough and who knows how Aegon would have done in those circumstances. Dany is unlikely to be assuming Aegon is part of their group and in line after Viserys. No, it makes much more sense that she is referring to Aegon coming in line after Aerys under normal Targ succession rules..

[Bael's Bastard]

SFD,

I disagree that they don't contradict that she knows. I don't think her quotes make any sense if she is taking into account Viserys being named Aerys' heir and successor. Why would she assume Viserys would have had no children or that his line would have died out and Aegon would have succeeded him? What reason does she have to think and matter of factly state Aegon would have been the sixth had he not been murdered, if she knows Viserys was named heir after Rhaegar's death?

[UnmaskedLurker]

LV--

 

If, as you assert (and I suspect you are right) that Dany considers herself to be the legit heir to Viserys III (and not Aegon, even if alive), and as Dany stated, if Aegon had lived, he would have become Aegon VI, then Dany seems to be stating fairly clearly that she believes that Aegon WOULD have become king. She is not saying possibly king, if Aerys reconciled with Dorne and revoked Viserys and named Aegon as King -- she definitely is not making any such speculation. She is making a direct statement that he WOULD have become king. So she cannot have any knowledge that Aerys named Viserys as the new heir. So the idea that you keep asserting that the naming of Viserys as King MUST have been widely known seems to be completely inconsistent with Dany not having any such knowledge -- or presumably Viserys having had any such knowledge.

[The Twinslayer]

At a minimum, Barristan's behavior clarifies that the KG have duties to the heir after death of the King, even before coronation. In the past, I recall some arguing that even if Jon is heir, he has not yet become King and therefore the 3 KG would not have a duty yet to him. The behavior of Barristan -- before Joffrey is crowned -- suggests otherwise.

 

Of course, as a separate matter, we still have the issue of whether Aerys really did name Viserys as the new heir after the death of Rhaegar (I know there is a statement suggesting as much in WOIAF, but I am not 100% convinced it actually happened, although I acknowledge it might have), and if so, whether news of this information got to the KG. In that last thread, it was suggested by The Twinslayer that because the naming of the new heir occurred before the deaths of Aegon and Rhaenys, the KG could not know about those deaths unless they also know about the naming of the new heir. I completely disagree. As suggested by Corbon, there are reasons why words of the deaths of the royals, including the children, might be sent far and wide while the news of the naming of the new heir might not be broadcast as widely. In particular, given that news of the deaths almost certainly would come for the winning side of the war, they have reason to broadcast that the Targs are all dead -- they have no reason to make any mention of Aerys naming Viserys as the heir, given that the information is completely irrelevant (both because the winners don't consider Viserys as the legit heir -- they coronated Robert -- and because they believe the other contender -- Aegon -- to be dead).

 

Here is what seems most likely in terms of information flow to ToJ. They are getting information from somewhere -- probably Starfall. News gets to Starfall from KL mostly through ravens and perhaps to some extent from people traveling from KL to Starfall. News that Rhaegar, Aerys, Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys are dead almost certainly would get to Starfall fairly quickly after the events occurred. That information would get to ToJ at the time of the next supply run. Would news of the naming of Viserys as heir ever get to Starfall -- not necessarily. The naming occurred in the middle of a war. Aerys had more pressing issues than to make a big announcement about naming a new heir. He also had reason not to broadcast it widely as it likely would upset Dorne -- who he already thought were turning against him. So while we cannot know for sure, it is quite logical that news of the naming of a new never would have gotten to Starfall at all. We certainly cannot assume that it would.

Barristan's behavior when Robert died should be read in connection with this quote from The Princess and the Queen.

 

""Ser Otto Hightower cut him off. “All this must needs wait,” he declared, “until the question of succession is settled.” As the King’s Hand, he was empowered to speak with the king’s voice, even to sit the Iron Throne in the king’s absence. Viserys had granted him the authority to rule over the Seven Kingdoms, and “until such time as our new king is crowned,” that rule would continue."

 

Similarly, when Robert died, Ned was Hand, and his ability to "speak with the king's voice" would continue until the new king was crowned.  As a KG, Barristan was bound to follow the king's orders, which includes orders from the Hand speaking with the king's voice.  So when Ned ordered Barristan not to go to Joffrey, Barristan had to obey.  Joffrey would not be able to countermand that order until he was formally recognized as king.

 

As far as whether LC Hightower knew that Viserys was the new heir after Rhaegar died, I think he did know but I don't think it mattered.  The reason I think he did know is that the last time this situation came up (king's grandson vs. king's son) was when Aegon V became king.  So the most recent precedent (in the sense of "has this ever come up before, and if so, how was it dealt with?") gave Viserys a stronger claim regardless of whether Aerys formally recognized Viserys or not.  

 

More importantly, LC Hightower would know that Targaryen kings had a long history of naming their heirs.  Aerys might not choose to do that or he might not.  But what LC Hightower knows for sure is that if Aerys named a new heir, he didn't name Jon.  So at a minimum this creates uncertainty about who was next in line, and I don't think LC Hightower would take it upon himself to decide that Jon was king without first trying to find out whether Aerys had named someone else.  

 

Well when you think about it the three Kingsguard should not just be assuming anything about who the next king is. Especially during a civil war that's all but lost for the Targaryens. It's not their place to crown a king. I think they would have at least been aware of the rift between Aerys and Rhaegar. The whole thing is complicated by the possibility that at least some of them were probably working with Rhaegar to seize control from Aerys at some point. 

Well said.

 

Replying to Twinslayer from the last thread

 

 

I'm not saying Jeor ruled out the possibility of Jon holding his nieces and nephews, I'm just saying it seems more likely he just wasn't thinking about that possibility when he made his statement. Most men of the watch probably never get such an opportunity. As I said Jeor may have been speaking imprecisely, but it's a big leap from that to "we shouldn't assume 'special phrases' have the same meaning to everybody." It's possible for a character to misspeak without what you're suggesting being the case.

 

On the other hand, another example you may want to consider for your theory is Bloodraven's strange use of the word cousin in reference to Egg. There was another example I think with Cersei and Lancel, but I believe that's been established as just a mistake.

 

 

 

I guess, but I don't really see this as a matter of opinion. It's not at all unclear unless you try to make it so. I mean you still haven't addressed the point that wind consists of air, not flame. I don't really have anything else to add to what Corbon said on this. 

I don't think Jeor misspoke.  The use of "my blood" is important to R+L=J because when Ned tells Catelyn that Jon is "my blood" it is sometimes taken as a clue that Jon is Ned's nephew rather than his son.  If that is supposed to be an R+L=J clue, I don't think GRRM would have Jeor using that same phrase in a careless way.  

 

I had not noticed the use of "cousin" before, but I'll take a look.

 

On Quentyn, I think you may have partly missed my point.  I think that when you are talking about dragon breath there is a fine line between hot air and flame, because dragons apparently can project air that is not on fire but which is hot enough to burn something else.  Case in point:  after Drogon bites out the unburned belly of the "other fighter" in the pit, he envelopes Dany with a furnace wind that is not itself on fire, and not hot enough to burn Dany's flesh (she isn't inside his mouth), but it does char the flesh of the "other fighter" that is stuck in Drogon's teeth.  .  

 

I think the furnace wind that Quentyn felt was actually on fire, but even if it was just hot air, it was hot enough to set his whole body on fire.  In other words, Quentyn thinks of hot air blowing over him as wind whether it is on fire or not.  

[The Twinslayer]

 

 

Again, the quotes don't contradict Viserys being named heir after Rhaegar's death or indicate Daenerys doesn't know that fact. It only points to who she thinks should succeed Viserys after his death. That Viserys named her his heir seems clear, but thinking of the hypothetical case where Aegon was alive along with Viserys and with Daenerys the quotes make perfect sense if she thinks she would have never been named Viserys heir over Aegon.

 

I think what she is really saying is that if there had not been a Rebellion that ended with Aegon's head being smashed against a wall, then Rhaegar would have followed Aerys on the throne and Aegon VI would have followed Rhaegar.  

 

I don't think she is saying that if only little Aegon's head hadn't been smashed, but Rhaegar still died at the Trident, and Jaime still killed Aerys, that the rebels would have crowned Aegon.  

[Sly Wren]

As far as whether LC Hightower knew that Viserys was the new heir after Rhaegar died, I think he did know but I don't think it mattered.  The reason I think he did know is that the last time this situation came up (king's grandson vs. king's son) was when Aegon V became king.  So the most recent precedent (in the sense of "has this ever come up before, and if so, how was it dealt with?") gave Viserys a stronger claim regardless of whether Aerys formally recognized Viserys or not.  

 

More importantly, LC Hightower would know that Targaryen kings had a long history of naming their heirs.  Aerys might not choose to do that or he might not.  But what LC Hightower knows for sure is that if Aerys named a new heir, he didn't name Jon.  So at a minimum this creates uncertainty about who was next in line, and I don't think LC Hightower would take it upon himself to decide that Jon was king without first trying to find out whether Aerys had named someone else. 

Well said. And, given that Hightower and the others seem aware of Viserys' survival and location, must know that he's at least an option for kinging. 

 

Still not sure what the KG are up to at the tower, but summarily crowning Jon seems unlikely--and not just because babies really shouldn't wear crowns--soft skulls, weak necks, etc.