Jump to content

Archived

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

HelenaExMachina

R+L=J v.151

Recommended Posts

He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone.

 

This does not mean:

  • Aerys disowned Rhaegar
  • Aerys disowned Aegon
  • Aerys made a new proclamation for Viserys as heir
  • Aerys disseminated his proclamation
  • It was well known that Viserys had been named to preceed Aegon in line to the throne
  • That any Kingsguard knew about a change

This can mean:

  • Viserys is the only living Targaryen heir to the throne that Aerys holds after the war
  • Aerys did not make any changes to his heirs
  • Yandel is not very good at chronology, like GRRM

There is no reason to assume that any in-world characters know what the readers know.  There is good reason to question what we, as readers, know as well.  After all a hand with some shortened fingers had been hung on the gate at White Harbor.  It sure seemed as though Davos had been executed. 

 

There is also the "will" idea. Where Aerys had it placed in his will that he wanted Viserys to follow him onto the throne. So he isn't fully disinheriting Aegon and offending the Dornish, but if he has an untimely death he doesn't leave the realm to the Dornish.

 

Such as a will would not be widely known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is also the "will" idea. Where Aerys had it placed in his will that he wanted Viserys to follow him onto the throne. So he isn't fully disinheriting Aegon and offending the Dornish, but if he has an untimely death he doesn't leave the realm to the Dornish.

 

Such as a will would not be widely known.

Aye. It's not like we haven't seen a king's will not becoming publically known before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML,

 

this does mean: Prince Viserys was Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne after the Trident. Deal with it.

 

Avalatis,

 

Ned actually made matters worse by phrasing the will the way he did. He had no proof that Cersei's children were not Robert's, and the will spoke of 'my heir' - a matter open to interpretation in this scenario. Ned would have to force the Realm to accept that Joffrey and Tommen Baratheon was a bastard, and he could actually only hope to do if he was in control. If I don't believe the tales about Cersei then Joffrey would be 'the heir' the will speaks about, and that actually makes the most sense considering that Robert I would certainly not have named Eddard Stark Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm had he intended to name Stannis his heir (who was of age and capable of ruling in his own right).

 

If Robert had actually proclaimed Joffrey and Tommen bastards in his will, and named Stannis heir in their stead, Ned would have at least have had the words of the late. The way he played it he had nothing, and it is actually not surprising that people were confused about that. After all, why would the Hand and designated Lord Regent of the Realm act against the future king in whose name he was supposed to rule? That doesn't make all that much sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML,

 

this does mean: Prince Viserys was Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne after the Trident. Deal with it.

 

 

But this still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the 3KG (or anyone outside of Aerys's private council) knew this information. Isn't that the real heart of this matter--who knew what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the naming of Viserys as heir went against the normal line of succession in which case the question becomes whether the KG were aware of this change in succession. I don't think they were.


But it doesn't, if Rhaegars legitimate line died out, then Viserys would follow.

But again, I go back to why they weren't with Aerys, who was the reigning king, to begin with.

Unless, they declared for another king- Rhaegar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 
The idea that Yandel gives us only inside information there makes little sense - he delivers this little piece of information in a very casual manner, mentioning Viserys as Aerys' new heir in passing. This suggests to me that this was well-known and essentially uncontroversial information rather than something that would be considered to be unheard of or special secret information. Yandel is old enough to remember first hand whether Viserys was actually made the new heir to the Iron Throne by his father before his death, and thus one would expect him to mention any confusion in regards to the succession at this point if he only stumbled upon the Viserys thing during his research for the book - say, something like 'While a majority of the loyalist lords considered Prince Aegon to be the next in line to the Iron Throne certain accounts from court at this time suggest that Aerys II had named Prince Viserys his new heir after he received word of Rhaegar's death at the Trident.'
Considering that Yandel doesn't discuss this strongly suggest that pretty much no one had a problem with the fact that Aegon was passed over - making it clear that this was a well-known fact. Whether everyone in the Targaryen camp approved of that royal decision is another matter - one can assume that the Dornishmen did not - but pretty much everybody would have preferred a boy to an infant.

Agreed, especially to the bolded.

In addition, wasn't it the case that King's named a specific heir, for the last century and a half or so? The problem with Maekar's succession was that he hadn't named an heir. If anything, Aerys clearly naming an heir, either Aegon or Viserys, is logical, in that regard. And it seems he choose Viserys. At the moment, I see no reason to doubt that he was named such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it doesn't, if Rhaegars legitimate line died out, then Viserys would follow.

But again, I go back to why they weren't with Aerys, who was the reigning king, to begin with.

Unless, they declared for another king- Rhaegar.

Not sure I'm understanding what you are trying to say here. Assuming Jon is legitimate then Rhaegar's legitimate line did not die out and the question of whether the KG knew of Aerys changing the line of succession still remains. Even the quote mentioning Viserys as new heir comes at a point where Aegon is still alive.


Edit. typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But this still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the 3KG (or anyone outside of Aerys's private council) knew this information. Isn't that the real heart of this matter--who knew what?

Yeah--establishing what they could have known or how is possible. What they actually knew? Can't see how we're getting that without the next book. Or if Martin gets really drunk and goes crazy with the info on his notablog.

 

Still--seems like regardless of what they did or did not know, the KG at the tower are in an impossible situation. Their orders (to be determined) have kept them "far away" from all the stuff that could have helped determine the outcome of the war. If Jon=viable heir, crowning him seems impossible for a while. If they are doing something else (don't know what their orders are), they can never get back the only king they mention (Aerys) or do anything about the succession. Not now.

 

And Ned even seems to pity them--says his last words sadly. Ned's capacity for sympathy and pity is amazing--as demonstrated when he learns about Cersei and Jaime's throwing Bran out of the window. Seems like Ned could feel sympathy for these men no matter what they are doing in the tower. Whether he thinks they are the "shining examples" the KG "once" were (time period to be determined) or not. Seems like Ned might have realized one of the key aspects of the KG: it sucks to be a kingsguard. And he feels for these men--regardless of what their orders are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying to Twinslayer from the last thread

 

I can't imagine that Jeor Mormont would think, even for a moment, that Jon would never meet his nephews and nieces.  Jeor is tuned into the politics of the realm.  He promoted Waymar Royce because Waymar's father was an important Lord.  Just a few months before having this conversation with Jon, Jeor sent Benjen to Winterfell, and it is clear that Benjen went there with sufficient regularity that Ned's children knew him well.  It is even suggested that Maege Mormont may have visited the Wall to give Longclaw back to Jeor.  Also, in this passage, Jeor is rubbing Jon's nose in the fact that Robb will have a beautiful wife and children, while Jon will not.  Given all of this, Jeor has to know that Jon will see his own nephews and nieces, it is clear that Jeor does not consider a man's nephews and nieces to be that man's "blood," and Jeor uses that term in a different way than it is used in the South.  

 

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.

 

 

We should just agree to disagree on Quentyn, because I don't understand how anyone could read that passage and conclude that Quentyn was burned by something other than the "furnace wind" from Rhaegal.  I think it was actual flame, but even if it wasn't, that air must been as hot as the air that charred the flesh of the "other attacker" that was stuck in Drogon's teeth.    

 

 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless, they declared for another king- Rhaegar.

 

Not with the stress they placed on their king - Aerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not with the stress they placed on their king - Aerys.

 

To which they've bestowed that honor and their kingsguard vows on another after learning Aerys died, and his name is not Viserys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BQ87,

 

that matters only if you want to draw any conclusions from the presence of the knights. The fact that Aerys named Viserys his heir is important quite a lot of topics. First it is a nice additional reminder that (male) primogeniture is more of a guideline not a rule, and then there is the fact that this may be a hint for the buildup for the Second Dance - Daenerys needs reason why to claim the Iron Throne for herself against any sons of Rhaegar's which may still be alive. Viserys III being named heir by Aerys II would provide with such a reasons.

 

The idea that thing was only known informally among Aerys' council makes little sense - who is to say such information would have survived/been accessible after the war? Why the hell would Yandel (writing from a Targaryen-Baratheon perspective) want to strengthen the claim of Viserys III by admitting/mentioning that he was the anointed heir of his father? And so on. Yandel's casualness makes it quite clear that he doesn't consider the heir business new information. It would be well-known to Yandel's target audience. And while we can't be sure what the knights at the tower knew - especially since our main sources on their knowledge is a dream - we can be sure that they would have known who Aerys' preferred heir would be after Rhaegar's death - he favorite young son on whom he doted rather than the Dornish brood he quite publicly despised.

 

If I was a loyal KG, and knew my king's mind quite well since I served him for many years, and could not rule out he had named a new heir after the death of his designated heir then my first thought would not be to pledge myself to the next best prince of the blood that was in my care - especially not to a prince whose very existence was most likely not know to the king or the royal family. This would only confuse things if the king had made other arrangements - which, in this case, he would have made.

 

Not to mention that the royal status of a child that wasn't presented to the king was actually dubious in real world middle ages - and we know that Targaryens not born at court were routinely presented and introduced to the king (confirmed for Daemon's daughters and Rhaegar's daughter). Especially in the case of Baela and Rhaena this was apparently crucial for them being considered members of the royal family.

 

Rhaenys,

 

TWoIaF makes it quite clear that the Targaryen kings usually named heirs, and the fact that civil war threatened if there were no anointed heirs is a pretty big sign that the king naming an heir was as crucial to the whole inheritance thing as everybody's opinion on male primogeniture.

 

Named heirs are confirmed for Aegon I (Aenys), Aenys I (Aegon), Maegor I (Aerea), Jaehaerys I (Aemon, Baelon, Viserys), Viserys I (Rhaenyra), Aegon II (Jaehaerys, Maelor, possibly Jaehaera), Aegon III (Daeron), Viserys II (Aegon), Aegon IV (Daeron), Daeron II (Baelor, Valarr), Aerys I (Rhaegel, Aelor, Maekar), Aegon V (Duncan, Jaehaerys), Jaehaerys II (Aerys), Aerys II (Rhaegar, Viserys), Viserys III (Daenerys).

 

The very interesting thing is the case of Aerys I. He had no heirs of his own bodies, which should have suggested ambitious uncles, brothers, and nephews to fight for the succession, but apparently the king always chose a new heir when another candidate had died, and nobody ever objected to that. If Maekar's position as Heir Apparent was secure more or less simply because Aerys I had named him (and Rhaegel's and Aelor's before that) then this strongly suggests that the fact that Maekar himself had not named an heir prior to his death was the main cause for the succession crisis of 233 AC. Aerys' heirs were all men grown, while the obvious heir in 233 AC always was Prince Aegon considering the fact that Aerion and Daeron were both that, and their heirs were only a lackwit daughter of eleven years and an infant boy. Yet apparently the fact that the king's will wasn't known was enough to nearly cause another major war of succession despite the fact that the Blackfyres were still out there (which should actually have motivated the Targaryens to stick together).

 

The other thing is that Yandel makes it quite clear that Aegon IV could, apparently, have legally disowned Daeron (and Aerys II Rhaegar) which makes it quite clear that a king had a say in his own succession. If disowning a son was no formality than confirming/naming an heir wasn't a formality, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I'm still not sold on the idea that the KG were aware of Viserys being named heir. Just because Aerys preferred Viserys over Aegon does not mean that the KG should reasonably assume that Viserys is the new heir. The info we have from Ned should not just be written off because it was in the context of a fever dream. The gist of the dream makes it clear that the KG did not consider Viserys to be heir apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not with the stress they placed on their king - Aerys.

 

I sort of agree. My take is that Arthur and Oswell were completely on board with Rhaegar's desires and plans to deal with Aerys, likely through a council, and that they were ready to support and serve Rhaegar as king once Aerys was so dealt with. But I don't think it was a situation where any of them (including Rhaegar) had ceased acknowledging Aerys as king while recognizing Rhaegar as king. I think they intended to handle the matter as smoothly as possible once the war was finished. But even then I think Aerys likely would have retained the title (whether Rhaegar reigned as king at the same time, or only took the title after his death). Though I do find it interesting that it is only Hightower, the one of the three most likely not in on Rhaegar's plots, that says Aerys would yet sit the Iron Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this needs to be brought up again:
 

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.


The idea that it wasn't widely disseminated is possible, but it's not likely. As Alia pointed out, the circumstances would certainly indicate that Aerys naming his heir publicly would be a very important priority. On the other hand, as Bearqueen pointed out, we have no idea whether the 3KG would have heard, even if it was widely disseminated.
 
We also do not know, if the 3KG did know this information, that it would change their behaviour. We don't know to whom the 3KG gave their loyalty at the time or even whether they were in agreement on that question, and we don't know that they would have considered it vital to drop everything and go to Viserys even if they did acknowledge him as the king. These are assumptions based on interpretation of ambiguous evidence. There's a reason why this argument has never been settled, folks: neither side has been able to provide convincing evidence. 
 
Let's not forget that GRRM has laid it on the line for us that there is NOT a clear-cut answer to this one:
 

Shaw: Can you explain why the King's Guard chose to stand and fight Ned at the Tower of the Joy instead of protecting the remaining royal family members?
Martin: The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders. They serve the king, they protect the king and the royal family, but they're also bound to obey their orders, and if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order, they would do that. They can't say, "No we don't like that order, we'll do something else."


GRRM's answer is of course ambiguous too ("if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order", and the question of what happens after Rhaegar's death), but the logic that KG must go to the side of the King under all circumstances therefore the 3KG either didn't know about Viserys or didn't accept him, is simply unsupported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm still not sold on the idea that the KG were aware of Viserys being named heir. Just because Aerys preferred Viserys over Aegon does not mean that the KG should reasonably assume that Viserys is the new heir. The info we have from Ned should not just be written off because it was in the context of a fever dream. The gist of the dream makes it clear that the KG did not consider Viserys to be heir apparent.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

 

A Storm of Swords - Daenerys V

"Which King Aegon?" Dany asked. "Five Aegons have ruled in Westeros." Her brother's son would have been the sixth, but the Usurper's men had dashed his head against a wall.

 

A Dance with Dragons - Daenerys I

A crown should not sit easy on the head. One of her royal forebears had said that, once. Some Aegon, but which one? Five Aegons had ruled the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. There would have been a sixth, but the Usurper's dogs had murdered her brother's son when he was still a babe at the breast. If he had lived, I might have married him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML,

 

this does mean: Prince Viserys was Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne after the Trident. Deal with it.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this needs to be brought up again:
 


The idea that it wasn't widely disseminated is possible, but it's not likely. As Alia pointed out, the circumstances would certainly indicate that Aerys naming his heir publicly would be a very important priority. On the other hand, as Bearqueen pointed out, we have no idea whether the 3KG would have heard, even if it was widely disseminated.
 
We also do not know, if the 3KG did know this information, that it would change their behaviour. We don't know to whom the 3KG gave their loyalty at the time or even whether they were in agreement on that question, and we don't know that they would have considered it vital to drop everything and go to Viserys even if they did acknowledge him as the king. These are assumptions based on interpretation of ambiguous evidence. There's a reason why this argument has never been settled, folks: neither side has been able to provide convincing evidence. 
 
Let's not forget that GRRM has laid it on the line for us that there is NOT a clear-cut answer to this one:
 


GRRM's answer is of course ambiguous too ("if Prince Rhaegar gave them a certain order", and the question of what happens after Rhaegar's death), but the logic that KG must go to the side of the King under all circumstances therefore the 3KG either didn't know about Viserys or didn't accept him, is simply unsupported.

:agree: Very well stated.

As far as I can see, exactly what the KG are doing at the tower is not clear. Following orders related to vows--yes. What those orders might be or how they do or do not relate to the succession? Not clear at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×