Jump to content

Archived

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

HelenaExMachina

R+L=J v.151

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I think you're reading too much into it. Ran didn't feel the need to stress anything, he was just asked several times if it was a mistake and he responded. I think it's just as likely that this Viserys was the heir business is a bit of desperate misdireciton intended to cast doubt on the whole "They were protecting the true king" thing so fewer people will see it coming. 

 

 

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

 

No, Yandel does not postulate this. He lists it along with a few other rumors going around of what may have happened. He does not comment on it. We know he was being careful not to say anything bad about the Lannisters. So it's in his interest to just say "some say..." and not actually explain what is basically common knowledge, that Tywin had them killed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the point I suspect that Ran might be making regarding primogeniture, if Martin is referencing medieval law on succession, they are both by precedant AND "messy."

 

In other words, we will be debating this until the end of the series and Martin tells us because the truth is, they followed the law so long as it was in the best interests of themselves, and they also broke those laws, (or glossed over them), if it was also in the best interest of themselves.

 

Henry Tudor, who spent most of his life outside England, and barely spoke English, had the weakest claim of just about anyone associated with the throne, and had it not been for the Welsh factor, (see Dorne), he likely wouldn't have even made it to Bosworth Field, but Richard III showed disturbing signs of favoring the common man, making laws that would make it harder for the Nobles to exploit commoners, (if you've ever had to post bail, you have Richard III to thank for it), thus weakening power of the Nobles, as well as the fact the kingdom could not take anymore "game of thrones" between the Lancasters and York, so Henry it was.

And if he married the last kings daughter, then all the better. But make no mistake he and even his son, Henry VIII went in fear of rival claimants from the Plantaganets for most of their reign.

 

In regards to aSoIaF, Selmy gives us two equally viable reasons that the KG could have been at the Tower:

 

1. They were guarding a second, legitimate son of a non-disinherited Rhaegar, and true heir, (over Viserys), to the throne.

 

2. They were there on orders, and at the pleasure of the king who extended such protection to those relevant to members of the royal family, (mistresses, lovers, bastards, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Thanks some quotes related to Aegon the baby:

 

 

"Prince Aegon was Rhaegar's heir by Elia of Dorne," Ser Jorah said. "But if he was this prince that was promised, the promise was broken along with his skull when the Lannisters dashed his head against a wall."

 

Obviously more dramatic to talk about the murder. But he could have also mentioned Aegon being disinherited "He was disinherited by his grandfather Aerys and shortly after had his skull broken by the Lannisters". But again considering the declaration of Viserys as the new heir and the death of Aegon were likely within days of each other most probably wouldn't consider it.

 

 

Little Walder hooted. "Tired of waiting for our grandfather to die, you mean. Does this mean Ser Emmon's the heir now?"

 

"Don't be stupid," his cousin said. "The sons of the first son come before the second son. Ser Ryman is next in line, and then Edwyn and Black Walder and Petyr Pimple. And then Aegon and all his sons."

 

Not that this is the Aegon we're talking about. But they make it seem fairly common sense about the order of succession for those who keep pretending that it isn't the case. "Don't be stupid" is a fairly good implication of how wide held this belief is. This doesn't mean the order can't be changed, just that this is the default order.

 

 

That took Tyrion by surprise. He had been no more than an ugly boy at Casterly Rock when the city fell. "So the Sack of King's Landing was your work as well?"
"For the realm! Once Rhaegar died, the war was done. Aerys was mad, Viserys too young, Prince Aegon a babe at the breast, but the realm needed a king . . . I prayed it should be your good father, but Robert was too strong, and Lord Stark moved too swiftly . . ."
"How many have you betrayed, I wonder? Aerys, Eddard Stark, me . . . King Robert as well? Lord Arryn, Prince Rhaegar? Where does it begin, Pycelle?" He knew where it ended.

 

A little oddity in this bolded sentence he doesn't give anyone titles except for Ned and Aegon. Probably just a odd writing style for Martin.

 

This quote shows Pycelle is obviously a Lannister lapdog, but we all knew that already. But I get the feeling from how the sentence is phrased:

 

Contenders for the Throne in Pycelle's mind:

 

1.) Aerys who is the current King but mad.

2.) Viserys who is too young.

3.) Prince Aegon also too young since he was just a babe.

4.) Tywin Lannister who he was a lapdog for.

 

It just seems odd he would even list Aegon if he was disinheirited already. Perhaps Pycelle is disregarding that since Aerys was clearly mad?

 

 

Rhaegar met Robert on the Trident, and you know what happened there. When the word reached court, Aerys packed the queen off to Dragonstone with Prince Viserys. Princess Elia would have gone as well, but he forbade it. Somehow he had gotten it in his head that Prince Lewyn must have betrayed Rhaegar on the Trident, but he thought he could keep Dorne loyal so long as he kept Elia and Aegon by his side. The traitors want my city, I heard him tell Rossart, but I'll give them naught but ashes. Let Robert be king over charred bones and cooked meat. The Targaryens never bury their dead, they burn them. Aerys meant to have the greatest funeral pyre of them all. Though if truth be told, I do not believe he truly expected to die. Like Aerion Brightfire before him, Aerys thought the fire would transform him . . . that he would rise again, reborn as a dragon, and turn all his enemies to ash. -

A Storm of Swords - Jaime V

 

This quote shows that Aerys still expected to keep the Dornish loyal but keeping Elia and her children close. Doesn't sound like the move of a guy who is going to publicly humiliate them by announcing the disinheritance of Aegon.

 

Some of the quotes from characters regarding Aegon and Elia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The last thing Yandel would do would be to point out that Viserys was Aerys' heir if he was trying to curry favor with the Lannisters and Baratheons. It points out that Aegon was senselessly killed and that Stannis failed to capture the current Targaryen king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Apologies on the old debate. Am new enough to the forums that it is still new to me. And, given the incredibly short, limited, dreamlike state of the toj scene, cannot see how that language says they are protecting a new heir. Or anyone. Only mention Aerys.

 

Hightower's the one who told Jaime to obey the king and not judge him. Translation: We don't judge the orders. We don't judge the guy who gives the orders. We obey the orders. The idea that he's making a summary judgment on heirs when Jon may or may not be an heir and certainly hasn't been presented to the king or in any way officially placed in the line of succession--can't see how on earth the text gives us remotely enough to make such a judgment.

 

Could these guys be going off the reservation, snapping under pressure and crown Jon? Sure. Could Rhaegar have ordered them to crown Jon? Sure--though they mention Aerys not Rhaegar. But it is a dream, so, gaps. Could there be other options? Absolutely. No way the text has given us enough info on this to determine one way or the other. Not yet.

 

Fortunately, Jon can be Rhaegar's son regardless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of the point I suspect that Ran might be making regarding primogeniture, if Martin is referencing medieval law on succession, they are both by precedant AND "messy."

 

In other words, we will be debating this until the end of the series and Martin tells us because the truth is, they followed the law so long as it was in the best interests of themselves, and they also broke those laws, (or glossed over them), if it was also in the best interest of themselves.

 

Henry Tudor, who spent most of his life outside England, and barely spoke English, had the weakest claim of just about anyone associated with the throne, and had it not been for the Welsh factor, (see Dorne), he likely wouldn't have even made it to Bosworth Field, but Richard III showed disturbing signs of favoring the common man, making laws that would make it harder for the Nobles to exploit commoners, (if you've ever had to post bail, you have Richard III to thank for it), thus weakening power of the Nobles, as well as the fact the kingdom could not take anymore "game of thrones" between the Lancasters and York, so Henry it was.

And if he married the last kings daughter, then all the better. But make no mistake he and even his son, Henry VIII went in fear of rival claimants from the Plantaganets for most of their reign.

 

In regards to aSoIaF, Selmy gives us two equally viable reasons that the KG could have been at the Tower:

 

1. They were guarding a second, legitimate son of a non-disinherited Rhaegar, and true heir, (over Viserys), to the throne.

 

2. They were there on orders, and at the pleasure of the king who extended such protection to those relevant to members of the royal family, (mistresses, lovers, bastards, etc).

:agree: And good analogy with Henry Tudor.

Would only add that the list of options could extend beyond what you've given. But those two options seem the most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip


Okay I'm with you now. The confusion came in when you mentioned Rhaegar's line dying out but nothing about Aegon being disinherited. I agree that once Rhaegar died and Aegon disinherited then Viserys is obviously next in line. However the question still remains whether the KG were aware that Rhaegar's line was disinherited. If they were not then I think that it is reasonable to assume they would consider a legitimate son of Rhaegars to be ahead of Viserys, which explains their actions at the ToJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last thing Yandel would do would be to point out that Viserys was Aerys' heir if he was trying to curry favor with the Lannisters and Baratheons. It points out that Aegon was senselessly killed and that Stannis failed to capture the current Targaryen king.

 

1.) No. The royal family was a threat in its entirety to the new regime.

 

2.) While it's an "open secret" in Casterly Rock of how Elia and her children died. There is no "official" accounting supporting that. When Jon Arrn went down to Dorne to try smooth things over he clearly did not admit to Elia and her children being murdered at the order of Tywin. Obeyrn makes mention of this in one of his dialogues.

 

No one openly claims the Lannisters did such a heinous act (besides the Martells).

 

So how does this curry favor:

 

Pycelle (not Yandel, as he is just working the sources/documents he has according to Ran) paints a harsh division between the Dornish and Aerys. Says they stink, constantly insults them, disinherits Aegon, and then has them killed. Lannisters lose the stigma if they can get history to dictate it happened that way. Jaime is still a "Kingslayer", but I think the only people truly pissed about that are Ned and probably Barristan.

 

This is more about history is written by the victors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last thing Yandel would do would be to point out that Viserys was Aerys' heir if he was trying to curry favor with the Lannisters and Baratheons. It points out that Aegon was senselessly killed and that Stannis failed to capture the current Targaryen king.

But, Yandel tries to pin the killing of Aegon on Aerys.  Not sure what you mean about Stannis . . . Oh, that Darry sniffed out the betrayal and left before they were turned over to Stannis.  Don't know why you would like to conflate that into a Stannis failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great. Now we're probably gonna have the books spoil the big reveal-- was really looking forward to seeing it first on the screen.

 

Thanks a lot D&D

Naw!  GRRM can't write two books in 7 years.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alia--

 

In your possibility #2, who are you suggesting that the KG consider to be King -- Aerys or Rhaegar? I sort of have trouble either way. If Aerys, he never gave them orders to be at ToJ. I have a bigger problem the other way as I find it completely implausible that Hightower would consider Rhaegar to be King. Now with respect to Dayne and Whent, Aerys extended them to Rhaegar, so they followed his orders and then perhaps he extended to Lyanna/Jon. Regarding Hightower -- I don't think Aerys ever formally extended him to Rhaegar, but Hightower might have considered himself to be following Aerys orders as the only way to get Rhaegar back to KL might have been to agree to stay at ToJ.

 

But the point I have been making repeatedly today (and many times in the past) is that when the King dies (and Rhaegar -- the person who gave the order dies) and the new heir to throne is on DS without any KG -- and there are no other KG to get to the new heir because they are all dead or incapacitated -- those orders would not supersede the need to get KG protection to the rightful heir. Yes, someone with authority can give an explicit order not to go (like Ned did), but absent such an explicit order, the KG's first obligation would be to get KG protection to the rightful heir. But they do not go to DS. So I don't see how they could have considered it possible that V was rightful king or that they can stay at ToJ if V is rightful king. So they must not know about any naming of V as heir.

 

Avalantis--

 

Nice quotes.

 

SW--

 

No problem on bringing up old arguments. If I am going to spend so much time on this board and make these arguments over and over again -- and without a new book in sight -- old arguments are basically inevitable. I just wanted to be clear that I knew I was being repetitious for those who have been around a while and to explain why I was shorthanding my explanation a bit.

 

I agree that they obey orders and don't judge. As long as the King has KG protection, they have no option but to stay at ToJ until they get new orders (or some aspect of the old orders would cause them to be able to leave). My point is that they have an overriding duty to ensure that the King has KG protection -- a detail of at least one KG. V has none and these 3 are the only possible KG left in the world that can go to V (unless new KG are selected by Rhaella or V -- but no way to be certain qualified candidates are available to them). So whatever orders they are obligated to follow from Rhaegar regarding ToJ, they cannot be more important or supersede the need to get at least one KG to DS to be with V if he is the rightful heir.

 

And I don't agree that the ToJ conversation is too unreliable to be useful. GRRM includes it for a very good reason. At a minimum, it is consistent with Ned's view of what the KG were doing. And Ned has the KG state that they are KG -- and Darry is not -- and KG don't flee -- then or now (i.e., not when Aerys was King and the war still raging and they were ordered to stay at ToJ and not NOW, when what? when the real king is on DS? It does not make sense). The objection that they do not flee NOW can only mean that going to V would be fleeing -- which cannot be true if he is king. Then they finish that they swore a vow. Ned thinks they stayed because they swore a vow. What vow? To stay at ToJ due to orders from Rhaegar when the new king has no KG? That vow? Makes no sense. If Ned thinks they stayed for a vow -- then they stayed to protect the king -- so the king must be in the tower (or possibly in Starfall, as Ran seems to think, waiting for the KG to get to him once they can get there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".


It's not an error indicates that it's not an error -- it was intended that Yandel wrote that Viserys was Aerys' heir at that point, despite Aegon still being alive. That's what the historical records of the time stated. It's possible that it didn't happen and the historical records of the time are incorrect, but "We can't exclude the possibility that the information we have might have actually been inaccurate" is an extraordinarily poor argument in favour of the contention "the information we have is inaccurate".
 

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).


I dispute that there is a single incidence when someone should have thought of it. It could have been widely disseminated at the time, but 14 years on, who would care other than a historian writing a book about it, the one person who does seem to confirm it? Indeed, 2 weeks on, who would care when it would be entirely moot?

The only credible counter-example anyone has brought up is Dany's comments about how Aegon would have been king. Dany was not even born at the time this was relevant, there's no reason to assume she'd have been told. Viserys was what, 7 at the time? Why would he care, or even remember, when the point was moot within 2 weeks?
 

 

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.

 

That's why he sent him to Dragonstone. Keeping your heir safely on Dragonstone was a Targ tradition.
 

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.

If Aerys was paranoid about assassins, then failing to tell the Dornish that Aegon had been disinherited would have been a truly bizarre move. Aerys believed that Tywin was still on his side, or he wouldn't have ordered the gates open, yet he believed that the Dornish had already betrayed him. Leaving Aegon as heir meant leaving a half-Dornish prince as heir, and a Dornish princess as likely power behind the throne. The Dornish, noted for poisons and assassinations, and already believed by Aerys to be his enemies, are a lot more likely to attempt to assassinate him if they think the result would be an instant victory for themselves than if they think it would destroy their chances.
 

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.

If it was read after his death, it would have zero impact on Dornish plans. If it was made clear before his death, it would stop the Dornish plans dead.
 

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.

He has servants. Saying "Make sure people know" takes a few seconds.
 

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.

No more pointless than making Viserys his heir in the first place. If he was really intending on burning Aegon anyway, why bother even declaring Viserys his heir? That was his back-up plan, not his plan A.
 

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.

Same as point 4.
 

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.


Your assumption. See the first Dance, when the king was sent to Dragonstone, and Thorne & Fell sent elsewhere. See also Barristan vs. the boar. See also "The King's Guards don't get to make up their own orders."
 

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.


No, that's the whole thing about ambiguous. If you want to throw Fell & Thorne, Barristan vs. the boar, and "The King's guard don't get to make up their own orders" etc., out of the window, then sure. Being selective about the evidence will allow you to prove pretty much anything. If you take ALL the evidence, then either side can be argued, so it's not conclusive. "Re-write Hightower as a completely different character"? We know virtually NOTHING about Hightower. Just about the only thing we know is that he's a stickler for the rules, and last time I looked, protect vs. obey was still a debate.
 

It's a decision of priorities and resources. There are 3 of them there and their highest priority is what?


We don't know, that's the point. Maybe it was protecting the Prince that was Promised. Maybe it's protecting someone they mistakenly thought was the trueborn Targaryen king. Maybe it was following Rhaegar's orders above any requirement to protect the king because they don't get to make up their own orders, which is only an impossibility if you insist that GRRM is wrong about his own book.

If you think you know what was going on at the Tower of Joy, you're wrong, whatever side your on. Your suspicions may be right, but it's simply not clear cut enough to be remotely sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem on bringing up old arguments. If I am going to spend so much time on this board and make these arguments over and over again -- and without a new book in sight -- old arguments are basically inevitable. I just wanted to be clear that I knew I was being repetitious for those who have been around a while and to explain why I was shorthanding my explanation a bit.

No worries--and thanks for being patient while I play catch up.

 

I agree that they obey orders and don't judge. As long as the King has KG protection, they have no option but to stay at ToJ until they get new orders (or some aspect of the old orders would cause them to be able to leave). My point is that they have an overriding duty to ensure that the King has KG protection -- a detail of at least one KG. V has none and these 3 are the only possible KG left in the world that can go to V (unless new KG are selected by Rhaella or V -- but no way to be certain qualified candidates are available to them). So whatever orders they are obligated to follow from Rhaegar regarding ToJ, they cannot be more important or supersede the need to get at least one KG to DS to be with V if he is the rightful heir.

Agree that the KG are supposed to both obey whatever orders they are following and supposed to protect the royal family. Problem is with the idea of "overriding" and "superseding." Who gets to decide? We've been given a few cases of KG in the books put in tough situations trying to choose--Jaime, Barristan, Arys Oakheart--and arguably the three at the tower. Jon also seems to be in a similar bind re: his NW vows. And Ned--with the succession. In all cases--everyone's confused as to what's "best" and "right" and what should supersede what.

 

So I can't see how the texts have made clear what anyone would do. Could do, sure. Should do? That gets messy fast. Then there's that cursed SSM which makes the orders capable of keeping KG away from the king--can't see how Martin's made it at all clear what the KG at the tower would do. 

 

And I don't agree that the ToJ conversation is too unreliable to be useful. GRRM includes it for a very good reason. At a minimum, it is consistent with Ned's view of what the KG were doing. And Ned has the KG state that they are KG -- and Darry is not -- and KG don't flee -- then or now (i.e., not when Aerys was King and the war still raging and they were ordered to stay at ToJ and not NOW, when what? when the real king is on DS? It does not make sense). The objection that they do not flee NOW can only mean that going to V would be fleeing -- which cannot be true if he is king. Then they finish that they swore a vow. Ned thinks they stayed because they swore a vow. What vow? To stay at ToJ due to orders from Rhaegar when the new king has no KG? That vow? Makes no sense. If Ned thinks they stayed for a vow -- then they stayed to protect the king -- so the king must be in the tower (or possibly in Starfall, as Ran seems to think, waiting for the KG to get to him once they can get there).

Agree the conversation is somewhat useful--just not very decisive re: what they are doing with Jon. It tells us that the KG see themselves as fulfilling a vow. Which one? Which part of the KG vow? No idea. The fleeing? If they are staying to fulfill an order, the KG are still not fleeing. And we don't know what Ned thought of it--just what he remembers them saying. They say they swore a vow. A vow which included obedience. And we don't know their orders.

 

Your interp is completely workable with the text--but you already know that. My only point is that Martin has really mucked up the ability of readers to decisively pin down what's going on at the tower. Has given us multiple examples of KG who struggle--puts us in their heads in ways we never get into Hightower's or the rest. And shows us how hard it is to know what is "right." Then gave us that SSM. The fact that all of that is on the table makes it really hard to throw down on only one reading. Lean in one way or another? Sure. Be certain in our own heads? Sure. Able to definitely prove with the text? Can't see how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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..

 

 

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?

 

 

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.  

 

 Ok, let me try this again. Clarity isn't always my strong suit and I think perhaps I blew it in that regard last time. Shouldn't try to type a post as I'm rushing out the door. So, one more time. 

 

Let's start with the quotes Bael's Bastard gave us:

 

 

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.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/133739-rlj-v151/?p=7233938 

 

And let's start by putting them in their context.

 

The first is right before the battle in which Meereen is taken, and the second is from Daenerys's days as Queen of Meereen. Both are over a year or so after Viserys dies at the hand of Khal Drogo. Both are some seventeen years or so after the sack of King's Landing and the death of Aerys, and the presumed death of the Prince Aegon. The Aegon Daenerys refers to in both quotes.

 

This is important because there are two Targaryen transitions of claims of kingship that take place here, the first after Aerys death, and the second after the death of Viserys. 

 

So in analyzing these quotes we have to ask ourselves which one of these transitions does Daenerys refer to when she thinks upon what would have happened if Prince Aegon had lived to become King Aegon VI?

 

There is one more quote I think is necessary to answer this question.

 

Whitebeard vowed his head. "It is not my place to question the words of Prince Viserys."

"King," Dany corrected. "he was a king, though he never reigned. Viserys, the Third of His Name." (ASoS 90)

 

So it is clear that Daenerys views Viserys as a king, not a prince. Just as she claims to be Queen of Westeros, not a princess. It is also clear that if it was Aegon who succeeded Viserys, she would view him as "Aegon, the Sixth of His Name." Not as a prince.

 

But back to our question. Which transition does Daenerys refer to when the quotes are made? Is there anything in either one of them that can tell us which one?

The answer is we can't tell from this information. We may guess, but we can't tell. There is no, "if Aegon had lived to be king instead of Viserys" or "if Aegon had lived and followed Viserys" in either quote.

 

If the reference is to the first transition then we can surmise that Dany knows nothing of Aerys's action putting Viserys in front of Aegon. If the reference is to the second transition then we can assume she knows about it. Unfortunately, there is nothing in either quote or in the context it is given in that tells us what transition is she thinking about. So making a claim that these quotes support either possibility just doesn't work.

 

That doesn't mean they don't tell us something. They do. One, they almost certainly tell us Aegon wasn't disinherited by Aerys, or at least Daenerys doesn't know of it. And they also tell us that Daenerys believes a non-disinherited Aegon would have a better claim than she would for the throne. This follows the Alys Karstark rule about daughters coming before uncles (or in this case sons before aunts) and what we know of the general rules of succession. What Daenerys will think if she actual meets Young Griff and her claim based on Viserys's naming her his heir vs. what seems to be a better claim on his part without that designation will be very interesting.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

No offense was perceived by me, or intended by me, so, again, my apologies for missing your post. I normally try to respond to direct question to me, or people who post my quotes and want my views in a debate. I'll try to make sure to not miss such a post by you in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Yandel tries to pin the killing of Aegon on Aerys.  

 

Again, he really doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading the [url=http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net/thread/121/arthur-lyanna-jon]Arthur + Lyanna = Jon[/url] essay over at the Last Hearth. Has anybody else here seen this? It makes some interesting points, mostly stuff I've seen brought up before, as well as a couple of new things. There's also some fairly weak arguments put forth, imo. Overall I'd say it's not that great. But I'm not sure if the blame can really be placed on the author, since there's really not a lot hinting at AD+L=J.

 

Anyway, one of the big problems with AD+L=J is, if it's true why keep it a secret? What's the big deal? I'm not sure there is a satisfactory answer to that question. Here is what Superunknown5 offered up:

 

The only question that remains in my mind is then, why hide Jon's true identity?

Well, once again the answer is rather simple. We don't know what Arthur Dayne looked like. The Daynes ARE NOT VALYRIAN. THEY ARE FIRST MEN. But strangely, we DO know that the Daynes possess Valyrian (or rather Valyrian LIKE) features or hereditary traits.

Arthur's sister Ashara had purple eyes. Edric Dayne, the lord of Starfall, has “big blue eyes” “so dark” “they almost look purple”. And his hair is “pale blond” “more ash than honey”.

(ash is gray/silver of course)

And there's Darkstar. A member of the cadet branch of House Dayne of High Hermitage, who possesses silver hair streaked with black and dark purple eyes. This makes sense, as he is a more distant relation and thus possesses similar, but darker and more Dornish, features, like a mongrel Dayne.

We don't know what Arthur looked like. He may or may not have had these characteristics. But even if he did not, he could certainly pass them along (similar to how a Dornish looking Targaryen can have a silver haired, purple eyed child and vice versa).

If the rumor had spread that Rhaegar or Aerys had taken Lyanna or run off with her, but really it was Arthur she was in love with, it would make sense that Lyanna would fear that people would mistake her possibly Dayneish looking child as a Targaryen, and therefore a threat to Robert's new reign.

 

I don't think this is a very good explanation, since having Ned declare that Jon was Arthur and Lyanna's would severely damage the credibility of any attempt to claim he was Rhaegar's. I'm not really sure how you get around that either. In fact, it reminds me of the discussions I've been a part of about the potential problem with Jon pressing a Targaryen claim, since Ned has already claimed him as his own bastard. Add in the testimony of Howland Reed and anyone else who knew that AD+L=J, and I just don't see how this is supposed to be a problem.

 

Some person: But Rhaegar kidnapped her!

 

Ned: Yeah, with Arthur Dayne and a few others.

 

Some other person: But the baby has Valyrian looks!

 

Ned: Yeah, so do some of the Daynes. Listen, he's Arthur and Lyanna's child. I swear it to the old gods and the new.

 

Howland Reed: Me too.

 

Problem solved.

 

Further, it seems like Ned is haunted by the truth of Jon's parentage, not a hypothetical misunderstanding. "And when you have it, what then? Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." - AGoT, Eddard VIII. This secret, that Arthur Dayne is Jon's father, would not be dangerous on its own. It's only dangerous if Jon looks like one of the Daynes who looked somewhat like a Targaryen. And we know by the time of AGoT that Jon looks like a Stark. So the entire reason for this secret being so dangerous has disappeared. In fact, this would have long been obvious by 298AC.

 

One thing that occurred to me while reading this is that, assuming RLJ is true, AD+L=J is a pretty good cover story in case the baby ends up looking Targaryen. So why didn't Ned go that route? Among other reasons, I can't imagine Ned Stark besmirching the honor of Ser Arthur Dayne with such a lie. Ned took the slight to his honor upon himself. "He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night." - AGoT, Eddard I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a very good explanation, since having Ned declare that Jon was Arthur and Lyanna's would severely damage the credibility of any attempt to claim he was Rhaegar's. I'm not really sure how you get around that either. In fact, it reminds me of the discussions I've been a part of about the potential problem with Jon pressing a Targaryen claim, since Ned has already claimed him as his own bastard. Add in the testimony of Howland Reed and anyone else who knew that AD+L=J, and I just don't see how this is supposed to be a problem.

 

Some person: But Rhaegar kidnapped her!

 

Ned: Yeah, with Arthur Dayne and a few others.

 

Some other person: But the baby has Valyrian looks!

 

Ned: Yeah, so do some of the Daynes. Listen, he's Arthur and Lyanna's child. I swear it to the old gods and the new.

 

Howland Reed: Me too.

 

Problem solved.

 

Further, it seems like Ned is haunted by the truth of Jon's parentage, not a hypothetical misunderstanding. "And when you have it, what then? Some secrets are safer kept hidden. Some secrets are too dangerous to share, even with those you love and trust." - AGoT, Eddard VIII. This secret, that Arthur Dayne is Jon's father, would not be dangerous on its own. It's only dangerous if Jon looks like one of the Daynes who looked somewhat like a Targaryen. And we know by the time of AGoT that Jon looks like a Stark. So the entire reason for this secret being so dangerous has disappeared. In fact, this would have long been obvious by 298AC.

 

One thing that occurred to me while reading this is that, assuming RLJ is true, AD+L=J is a pretty good cover story in case the baby ends up looking Targaryen. So why didn't Ned go that route? Among other reasons, I can't imagine Ned Stark besmirching the honor of Ser Arthur Dayne with such a lie. Ned took the slight to his honor upon himself. "He had lived his lies for fourteen years, yet they still haunted him at night." - AGoT, Eddard I.

I read it and liked it. Am I convinced? Not yet. And I agree that the explanation of the lie re: Jon's parentage doesn't make as much sense long term. Especially once Jon clearly looked Stark. Could also make the case that since he looks Stark, Ned wouldn't have been risking too much to tell Cat if Rhaegar=daddy. But that's another argument.

 

But on the logic: Lyanna asked in a fever. And we don't actually know what she asked (grumble, grumble). So--could she have asked Ned to swear to something he thought was unreasonable? Can't see why not.

 

Which is why the question of the lie about Jon's parentage always seems messy to me re: determining his parentage. Based on what we've got in the text, seems like Ned would do what he could to keep his word to Lya. Regardless of cost (though he does think of the cost). Regardless of its sensibility. Does the logic of hiding Jon as Rhaegar's son make sense? Yes. But can't see anything in the text that says Ned thinks the lies or promises are about logic. Just that they are asked. And haunt him. And he tries to keep them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies on the old debate. Am new enough to the forums that it is still new to me. And, given the incredibly short, limited, dreamlike state of the toj scene, cannot see how that language says they are protecting a new heir. Or anyone. Only mention Aerys.

 

Hightower's the one who told Jaime to obey the king and not judge him. Translation: We don't judge the orders. We don't judge the guy who gives the orders. We obey the orders. The idea that he's making a summary judgment on heirs when Jon may or may not be an heir and certainly hasn't been presented to the king or in any way officially placed in the line of succession--can't see how on earth the text gives us remotely enough to make such a judgment.

 

Could these guys be going off the reservation, snapping under pressure and crown Jon? Sure. Could Rhaegar have ordered them to crown Jon? Sure--though they mention Aerys not Rhaegar. But it is a dream, so, gaps. Could there be other options? Absolutely. No way the text has given us enough info on this to determine one way or the other. Not yet.

 

Fortunately, Jon can be Rhaegar's son regardless. 

 

Its not the language that says they are protecting a new king, though there are some hints there. Its the fact that they clearly have heard news already, there are three of them, so they could split up, and they are happily ignoring the should-be-their-king Viserys on Dragonstone, who is without any KG.
If Viserys is their rightful Targaryen King, the last living legitimate Targaryen male, and they are loyal to Aerys as their King (as they indicate), and Viserys has none of the KG, how is the KGs first duty, protecting the King, being performed by the KG? They don't all have to go to him, but by ignoring him entirely they are effectively violating their oath. Yet they proudly proclaim their status and mention their vows.
So if Viserys is not their king, who is? Must be someone they believe is ahead of him in the succession. Which a legitimate Jon would be, and we already believe Jon to be right there so that solves the question of why isn't at least one of them with or traveling to whoever that other person ahead of Viserys in the succession is.

Alternately they are not holding to their KG vow. But thats contra-indicated in the conversation.

 

Mostly the language provides little clues. Like them knowing the relevance of the Trident shows they have had news. And their responses indicate they remain faithful to Aerys Targaryen (and thus his heirs) and are still proud of their KG status and hold to their vow.

Share this post


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

×