Jump to content

Archived

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

Jon Weirgaryen

R+L=J v.153

Recommended Posts

Forgive me because I'm an old man ,but I have looked high and low but  I have seen the passage where Ned says he looked like Jon but I haven't found the passage where they say Jon and Arya were identical .Please point me in the right direction .

 

AGoT: Arya II

... "Lyanna might have carried a sword, if my lord father had allowed it. You remind me of her sometimes. You even look like her."

 
"Lyanna was beautiful," Arya said, startled. Everybody said so. It was not a thing that was ever said of Arya.

 

"She was," Eddard Stark agreed, "beautiful, and willful, and dead before her time."....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV--

 

GRRM included the hints about Rhaegar taking over from Aerys for a reason -- so maybe you are correct. But I just don't think so. I don't see Hightower as someone who think he has the discretion to decide that Rhaegar has the right to unseat Aerys. They call Robert a Usurper (yes, I know, fever dream, yada yada, but go with me that they consider Robert a Usurper). How do they have a right to decide they can replace Aerys and Rhaegar not be a Usurper. There are no precedents that suggest that KG can simply decide that the King is unfit and they chose to follow his heir instead. 

 

But I also ask what does it add to the story? GRRM has a perfectly plausible story to tell about why the KG were at ToJ and then remained to guard the new King. You have seen this theory many times (even though I know you are skeptical). Why complicate the situation by having long dead KG switch sides to Rhaegar? What does it really add to the story? What does it explain that an equally plausible alternative that keeps them loyal to Aerys also does not explain?

 

It just seems a bit convoluted and unnecessary given that it really cannot affect the plot now as all those players are long dead. So what is the point of this alternative over the more straight-forward explanation regarding their presence? And keep in mind that if Jon is a bastard (and Rhaegar did not live to legitimize him, so he cannot be a legitimized bastard), Viserys still comes ahead of Jon even if Rhaegar became King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And we know from Ran that this is not an intentional error.

 

That is not what Ran said. He stated it was not an error on his/Martin's side. They intentionally put that there. Whether that information is in error due to Pycelle is completely possible and has some support due to some of the other tidbits he included (such as a rumor that Aerys had Elia and her children murdered). The segment is also prefaced by "it was said".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it. They say to Ned that Aerys would have remained on the throne if they had been there to stop Jaime. If they considered Rhaegar to be King, then after his death, Aegon (and then Jon) would have been King -- not Aerys. Personally, I don't see Rhaegar forceably removing his father as King. My suspicion is that Rhaegar was going to call a GC and either have them name Rhaegar regent on the theory that Aerys is "mad" (i.e., mentally incapacitated) or perhaps remove Aerys in favor of Rhaegar more directly. But I don't think Rhaegar was trying to get anyone -- include Dayne and Whent -- to recognize Rhaegar as King (or regent) prior to that process taking place. And their statement about Aerys remaining on the throne supports that proposition.

 

Slaying Jaime before he could kill Aerys was what Ned would have done. So, that part of the dream might belong to Ned's subconscious instead of what Gerold actually told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. That makes more sense. I think we really are just talking about variations on a theme. For some reason, whether as the only way to entice Rhaegar back to KL or to make sure that the few Targs left have a high level of protection while D&W go with Rhaegar to KL, Hightower believes he needs to stay at ToJ. I am not sure trying to figure out exactly which scenario occurred is useful, as GRRM has not and will not give us enough clues until he is ready to tell the whole story and then we will know for sure. What matters is that it seems pretty clear that somehow Rhaegar manipulated the situation to get Hightower to stay at ToJ -- exactly how Rhaegar did that is not really central to unraveling the mystery. What matters is that Rhaegar did so (and there are a few possible ways he could have done so) and it resulted in Hightower being at ToJ when news came of the death of the royals after the birth of Jon (as seems likely from other clues we have). Thanks for the clarification.

Well, others always question why they would follow Rhaegar's orders to guard the tower and Lyanna. It has always puzzled me the how Hightower got into the position, too. Hightower's presence at the Trident would likely have assured victory, as he would be with (like glue) the prince and commanding the other Kingsguard. Reflecting on what needed to happen when Hightower found Rhaegar led me to the conclusion that Rhaegar needed to prevent Hightower from returning to King's Landing, and the king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've long argued that Hightower might have come around to supporting Rhaegar by the time he arrived at the tower.

Wrong, just wrong. Hightower calls Robert Usurper, and says that he would kill Jaime before he could kill Aerys. Hightower never betrayed his vow, or his king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slaying Jaime before he could kill Aerys was what Ned would have done. So, that part of the dream might belong to Ned's subconscious instead of what Gerold actually told.

Contrary, Ned said it would have been better if he or Robert had killed Aerys than Jaime. Ned did not want to prevent it, but he did want Jaime punished for being an oath-breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is not what Ran said. He stated it was not an error on his/Martin's side. They intentionally put that there. Whether that information is in error due to Pycelle is completely possible and has some support due to some of the other tidbits he included (such as a rumor that Aerys had Elia and her children murdered). The segment is also prefaced by "it was said".

To be fair, I think he also said that Yandel was basing the information off of contemporaneous documents available to Yandel -- but we really don't know what those documents would have been. They might have been reports from someone with an agenda. Personally, I am not sure that it matters very much. What matters is whether the KG at ToJ knew about it (even if it happened) -- not whether it happened. Of course, if it happened, but the KG did not know about it, why did GRRM include it in WOIAF? Does it come into play at all? I think maybe Dany finds out about it and uses it to argue she is over Aegon -- but I am not sure. She certainly states in the books so far that she thought Aegon was over her and presumably over Viserys in line (by saying he would have been king if not killed). So it would have to be new information given to Dany in the next book somehow. I really have struggled with this little line from WOIAF.

 

 

 

Slaying Jaime before he could kill Aerys was what Ned would have done. So, that part of the dream might belong to Ned's subconscious instead of what Gerold actually told.

 

 

The quote is that Aerys would have remained on the throne. If Ned had been there, Aerys might not have been killed, but he would not have remained on the throne. It cannot be Ned's subconscious speaking.

 

 

Well, others always question why they would follow Rhaegar's orders to guard the tower and Lyanna. It has always puzzled me the how Hightower got into the position, too. Hightower's presence at the Trident would likely have assured victory, as he would be with (like glue) the prince and commanding the other Kingsguard. Reflecting on what needed to happen when Hightower found Rhaegar led me to the conclusion that Rhaegar needed to prevent Hightower from returning to King's Landing, and the king.

 

 

Absolutely.  I don't think there can be any question but that Rhaegar needed to keep Hightower from returning to KL -- presumably to keep Lyanna's location secret. The only question regarding that particular issue is exactly what Rhaegar did to keep Hightower at ToJ. And I think we have a couple of possibilities -- but as I noted above, they are all really just a variation on a theme. Somehow, Rhaegar convinced Hightower that Hightower's duty was to stay at ToJ. I don't think that it really matters how -- what matters is that we can come up with plausible ways in which Rhaegar could have done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is what the sentence states, I am calling in Yandel's veracity. No one in the Seven Kingdoms (except Yandel) has ever suggested that Viserys would precede Aegon in line for the throne. Does that make Yandel correct in that sentence? Not in my opinion. There must be some explanation for why a maester would write that sentence, that being that Aerys had some way to ensure that Viserys followed him to the throne. Might that be killing Aegon?

ETA: auto-correct.

You did no answer my question 

 

 

But let me ask you again, because I seem to recall I did so before but I can't recall I received a reply. If you were Aerys, who would you rather have as an heir? Aegon, who is related to the Dornishmen you are convinced have betrayed you? In that case, all those Dornishmen, who you suspect have betrayed you, have to do, is kill you, and their own blood will inherit the throne.. Or Viserys? In that case, you can keep the dornish grandchild as a hostage, to keep the dornish, who you mistrust, loyal to you.  In addition, there is no one who you currently mistrust who will find profit in killing you to seat your heir on the throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did no answer my question 

 

 

I will not speak for ML (he is more than capable of speaking for himself), but I will give you my thoughts. The answer to your questions are basically irrelevant. Kings rarely go out of the "normal" order. When they have, it has created problems. In this case, it could cause Dorne to go against Aerys publicly. The middle of a war also might not be the best time to start going into castle politics and naming a new heir out of normal order. If the Targs win this war, it could result in civil war on the death of Aerys.

 

Even if Aerys might have preferred Viserys, there are reasons he might not go out of order to name Viserys as heir. So it might have happened -- Yandel suggested it did (but never said Aerys named V -- just that V was the new heir, we don't know by what line of reasoning although I admit naming is possible) -- or it might not have happened. I just don't think the argument that because Aerys presumably would have liked his own son over his half-Dornish grandson (and we don't really know that for sure), we can conclude he necessarily named V as heir. 

 

All we have is an ambiguous statement in WOIAF. Every piece of evidence from the main series suggests that either it never happened or if it did, it was not widely known. I am not going to try to predict which, as I am not sure it matters very much. I just think that a lot of leaps in logic have occurred on the presumption that this line from WOIAF means that Aerys definitely named him and announced it far and wide and everyone knew -- and it just never came up in the main series because it never mattered as Aegon died in the sack. Maybe -- but I am not entirely convinced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary, Ned said it would have been better if he or Robert had killed Aerys than Jaime. Ned did not want to prevent it, but he did want Jaime punished for being an oath-breaker.

 

The quote is that Aerys would have remained on the throne. If Ned had been there, Aerys might not have been killed, but he would not have remained on the throne. It cannot be Ned's subconscious speaking.

 

No, what I meant is that if Ned was a KG by Aerys’s side, what Gerold told is what he would try to do. He would slay Jaime and defend Aerys until the bitter end. He does not think like Ned the rebel leader in that part of the dream. He thinks like Ned the KG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, what I meant is that if Ned was a KG by Aerys’s side, what Gerold told is what he would try to do. He would slay Jaime and defend Aerys until the bitter end. He does not think like Ned the rebel leader in that part of the dream. He thinks like Ned the KG.

You have completely lost me. Why would Ned put himself as KG in place of the actual KG and then put words in their mouths based on what he would have done if he himself had been a KG which he was not and never could be as he was married and for other reasons as well? Nice try -- but so convoluted, I give it no credence.  There is no reason for GRRM to put words in the KG mouths that are really supposed to be the sentiment of Ned if he were in their position. Ned is not haunted by a dream of him essentially talking to himself. He is trying to come to terms with why they did what they did and why he had to kill them. Not a hypothetical conversation with a hypothetical version of himself as both himself and the KG. Not buying it for a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UL,

 

we simply don't know Ser Gerold well enough to decide either way. If he was Aerys' stalwart loyalist until the very end it is strange that he accepted to stay at the tower, nor does it seem likely that Rhaegar would allow such a man to guard Lyanna. Couldn't he decide to use her as a hostage against Rhaegar's good behavior should the latter turn against his father? But more importantly, Rhaegar is quite open with Jaime about the changes - i.e. a Regency with himself as Prince Regent or a forced abdication of his father in the aftermath of the Trident.

 

And strictly speaking that would not necessarily be an usurpation. If a King is incapacitated even the Small Council can name a regent to govern the Realm - the precedent for that would be Aemond serving as Prince Regent during the Dance after Aegon II was injured at Rook's Rest. Back before Harrenhal Rhaegar could not do that since he had no voice on the Small Council which was full of Aerys' men - Merryweather, Staunton, Velaryon, Chelsted, Varys, Hightower, and even Pycelle and Tywin were all Aerys' men. None of Rhaegar's friends at court had a voice in the governance of the Realm. 

But if the Small Council - or the covert Great Council Rhaegar tried to convene at Harrenhal - had agreed that the King was ill and incapable of ruling a Regency could have been installed. This would not have been necessarily treason - although Aerys and his people would have perceived it as such and most likely have gone to blows over the issue. But had there been a Great Council, and had a majority of the assembled Lords agreed that the King was insane, that war may have been short. But we don't know if that had been the outcome.

Any KG in Aerys' service would have to answer the same question anytime Aerys II gave them an order: Is the King truly mad, and does he know what he saying or doing? If not, then they wouldn't be honor-bound to obey his orders, or could at least argue that this was the case.

 

Avalatis,

 

Ran has said that the Viserys thing is no mistake by him/Linda or George. That means it is intentionally there (it could actually have been a mistake - there were lots of those in the first edition we didn't catch before the book went into print). It is also confirmed that Yandel's claim is based on in-world knowledge.

 

I'm not sure why you attribute that tidbit to Pycelle. Just because Yandel says his main source on Aerys II's reign is Pycelle doesn't mean everything comes from him - we only know what's based on Pycelle's words if Yandel mentions him as a concrete source or directly quotes him.

 

And even if something comes from Pycelle doesn't mean it is a lie or part of an evil anti-Aerys and pro-Tywin agenda. Yandel seems to be a genuine historian, and as such he would quote or refer contemporary letters and writings of Pycelle - that is, things he has written during Aerys' reign rather than in retrospect after the Rebellion. Pycelle's admiration of Tywin is evident in the parts Yandel quotes but that doesn't mean the things he tells us about Aerys are wrong or lies. We don't even know whether Pycelle was against Aerys prior to the Rebellion. I imagine he was aghast that Aerys would dismiss Tywin as Hand but that only happened rather late - while Tywin loyally served Aerys Pycelle would only have problems with Aerys insofar as Tywin had problems with the King. And Tywin could manage until the Jaime incident.

 

The 'it is said' part you are mentioning refers to the previous sentence where Aerys' cursing the Dornishmen is mentioned. If it would also refer to the next sentence Rhaella and Viserys going to Dragonstone and Elia and her children being forced to stay in the Red Keep would be 'rumors', too - which they are not. And the very fact that Viserys is sent to Dragonstone is a strong sign that he was the new Prince of Dragonstone by then - after all, the island is the seat of the Heir Apparent.

 

While we can assume that Yandel (or the person tampering with his manuscript as originally intended) knew the rumor about Gregor and Lorch, he doesn't lie. It is not knowledge who murdered Elia and her children, not even in ASoS (until Oberyn forces the Mountain to confess), so Yandel does not lie there, he just omits the truth and recounts two other rumors in circulation he most likely did not make up but which are most certainly not widely believed.

 

Also note that this book isn't made with the intention to doubt any new information by stating that it might have as much truth as those rumors about Elia. George enjoys giving other 'official histories' on things that were actually revealed in the books (this stuff, the paternity of Cersei's children, skinchanging and greenseer stuff, Robert's glorious reign, etc.). But if much of the new information never touched upon in the books was completely bogus then this book would essentially be a huge sham - which it is not supposed to be.

 

UL on heirs:

 

Naming Viserys his heir was the best thing Aerys could do after the Trident. It was necessary and important. The King had just lost his Heir Apparent, and the succession had to be clear. Dorne had betrayed Prince Rhaegar to Aerys' knowledge, so Doran's nephew, niece, and sister would continue to be used as hostages against Sunspear - you don't name a hostage your heir if you have an alternative. Not to mention that naming Aegon the Heir Apparent would actually reward Dorne for its treachery. That would be just stupid. If you even consider this you could also ask why Aerys didn't name Robert his Heir Apparent after the Trident? He had a claim and won the battle, after all...

 

More importantly, Prince Viserys was the eldest male Targaryen alive at this point, and the King's own son by his sister-wife. Not an ideal Heir Apparent by far due to his youth and inexperience, but a much better heir than an infant in swaddling clothes. Viserys could be paraded around, talk, even deliver a speech - and if push came to shove and the king should die, he could even wear a crown and sit the Iron Throne in his father's place.

 

Aegon could do none of those things for a long while.

 

Viserys would have bad chances against Robert's charisma, but Aegon would have virtually none. Nobody rallies around an infant king or rises to defend his rights.

 

As to the knowledge of the Viserys thing:

 

We cannot say it wasn't widely known in Westeros after the Trident. Lots of stuff that is widely known is not mentioned in this series. Sometimes for a reason and sometimes just because the people don't think on a regular basis about stuff that has happened fifteen years ago. Do you care about the details of political scandal in the year 2000 if all the people involved are either dead or politically irrelevant in the present day?

 

I've said that this thing could become important when Dany challenges Aegon's claim and that might be so despite Dany's own thoughts about Aegon becoming king had he lived. She may not know yet about this whole thing - or if she has heard about it she may not have given it much thought. But Aerys' choice of heir would be a great way to argue her claim against Aegon's. And since she would not be able to prove conclusively that Aegon isn't Rhaegar's son - at least not at once - a good strategy would be attack him an impostor and a fake, but also building a case that her legal claim would even be better than Aegon's if he was real. There may be Targaryen loyalists who will be swayed by such an argument, after all. The will of the king is important to some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Ned put himself as KG in place of the actual KG and then put words in their mouths based on what he would have done if he himself had been a KG which he was not and never could be as he was married and for other reasons as well?

 

Because it is his dream and he has the right to do anything in his dream, which does not have to be logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LV--

 

I think you are making my point. Rhaegar was trying to have a regency or abdication. But UNTIL it occurred and became official, Aeyrs is still King. So even if Hightower knew of and liked the plan, he would still be bound to Aerys until the official change occurred. And he says as much in saying that Aerys would still be on the throne (rather than Aegon or Jon).

 

And Rhaegar presumably trusted Hightower because Hightower likely gave his word and is a man of his word. How Rhaegar got that commitment is speculated upthread -- but there are more than one possible alternatives for how he got Hightower to agree to stay and guard Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because it is his dream and he has the right to do anything in his dream, which does not have to be logical.

But this is literature -- and dreams in literature serve a purpose. Your alternative undermines any purpose it would serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is literature -- and dreams in literature serve a purpose. Your alternative undermines any purpose it would serve.

 

I don’t see any other alternative which does not contradict with the known facts. Maybe George did not think it thoroughly when he wrote that bit and he will resort to “it was a fever dream, yada yada” excuse. That is entirely possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree that they did not seem to be very happy with their current "doorman" duties. 

I am not happy to see Arthur died in this meaningless war due to some magic or arrow of Howland Reed. It is a shame for the Dawn. 

But once KG were with Rhaegar, they had to follow his order, unless Aerys gave a very clear order: Hightower, go find and summon Rhaegar back and make sure yourself also come back (or with Authur and Oswell)

Probably not. Aerys likely just assume Rhaegar would take them with him as usual. Who would think Rhaegar would leave them at TOJ when he needed to go to a battle? And who would think Rhaegar would go without a KG with him?

Aerys sent him to summon Rhaegar, but whatever Rhaegar decided, which did not directly contradict with his father's order, KG had to obey. 

In fact, even Aerys gave some sort of different order, Rhaegar had the authority to adjust them based on the circumstances. 

This is how a general works with army when he is far away from the king. His order is the final order because things change. 

You're right--if they didn't have conflicting orders, Rhaegar's the one they'd follow. And we don't know the specifics here--at all. So, your scenario works.

 

But also seems reasonable that Aerys would want everyone back--tell Hightower to "get my idiot son and the rest of MY Kingsguard back here! Pronto! We're in the middle of a war and the Sword of the Morning is hanging out in Dorne with his fabulous sword listening to my idiot son play his harp!"

 

(The above quote is an approximation. Assume it would be spoken with much more dignity. And possibly in Valyrian. For panache.)

 

Also could see Hightower, even if he didn't have direct orders, squawking at the idea of being ordered to stay. IE: Aerys Oakheart squawked at being told to beat Sansa. He did it. But protested (not really great). Other KG in the books seem conflicted, too. Jaime begs Rhaegar to take him to the Trident. So, I absolutely agree that Hightower would obey. But could also see him putting up a fight, initially.

 

Bottom line: We don't know what happened. Multiple possible scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avalatis,

 

Ran has said that the Viserys thing is no mistake by him/Linda or George. That means it is intentionally there (it could actually have been a mistake - there were lots of those in the first edition we didn't catch before the book went into print). It is also confirmed that Yandel's claim is based on in-world knowledge.

 

Which is what I wrote in my post to you. At the time people thought it might be a mistake (with forethought of knowledge) that aegon would die and one of the authors of the book in real life wrote that incorrectly. He clarified that this wasn't the case. He did not state it wasn't a mistake in world, which is what you were implying in the post I responded to. It is based on in world documents and could be flawed information.

 

 

I'm not sure why you attribute that tidbit to Pycelle. Just because Yandel says his main source on Aerys II's reign is Pycelle doesn't mean everything comes from him - we only know what's based on Pycelle's words if Yandel mentions him as a concrete source or directly quotes him.

 

He doesn't mention anything as concrete for this whole section. It uses "it was said" which isn't a very well cited piece of information for this text. Who said? Well the logical person is Pycelle.

 

Regardless. You were quoting Ran wrong which is the only reason I responded. There is no confirmation of Ran on the validity of Viserys being made heir. All we know is he used documents available to him to write the book. The validity of those documents is not stated.

 

snip

 

The rest of your post is an argument we've already had, and I'm not going to bother rehashing it. Your statement of Ran confirming the validity of the information is wrong.

 

"It is not known who murdered Princess Rhaenys in her bed, or smashed the infant Prince Aegon's head against a wall. Some whisper it was done at Aerys's own command when he learned that Lord Lannister had taken up Robert's cause, while others suggest that Elia did it herself for fear of what would happen to her children in the hands of her dead husband's enemies."

 

Here is Yandel the "historian" as you so played him up talking about events involving Aerys and the Targaryens. Some more "some whisper", "others suggest". These words exist to clue you in to misinformation. And it *is known* who murdered Elia and her children.

Share this post


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

×