Jump to content

Archived

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

HelenaExMachina

R+L=J v.151

Recommended Posts

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.  

You raise a few points and I will try to address them. 

 

The point about Barristan is not whether Barristan was bound to obey Ned until a new King is crowned. The point is that even though Joffrey has not been crowned yet, Barristan believes that his place is beside the heir who is to be crowned -- despite that he has not been crowned yet. Of course, when Ned orders Barristan to stay, he stays. I agree that Barristan was obligated to stay -- which is why he stays. But he already considers Joffrey to be deserving of KG protection as the next King -- even before he has formally become King. That is the point I was making -- and obeying Ned in not going to Joffrey does not change that Barristan believes Joffrey deserves the same treatment as King.

 

As a technical matter, even after Joffrey was crowned, his regent could speak as King -- not really Joffrey himself until he comes of age (but that is a minor quibble and not really relevant to the point being debated).

 

Your other main point is more interesting to me. Why didn't Hightower try to find out whether Aerys named a new King? Hightower certainly would know about Aegon V, as you note. My view of that situation is different than yours. I don't think they decided that Aegon had the stronger claim (unlike some other GCs which made such proclamations, such as GC 101, I believe). My interpretation of their behavior was simply an exercise of GC discretion to select among potential candidates -- and simply ignore the rules of succession -- rather than setting or implementing a rule of succession. I know others interpret their actions differently -- but that is my reading of that GC. This reading is also consistent with Ran's statement that primogeniture is the general but not absolute rule. If Aegon V really was viewed as having the better claim, then primogeniture would no longer be the general rule and Ran would not have made that statement. But their action is consistent with the notion that primogeniture is not always binding.

In any event, why does Hightower not think this situation demands a GC? I think the answer is fairly obvious. There is no council left -- there is no group of lords to call -- there is no way to have a GC. So without a GC, the normal rules of succession apply -- which makes Jon the King.

 

But that still does not address your point about why Hightower does not inquire as to whether Viserys (or someone else) was formally named the heir by Aerys. I am not sure of the answer to that question, actually. I have to give it more thought and maybe someone else has a good answer. The best I can say at this point is that perhaps Hightower (and the other KG) believed that with KL under enemy control, there was no way to verify the required documentation regarding the naming of a new heir (and Rhaella might lie -- they would need formal documents under royal seal). Perhaps they believed that under the circumstances, the only option was to assume that normal Targ succession rules applied -- making Jon the next in line. Again, I want to ponder this question more and see if others have a better answer, but I think it is not unreasonable to believe that the KG considered Jon to be next in line under normal Targ succession rules and that the options that sometimes apply to go out of order (formal naming of heir -- or GC) simply were not available given the state of affairs at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Of course she does not believe the rebels would have crowned Aegon. Rather, that in her view of the rightful succession, Aegon would have been next in line. She does not say, if there had not been a rebellion, Aegon would have been King .She says if Aegon had not been murdered, he would have been king. That thought process seems to preclude her having knowledge that Aerys named Viserys.

 

And yes, I get your point that you think she is assuming that Rhaegar also had not died and that the Targs won the war. But she does not say or in any way really imply that her statement was assuming Rhaegar also was not killed. I just think that is a leap.The most natural understanding of those passages, which GRRM puts in the books twice (with only slightly different language), is that Dany considers Aegon to have become the next in line to the throne if he had lived -- in front of Viserys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UL,

 

Yandel is writing a history book. He is not giving us a list of the Targaryen kings, he actually tells us their history, and that includes mentioning when and if the succession was changed. If Yandel can tell us about Princess Aerea and Prince Aelor, and little Maegor, then he can also tell us that Prince Viserys was actually made heir by his father, Aerys II, rather than being crowned king by his mother because he was the only surviving male Targaryen left. If the latter had been the case - as previously assumed - that Yandel could have told us that in the wake of Robert's Rebellion. But he did not.

 

Dany thinks about Aegon as her dead nephew. She doesn't think about the succession or anything her father decreed. Perhaps she doesn't know what Aerys did after the Trident, or perhaps she doesn't care about that when she thinks about Aegon. At another point she considers that she herself may have become Aegon's bride rather than Viserys' since she was closer in age to Aegon than to Viserys - but with Aerys' feelings towards Rhaegar's children in mind that seems to be unlikely.

 

I'm pretty sure Viserys knew that he was Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone when he and Rhaella traveled to the island, but we don't yet know whether he actually told Daenerys that. Others might know, though. Tyrion and Barristan, for instance. My take on that whole thing is that Aerys' decision to pass over Aegon in favor of Viserys might eventually become important when Dany pushes her claim against a son of Rhaegar's - but that does not necessitate that she already knows about this fact. She could find out when she searches for arguments to dismiss Aegon's claim. After all, right now she is operating under the assumption that she is the only living descendant of Aerys II and Rhaella, and has thus no reason to speculate how good her claim would be if Prince Aegon was still alive (although she will think about that question sooner or later).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your other main point is more interesting to me. Why didn't Hightower try to find out whether Aerys named a new King? Hightower certainly would know about Aegon V, as you note. My view of that situation is different than yours. I don't think they decided that Aegon had the stronger claim (unlike some other GCs which made such proclamations, such as GC 101, I believe). My interpretation of their behavior was simply an exercise of GC discretion to select among potential candidates -- and simply ignore the rules of succession -- rather than setting or implementing a rule of succession. I know others interpret their actions differently -- but that is my reading of that GC. This reading is also consistent with Ran's statement that primogeniture is the general but not absolute rule. If Aegon V really was viewed as having the better claim, then primogeniture would no longer be the general rule and Ran would not have made that statement. But their action is consistent with the notion that primogeniture is not always binding.

In any event, why does Hightower not think this situation demands a GC? I think the answer is fairly obvious. There is no council left -- there is no group of lords to call -- there is no way to have a GC. So without a GC, the normal rules of succession apply -- which makes Jon the King.

 

But that still does not address your point about why Hightower does not inquire as to whether Viserys (or someone else) was formally named the heir by Aerys. I am not sure of the answer to that question, actually. I have to give it more thought and maybe someone else has a good answer. The best I can say at this point is that perhaps Hightower (and the other KG) believed that with KL under enemy control, there was no way to verify the required documentation regarding the naming of a new heir (and Rhaella might lie -- they would need formal documents under royal seal). Perhaps they believed that under the circumstances, the only option was to assume that normal Targ succession rules applied -- making Jon the next in line. Again, I want to ponder this question more and see if others have a better answer, but I think it is not unreasonable to believe that the KG considered Jon to be next in line under normal Targ succession rules and that the options that sometimes apply to go out of order (formal naming of heir -- or GC) simply were not available given the state of affairs at that time.

If word didn't get to Hightower from King's Landing re: the succession, who's he going to ask? Ned? The guy fighting alongside the Usurper at the Trident? Who's just taken King's Landing? If Hightower doesn't have the info, why would he make a summary decision vs. just proceeding with whatever orders he currently has? Especially since he knows where Viserys is and that Viserys is alive? Why would he think he had the right to choose the king himself? Can't think of a precedent, but am happy to be corrected.

 

As has been said a few times, we don't know what the orders were. As Kingmonkey stated when he quoted the SSM in the OP--those orders do NOT have to have anything to do with succession or even protecting the king. We've seen the same in the books. So, the behavior of the KG at the tower is "following orders," keeping their oath. Nature of orders to be determined. We do not know whether they intended to do anything with regards to Jon in the line of succession. We just don't. Text does not give us that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

All Ran is saying in the first line is that this was not a mistake on his part or Martin's part. He also confirm Primogeniture is customary, but it is possible for Aerys to have passed over Aegon. His text does not say "yes Aegon was passed over for Viserys".

 

The second line is stating the obvious. He is using records available to write the World Book. Which means he is limited to information in universe, not Martin's all knowing mind about the universe.

 

I'll admit it is unlikely this news is false and the only way I can see it being so is if Pycelle and the Lannisters were trying to rewrite history to protect themselves. This is hinted at by the suggestion that Aerys himself had Elia and her children killed.

 

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.

 

This aspect has been debated repeatedly in this thread. There is no indication of likelihood besides the fact that no one in world that should have thought of it did not (which of course makes it likely that it was *not* widely disseminated and is the only evidence related to this subject from the main book series).

 

If you want rationalization of why Aerys would not have proclaimed it at every corner of the Kingdom:

 

1.) Aerys was paranoid and a bit crazy. His heir was just killed by "betrayal" on the Trident. There are assassins in every shadow in his mind. He will not want a target painted on Viserys as he tries to send him away at night to hide on Dragonstone.

 

2.) Aerys is paranoid and crazy but his councilors convinced him that they still need Dorne's armies. They don't know if Tywin will lend his support and the city will soon be under siege. So he keeps Aegon and Elia close at hand as leverage against Dorne, but does not inform Dorne of Aegon's disinheritance.

 

3.) Aerys is paranoid and a bit crazy and thinks the Dornish betrayed Rhaegar in an attempt to gain influence over Aegon. He still thinks they're not trust worthy, but they have a vested interest in seeing Targaryen's sit the throne. To ensure no "untimely demise" remove's Aerys and places Dorne in control of the 7 Kingdoms he crafts a will to be read on his death to name Viserys heir. If nothing happens to him and Aegon turns out to be more Targaryens than Dornish he will modify his will to restore his claim.

 

This 3rd option is fairly crafty and is unlikely to be done by Aerys by maybe someone like Varys.

 

4.) His son just died and a large army is rapidly marching towards his city to put him under siege. He kind of has higher priorities than sending out ravens announcing a change in heirs. He would be busy demanding his nobles send him more soldiers and to kill the rebels.

 

5.) Aerys was contemplating burning the city down with the rebels in it, which means he didn't have much intention of Aegon or himself surviving. So it's kind of pointless to send out a declaration when Viserys will be the last living Targaryen to even contend for the throne.

 

6.) Not enough time. Seriously, who knows the time frame of receiving the news, mourning Rhaegar, deciding to send Viserys to Dragonstone, and actually changing the line of succession.

 

 

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.

 

Hightower seemed pretty single minded on the issue. We have clear examples of how this man acted. It is completely unreasonable for him to leave the heir/King without any Kingsguard protection. Sending at least one Kingsguard is the bare minimum. Sending 2 is what is expected. All 3 going would be harsh but it would be understandable considering the circumstances.

 

"These are assumptions based on interpretation of ambiguous evidence."

 

Hightower has little known about him. But what has been shown does not mesh with the action you are pretending he could take. This would be Martin lying to the readers, as he would need to do a 180 on this character to allow another circumstance. The only justification I can see is that Rhaegar was incredibly convincing to show that Jon was the prophesized Prince who was Promised that the Targaryens had been preparing for. And even then I have a hard time seeing the character of Hightower deciding it was best to have all 3 Kingsguard with Jon over the chosen heir and King.

 

 

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.

 

Which follows no logic what so ever. Essentially you have to throw everything we know about the Kingsguard out the window. You would have to re-write Hightower as a completely different character. These 3 men knowingly violated their most sacred oath that they held above their knightly vows several times before. They would have to then decide that it was okay for Viserys to not have *any* Kingsguard protection. It's not just a decision of the trio abandoning the tower and going to Viserys. It's a decision of priorities and resources. There are 3 of them there and their highest priority is what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's significant about the Yandel/Viserys business is not just that Ran issued that clarification, but that he thought it necessary to stress the point after confirming with GRRM. In other words it was important that we readers know that Viserys was actually named as heir in place of Rhaegar's children. GRRM himself was building roadblocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


Yet sometimes Dany would picture the way it had been, so often had her brother told her the stories. The midnight flight to Dragonstone, moonlight shimmering on the ship's black sails. Her brother Rhaegar battling the Usurper in the bloody waters of the Trident and dying for the woman he loved. The sack of King's Landing by the ones Viserys called the Usurper's dogs, the lords Lannister and Stark. Princess Elia of Dorne pleading for mercy as Rhaegar's heir was ripped from her breast and murdered before her eyes. The polished skulls of the last dragons staring down sightlessly from the walls of the throne room while the Kingslayer opened Father's throat with a golden sword.


Third chapter of the very first book Dany says that Viserys told her that Aegon was Rhaegar's heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

I didn't mean to be accusatory, but it seems you were intentionally not responding to my posts on a topic before. I just wasn't sure if you blocked me for offense in a earlier debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Those quotes were brought up in our first round of debates on this subject. As well as Jaime. I don't recall the counter arguments for them before. They might have just ignored them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

 

Both quotes deal specifically with the murder, not the rebellion itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those quotes were brought up in our first round of debates on this subject. As well as Jaime. I don't recall the counter arguments for them before. They might have just ignored them.

 

Apple Martini and I posted them months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV--

 

But Yandel says neither explicitly, contrary to your suggestion that he expressly mentions the naming. He merely makes an offhand comment that the "new heir" traveled the DS. He never explicitly states that Aerys NAMED Viserys the new heir. Why not? If this book really is a history book, why does Yandel not state explicitly that upon the death of Rhaegar, Aerys issued a new decree, naming his son, Viserys, the new heir to the throne (or something like that). All Yandel does is make an oblique reference to Viserys being the heir. This approach in WOIAF leaves open more possibilities than you seem to want to acknowledge.

I am confused on what you are arguing re: Dany. Yes, she thinks those things that you state -- but she ALSO thinks Aegon would have been King if he had not been murdered. She makes that explicit thought -- twice (once in each of two separate books in the series). If she knew that Aerys put Viserys ahead of Aegon, why would she formulate that thought at all -- as if Viserys came before Aegon, there was no assurance Aegon ever would have become King. And if Viserys knew he was named heir -- why would he never tell that story to his sister in all the years they were together. He told her many stories. One would think that the story of how their father named him as the new heir after the death of their brother would be something fairly important to mention to her. It is a story that make Viserys look good -- their father preferred him over Aegon. I think almost anyone in that position -- and Viserys especially -- would want to mention that if he knew it to be true.

 

I agree that it is possible that Barristan knows that Aerys named Viserys (again -- I am not saying I am 100% convinced the naming ever happened -- just that if it did, it was not widely known), as he was in KL for years and knew all the people who stayed over from the Targ regime (although I don't think he could have been there at the time of any naming if I recall his condition after the Trident correctly). So maybe when the fAegon situation heats up, this point is brought to Dany as an argument for why she comes ahead of him even if he is the real deal. But clearly when she makes the statements about Aegon would have been king -- she thinks he would come before her (and I believe Viserys) in the line.

 

SW--

 

You are right back in the Team Protect vs. Team Obey debate. I hate to rehash really old debates, but I guess I will try to summarize my position quickly. The language the KG use, IMHO, is completely inconsistent with the possibility that they consider Viserys to be a candidate as the next King or that they are merely "following Rhaegar's orders" by staying at ToJ when the rightful heir -- if Viserys -- has no KG protection. Back to the Barristan analogy -- whatever orders Barristan had (and presumably he had been stationed with some orders) -- as soon as he learns of Robert's death, Barristan believes that his duty is to go to the new King. Now then Ned, who has the proper authority, orders Barristan not to go. But absent such explicit order from Ned, Barristan would have abandoned his prior orders from Robert and go to Joffrey. The KG simply will not sit at ToJ -- rail at Ned about how they are KG and Darry is not and they do not flee then or now and they swore a vow. None of that makes sense if the rightful King is Viserys, sitting on DS without any KG protection. Once Aerys and the other royals are dead, Team Obey -- i.e., assuming V to be King but KG obligated to stay at ToJ due to Rhaegar's orders -- just does not make sense.

 

BC--

 

I think Avalatis explained right above your post why Ran's statement is not necessarily what you state it means. But in any event, the important point is not really whether the naming occurred, but how widely known it would have been if it occurred.

 

TKWRW--

 

Yes, Aegon was Rhaegar's heir. She was just talking about Rhaegar dying at Trident, so she talked about him being Rhaegar's heir. Aegon can also have become Aerys's heir. A person can be heir to more than one person. So in that quote, she emphasizes Aegon being Rhaegar's heir because he is talking about her brother being killed -- and then shortly thereafter his heir is killed. But then when talking about different Aegons who have been King, she states that Aegon would have been king if he had lived -- strongly suggesting that she believes Aegon also is the heir to Aerys -- which would be the case under normal circumstances. On the death of Rhaegar, Aegon would continue to be Rhaegar's heir and would become Aerys's heir. So calling Aegon Rhaegar's heir in no way precludes Aegon from also being Aerys's heir.

 

Avalatis--

 

I am not surprised those quotes were brought up before -- as this material has been analyzed to death. Somehow I missed them before. And I don't think they have been given their due as part of the discussion of how well known it would have been that Viserys was named heir. I think these quotes are strong evidence that either no such naming happened at all -- or if it did, it was not widely known. I am surprised more people have not put forth such a case more clearly and emphatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apple Martini and I posted them months ago.

 

Nice. They are fairly convincing quotes of characters in the Universe that should be aware of a broadly announced decree of a new heir not really knowing about it.

 

This could also just be a retcon for Martin and he recently decided on a new plot path. Considering Aegon (f?) was introduced in the latest book it's possible this quote is specific to him and Dany and their contention for the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Wasn't that one of the things that Yandel postulates, that Aerys had Elia and her children murdered? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avalatis--

 

I am not surprised those quotes were brought up before -- as this material has been analyzed to death. Somehow I missed them before. And I don't think they have been given their due as part of the discussion of how well known it would have been that Viserys was named heir. I think these quotes are strong evidence that either no such naming happened at all -- or if it did, it was not widely known. I am surprised more people have not put forth such a case more clearly and emphatically.

 

Unfortunately I do not have electronic copies of the books I can search through for quotes. Though some of the same posters who were involved in the first debate are here debating it again so I figured they were aware of them. For some reason I thought you were also involved.

 

Characters that should have known and had reason to think about it but didn't: Dany, Jaime, JonCon, Tyrion, possibly Ned, Martell's, and Cersei. Maybe there are more. These characters had plenty of opportunities while thinking of Elia and Aegon to contemplate the disinheritance. And as Dany's quotes show they sometimes actually think the opposite. Seems sort of odd for a "widely" known fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't that one of the things that Yandel postulates, that Aerys had Elia and her children murdered? 

 

Pretty much. I came up with a theory that Yandel's "source" is Pyclle a Lannister lapdog who intentionally fills this section with false information to create the impression of a great rift between the Martell's and Aerys. Possibly even the rift between Rhaegar and Aerys, considering if such a rift existed why did Aerys entrust their main army to him?

 

There isn't much support for this theory. But it is quite likely Yandel's source is Pycelle, and Pycelle's allegiance is fairly well known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what's significant about the Yandel/Viserys business is not just that Ran issued that clarification, but that he thought it necessary to stress the point after confirming with GRRM. In other words it was important that we readers know that Viserys was actually named as heir in place of Rhaegar's children. GRRM himself was building roadblocks.

Strictly your interpretation, I see.  Or perhaps you have a citation for this statement? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pretty much. I came up with a theory that Yandel's "source" is Pyclle a Lannister lapdog who intentionally fills this section with false information to create the impression of a great rift between the Martell's and Aerys. Possibly even the rift between Rhaegar and Aerys, considering if such a rift existed why did Aerys entrust their main army to him?

 

There isn't much support for this theory. But it is quite likely Yandel's source is Pycelle, and Pycelle's allegiance is fairly well known.

I agree completely, especially after the shifting of the blame for Elia and her children.  The Lannisters don't want to be put on the hot seat with every monarch that follows as having become kingslayers, as a family.  That kind of leads to a decimation like the Raynes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nice. They are fairly convincing quotes of characters in the Universe that should be aware of a broadly announced decree of a new heir not really knowing about it.

 

This could also just be a retcon for Martin and he recently decided on a new plot path. Considering Aegon (f?) was introduced in the latest book it's possible this quote is specific to him and Dany and their contention for the throne.

I don't think it is likely that GRRM only decided to introduce fAegon when he wrote book 5. I think he had been laying the seeds for fAegon early on and always intended to introduce him as part of DoD 2.0. That said, it could be a retcon in the following sense. GRRM could have realized that he did not want Dany to be limited only to the argument that Aegon must be fake. I think he might have decided that he also wanted to give her a reason to be able to argue that she is ahead of Aegon in any event. So to do that, maybe GRRM invented the naming of Viserys, who named Dany, as a way to justify this position in Dany's mind.

 

But GRRM still has to deal with the other information (Dany's two quotes -- one of which is in the book that introduces fAegon -- and obviously the ToJ situation) that suggest people thought Aegon was next in line. How could these be reconciled? You did an excellent job above reconciling it by pointing out numerous reasons why only a few people would know. The key would be that the information would have to get to someone like Barristan somehow for it to eventually get to Dany. So it cannot be "secret" -- just not well disseminated. 

 

 

Wasn't that one of the things that Yandel postulates, that Aerys had Elia and her children murdered? 

 

 

Oh, that is what you meant. Sorry for the confusion. I thought you were indicating that Aerys actually killed Aegon which I know you know did not happen so I thought it was a typo. Yes, my recollection is consistent with yours that Yandel stated that some people said that Aerys killed Elia and the children. I don't think Yandel stated it was the only position everyone believed, so I am not sure that he narrates it as a "fact" but I think just one of the possibilities (but not sure I am remembering quite correctly). Anyways, not a big deal either way -- just got confused on what you meant.

 

 

 

Unfortunately I do not have electronic copies of the books I can search through for quotes. Though some of the same posters who were involved in the first debate are here debating it again so I figured they were aware of them. For some reason I thought you were also involved.

 

Characters that should have known and had reason to think about it but didn't: Dany, Jaime, JonCon, Tyrion, possibly Ned, Martell's, and Cersei. Maybe there are more. These characters had plenty of opportunities while thinking of Elia and Aegon to contemplate the disinheritance. And as Dany's quotes show they sometimes actually think the opposite. Seems sort of odd for a "widely" known fact.

 

 

You should bookmark asearchoficeandfire.com. It is a great way to do text searches of all of the books (even the side books) to pull exact quotes.

 

And yes, I was part of that discussion for at least part of the debates, but I just don't recall coming across those particular quotes (and certainly never picked it up from the books, as I don't have the ability usually to pick up those kind of clues myself -- I rely on others for the original research -- my skills lie more in the analysis once all the clues on all sides are laid out). And I remember you making the point about these other people who should have had this thought but don't. I just don't remember a discussion of those Dany quotes - and they are better evidence. Absence of the readers getting specific thoughts on an issue is not as strong a piece of evidence as an explicit thought by a character. While one would expect that all these people would at some point have a thought about V as heir -- maybe GRRM just does not give the readers insight into those particular thoughts. But the specific thought from Dany that fairly clearly indicates she considered Aegon to be next in line is stronger evidence that either the naming never occurred or if it did, few people knew -- and even V did not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consigliere:

 

What I mean is that the naming of Viserys as heir is not an unusual move IF Rhaegars line has either been disinherited or died out. The precedent of English succession which GRRM seems to be faithful to, is:

 

- King

- First born son, Crown Prince, then his first born son.

- Second born son, "spare."

Any other children with the males taking precedent, and daughters only if the male lines were gone. (Henry the VII had his claim from the female lines of his family).

 

If as in this case, the kings first born son, first born son or any other legitimate son of the CP were eliminated for whatever reason, then it falls to the Kings second son and his line, which in this case, is Viserys, so its not an unusual move.

 

 

And again, I always go back to the fact the I don't think the KG sit by and wait for information to get to them, but are likely seeking it out on their own, disguised at market or tavern, or sending a servant for news.

 

 

Henry VII lived in fear of two of two men- Edmund de la Pole, son of Edward of Yorks sister Elizabeth and Edward Plantaganet, the son of Edwards third brother, George of Clarence and Isabelle Neville.

But, Georges son was initially passed over, or removed from the line of succession because of his fathers treachery. However, Richard III in a somewhat contradictory move made him his heir after the death of his own son and heir Edward, though he was barred from the throne due to Georges treachery.

He was promptly imprisoned and later executed on Henry VII taking the throne.

Share this post


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

×