Jump to content
Lord Varys

[SPOILERS] Jaehaerys and Alysanne

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I really liked characters of Alyssa Velaryon and Rogar Baratheon, they are depicted like real humans with great things and flaws, I kinda teared up a bit when they died, even the quarrel in the council room reminded me of Ned and Robert.

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Was Vaegon really forced to become a maester? And was Maegelle really forced to become a septa? Both seem to have been pretty happy with those fates. The roles suited their characters.

He was. He was not given a choice not to go to the Citadel. Jaehaerys I told him what was to happen, not that he had a choice in the matter.

4 hours ago, anjulibai said:

I assumed the reason Maegelle was sent to Oldtown was because there wasn't a mother house in King's Landing, which was still a pretty young city at the time. Plus, the High Septon was still Oldtown, so religious life was probably centered there.

KL had had multiple septs at the time, one of them being the Sept of Remembrance built during the reign of Aegon I. It is very odd that the capital does not have a place to train new septons and septas and has instead import them from Oldtown. I mean, are we to believe that every man or woman wanting to join the Faith in the KL or Stormlands region has to travel to Oldtown to get his/her training?

4 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Saera I think was a special case because of her behavior. Seems like that was more to reform her than to punish her. 

Sure, but here it is odd, too, that they handed her over to the Oldtowners. Had there been an institution in KL the king could have had his own people guarding her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else think that Alysanne was a bit hypocritical? 

She didn't seem to mind when Rhaena and her daughters were past over in the line of succession but when it's her female descendants, then she's in favor of equal primogeniture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, EvanSol919 said:

Does anyone else think that Alysanne was a bit hypocritical? 

She didn't seem to mind when Rhaena and her daughters were past over in the line of succession but when it's her female descendants, then she's in favor of equal primogeniture?

Not really. People do change with time. Nobody asked Alysanne's opinion back in 48 AC, nor is she ever questioned on her view on the matter of succession, is she? She was a young and insignificant girl back then and nobody at court thought she should be the queen at Jaehaerys' side (aside from Jaehaerys).

But then, we do know the claims of both Rhaena and Rhaena's daughters are put forth when Maegor dies. We know Rogar dismissed them out of hand (only to rediscover their strength later on...) but we don't know who championed their claims. Could very well be that Alysanne urged anyone who wanted to hear it that her elder sister should be queen - until Rhaena herself made it clear she had no intention of taking the throne. Which apparently was the case back in 48 AC. She wanted to return to Fair Isle and continue her life there.

It is quite clear that equal primogeniture wasn't exactly a completely unknown concept in non-Dornish Westeros. It was apparently practiced on the Three Sisters before the Conquest, and it is brought up not only after Maegor's death but also during the reign of Jaehaerys I with Daenerys and later on in 92 AC. And then at the Great Council when there are actually people supporting Laena's claim against Laenor's because she is the elder child of Princess Rhaenys. Rhaenyra remains Viserys I's chosen heir because she is the eldest child of the king, etc.

Really funny are the later arbitrary opinions as to why the eldest child cannot be the heir - there are quite a few people dismissing Baela's claim because of her personality never mind her age. Such arbitrary talk also implies how strong a principle primogeniture is in general. Just think of Renly's success with the lords against both Robert's children and unpopular Stannis. Everybody knows Stannis technically has a better claim than Renly but no one cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not really. People do change with time. Nobody asked Alysanne's opinion back in 48 AC, nor is she ever questioned on her view on the matter of succession, is she? She was a young and insignificant girl back then and nobody at court thought she should be the queen at Jaehaerys' side (aside from Jaehaerys).

Still, it was a little stupid to champion Daenerys's claim over Aemon's in 55 AC, when Rhaena is still alive. Insisting that Rhaenys should come before Baelon in 92 AC would create no problems, since Aerea is dead, and Rhaella a septa (if not dead already), both childless, so no one can dispute Jaehaerys's right to be king. Even if he has usurped his nieces, there's no better claimant than him, seeing how the girls are either dead or sworn to the Faith, with no descendants of their body. But had Rhaena told Alysanne in 55 AC "Hey sis, since you think an older sister should come before a younger brother, what do you think about the fact that I am the rightful queen, our brother just a prince and you nothing but yet another princess very low on the line of succession?" what would have Alysanne said? "Sorry, my bad, equal rights is only for when it's convenient for the women of my line"? Alysanne's statement is not clever, politics-wise, and I think it is meant to reflect poorly on her - that is, as lovely as it is to believe a daughter should have the same rights as a son, in this particular case, it is not the wise thing to suggest, unless of course she doesn't mind not being queen anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 12:02 PM, Lord Varys said:

He was. He was not given a choice not to go to the Citadel. Jaehaerys I told him what was to happen, not that he had a choice in the matter.

KL had had multiple septs at the time, one of them being the Sept of Remembrance built during the reign of Aegon I. It is very odd that the capital does not have a place to train new septons and septas and has instead import them from Oldtown. I mean, are we to believe that every man or woman wanting to join the Faith in the KL or Stormlands region has to travel to Oldtown to get his/her training?

Sure, but here it is odd, too, that they handed her over to the Oldtowners. Had there been an institution in KL the king could have had his own people guarding her.

It's not odd at all for Jaehaerys to get/want Saera out of KL. Especially after she tried to get herself a dragon. Jaehaerys couldn't foresee what would eventually happen with his daughter at Oldtown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

Still, it was a little stupid to champion Daenerys's claim over Aemon's in 55 AC, when Rhaena is still alive. Insisting that Rhaenys should come before Baelon in 92 AC would create no problems, since Aerea is dead, and Rhaella a septa (if not dead already), both childless, so no one can dispute Jaehaerys's right to be king. Even if he has usurped his nieces, there's no better claimant than him, seeing how the girls are either dead or sworn to the Faith, with no descendants of their body. But had Rhaena told Alysanne in 55 AC "Hey sis, since you think an older sister should come before a younger brother, what do you think about the fact that I am the rightful queen, our brother just a prince and you nothing but yet another princess very low on the line of succession?" what would have Alysanne said? "Sorry, my bad, equal rights is only for when it's convenient for the women of my line"? Alysanne's statement is not clever, politics-wise, and I think it is meant to reflect poorly on her - that is, as lovely as it is to believe a daughter should have the same rights as a son, in this particular case, it is not the wise thing to suggest, unless of course she doesn't mind not being queen anymore.

The issue there is that Jaehaerys did not properly come into his throne. But he was king when he was king, nobody questioned that (aside from Rogar the Fool). And kings do make the rules, not the circumstances that made them king.

You have to keep in mind that making and unmaking kings is not a small affair. And circumstances do change. Rhaena did not want the throne, so she did not get it - or it contributed to her not getting it.

The past is the past. And your children are not your siblings. It is hardly surprising that Alysanne treated her daughter differently than her sister. Just as it is not strange at all that Viserys I made Rhaenyra his heir, never mind that Rhaenys would be queen in his place if the arguments he used for that decision would have also prevailed at the Great Council.

Also keep in mind that the issue of Jaehaerys' succession was only finally settled in 62 AC when Aemon was made Prince of Dragonstone, some years after Daenerys' death. That the title was not granted him as soon as Rhaena removed herself to Harrenhal in 57 AC.

This would all only be hypocritical if our standards of universal law/justice would the standards of Westeros. But they are not. Not in succession issues and not in other legal matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

It's not odd at all for Jaehaerys to get/want Saera out of KL. Especially after she tried to get herself a dragon. Jaehaerys couldn't foresee what would eventually happen with his daughter at Oldtown. 

Sure, but it is not just Saera - also Rhaella and Maegelle. Why did Maegor give his niece/hostages into the hands of the Hightowers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 12:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

Prince Duncan wasn't disinherited as such, he merely gave up his claim to the Iron Throne. While he wed without the leave of his father the king said father did not use that as a pretext to cut ties with him and throw him out of the family - which one assumes Aegon V could have done and which many a monarch and nobleman has done in the real world in such cases - especially when their kin made morganatic marriages.

In fact, it is not unlikely that Aegon V made Duncan the Prince of Summerhall granting him and his wife and family said castle considering that Jaehaerys/Shaera got Dragonstone and Daeron would never have any children.

In the real middle ages monastic life (the equivalent of becoming a septa or silent sister) wouldn't be as ridiculous conventional or rigid as the lives of Rhaella and Maegelle indicate. Princesses and queens taking the veil in the real middle ages usually became powerful abbesses, ruling vast estates in their own right - and even those who didn't retained the privileges that came with their rank.

Having Rhaella and Maegelle and Saera serve with common novices - or following rules and regulations stipulated by the Faith - sounds pretty strange and seems to be the easy way out for George so that he doesn't have to invent any detailed stories for them - stories they certainly could have had even as septas. A septa-princess could technically continue her life the way before she took her vows if she so chose - depending on her personality.

In fact, it is also very strange that Rhaella, Maegelle, and Saera are sent to a motherhouse in Oldtown rather than a motherhouse in KL - the capital of the Seven Kingdoms should also have such an institution (at least in the times of Maegor and Jaehaerys I). In Rhaella's case Maegor's Hightower connection may have something to do with that, but technically it makes no sense to actually give a royal princess into the hands of a house as powerful as the Hightowers if you could just as well train her as a septa in your own city - and that way Jaehaerys I and Alysanne could also have spent more time with young Maegelle.

Not so strange, IMHO.  Oldtown probably remained the main religious centre in Westeros prior to the construction of the Great Sept.  In fact, centres of religious importance need not be places of political importance at all (eg Canterbury has always outranked London in ecclesiastical terms).

Maegelle seems to have had a clear desire to become a Septa..  In other cases, as you say, it was treated as a punishment.

Despite the importance of the Faith, we don't learn much about its structure.  Do Septas conduct services before the laity, or is that role confined to the Septons?  Did its chapterhouses and motherhouses own huge estates (which would have provided a useful career path for younger sons and daughters of the nobility? )  Were there parishes or dioceses, whose incumbents became significant political figures in their own right?  The only intermediate rank we read of, between Septon/Septa and High Septon, is Most Devout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Not so strange, IMHO.  Oldtown probably remained the main religious centre in Westeros prior to the construction of the Great Sept.  In fact, centres of religious importance need not be places of political importance at all (eg Canterbury has always outranked London in ecclesiastical terms).

It is odd in the sense that Westeros would have precious few septas if they had all to train in Oldtown. One assumes the other cities and greater towns have them, too, (Stoney Sept, say, confirmed for both Gulltown and Lannisport), but it makes no sense that the Conqueror would not invite the Faith to found a motherhouse in KL. They had Warrior's Sons there, too, after all.

There may be some strange reason as to why Maegor may have sent Rhaella to Oldtown (his own Hightower connections via Ceryse, perhaps) but even that makes little sense considering that she was a hostage and he no longer had any direct power over her by doing that.

Vice versa, Rhaella and Maegelle training in the center of the Faith combined with the fact that they are royalty makes it even less likely that they did not join the Most Devout later in life - and that would have made them pretty significant. The fact that they may have been content not to rise that high would be of little significance in light of their birth.

Quote

Despite the importance of the Faith, we don't learn much about its structure.  Do Septas conduct services before the laity, or is that role confined to the Septons?  Did its chapterhouses and motherhouses own huge estates (which would have provided a useful career path for younger sons and daughters of the nobility? )  Were there parishes or dioceses, whose incumbents became significant political figures in their own right?  The only intermediate rank we read of, between Septon/Septa and High Septon, is Most Devout.

You are right that we know pretty much nothing about that, but the issue I have is more with the fact that joining the Faith apparently makes royal princesses go away. Even if women had little to no role in the hierarchy of the Faith - which doesn't seem to be the case considering they can join the Most Devout - identities are not erased if you join the Faith. 

It is a pity that we never got a proper Targaryen septon, by the way. Baelor as septon-king doesn't really count. A Targaryen prince becoming a septon could have been a great career path for a son or grandson of Jaehaerys I or Aenys I, even more so if such a guy had been High Septon or a crucial member of the Most Devout during the Dance...

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is odd in the sense that Westeros would have precious few septas if they had all to train in Oldtown. One assumes the other cities and greater towns have them, too, (Stoney Sept, say, confirmed for both Gulltown and Lannisport), but it makes no sense that the Conqueror would not invite the Faith to found a motherhouse in KL. They had Warrior's Sons there, too, after all.

There may be some strange reason as to why Maegor may have sent Rhaella to Oldtown (his own Hightower connections via Ceryse, perhaps) but even that makes little sense considering that she was a hostage and he no longer had any direct power over her by doing that.

Vice versa, Rhaella and Maegelle training in the center of the Faith combined with the fact that they are royalty makes it even less likely that they did not join the Most Devout later in life - and that would have made them pretty significant. The fact that they may have been content not to rise that high would be of little significance in light of their birth.

You are right that we know pretty much nothing about that, but the issue I have is more with the fact that joining the Faith apparently makes royal princesses go away. Even if women had little to no role in the hierarchy of the Faith - which doesn't seem to be the case considering they can join the Most Devout - identities are not erased if you join the Faith. 

It is a pity that we never got a proper Targaryen septon, by the way. Baelor as septon-king doesn't really count. A Targaryen prince becoming a septon could have been a great career path for a son or grandson of Jaehaerys I or Aenys I, even more so if such a guy had been High Septon or a crucial member of the Most Devout during the Dance...

The Church could be used as a means of getting rid of unwanted royalty (eg in Byzantium) but that was usually done to people who lost power struggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The Church could be used as a means of getting rid of unwanted royalty (eg in Byzantium) but that was usually done to people who lost power struggles.

Yeah, in Byzantium defeated emperors and claimants had either opportunity to return to monastery or lose eyes and sometimes also other parts of their body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This would all only be hypocritical if our standards of universal law/justice would the standards of Westeros. But they are not. Not in succession issues and not in other legal matters.

Alysanne thinks that her daughter should come before her son, but never seems to consider that Rhaena should have come before Jaehaerys (because if she admitted that Rhaena was the rightful queen, then her beloved brother isn't king, she isn't queen and her children aren't inheriting any throne). Alysanne is being both naive and hypocritical (and that's OK; no one is perfect), and modern standards have nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Yeah, in Byzantium defeated emperors and claimants had either opportunity to return to monastery or lose eyes and sometimes also other parts of their body.

The worst fate for female royalty was to sent to join the "sleepless ones" a particularly stringent convent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

Alysanne thinks that her daughter should come before her son, but never seems to consider that Rhaena should have come before Jaehaerys (because if she admitted that Rhaena was the rightful queen, then her beloved brother isn't king, she isn't queen and her children aren't inheriting any throne). Alysanne is being both naive and hypocritical (and that's OK; no one is perfect), and modern standards have nothing to do with it.

Even if she were to admit that Rhaena was 'the rightful queen' - that wouldn't change the fact that Jaehaerys is the crowned and anointed king.

That is what I meant: Kings are not made by rules, they are made by rituals and ceremonies. It matters not whether your claim is stronger or 'the law' is supposedly on your side - if you are crowned and anointed and the people do you homage you are the king, not somebody else.

And we see that Viserys I did not exactly lose his throne when he ignored the precedent set by the Great Council. Kings do make laws and they do set precedents on the succession, etc., they are not bound by them. This is not a constitutional monarchy.

And again: Perhaps Alysanne were one of the people who thought Rhaena should rule? We don't know. But Rhaena herself decided that Jaehaerys should be king. She decided not to push her claim and she did her brother homage as the king.

I'm not sure why Alysanne should care about either Rhaena or Rhaena's daughters when the succession of her brother-husband was the topic at hand, and it was always clear that a child of her and Jaehaerys would succeed him after his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure why Alysanne should care about either Rhaena or Rhaena's daughters when the succession of her brother-husband was the topic at hand, and it was always clear that a child of her and Jaehaerys would succeed him after his death.

It gives a bad precedent. Viserys took the throne under the "no women, only men allowed" rule, and then decided to ignore the very precedent that had given him the throne by naming Rhaenyra his heir over Aegon. The result? Civil war.

What would have happened had Alysanne got her way and Jaehaerys named Daenerys heir apparent? The very king accepting a daughter inheriting before a son will be seen by some as a comfirmation that women should be equal in terms of succesion (see how the greens knew that they could not count on Jeyne Arryn because she was a woman. Jeyne had no brothers, but she knew that should she back a male claimant, her own claim to the seat of house Arryn would be doubted). What lord of the Seven Kingdoms would be fine now that his older daughters might demand to succeed him instead of a younger son? What about the lords that are younger sons? What man in Westeros is going to accept a king whose actions might lead to internal conflict in their lands? Those who are directly threatened might argue that Jaehaerys himself has no right to the throne by his own lights, and may even rise in rebellion.

If nothing happens during his lifetime, what about after he's dead (in a scenario where the Shivers do not carry off Daenerys)? Daenerys and Aemon were no Aegon II and Rhaenyra, but what about the people at court who have reasons to back either Daenerys or Aemon? Daemon Blackfyre seemed to have no ill feelings toward Daeron II, and yet he still rebelled against him. 

Messing up with the succession is a recipe for disaster. If Jaehaerys took the throne by stepping over a sister and two nieces, then it is only logical that this model of primogeniture should be followed so there won't be any questions of succession. Alysanne's suggestion could had easily led to war between two or even three Targaryen lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 11:09 AM, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but it is not just Saera - also Rhaella and Maegelle. Why did Maegor give his niece/hostages into the hands of the Hightowers?

The easy answer for why Targaryen princess's were sent to the Oldtown motherhouse and not one in KL. Could simply be that during those times there wasn't a motherhouse in KL. Or at the very least for Jaehaerys, he could've seen sending his kids to Oldtown as a way to build a stronger bond with the faith. Honestly I don't think Maegor cared what would happen to Rhaella by giving her to the faith/Hightowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 10:47 PM, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

It gives a bad precedent. Viserys took the throne under the "no women, only men allowed" rule, and then decided to ignore the very precedent that had given him the throne by naming Rhaenyra his heir over Aegon. The result? Civil war.

No, the civil war was caused by people who ignored the precedent set by the king - and the vows they themselves swore to Rhaenyra and Viserys I.

Historically, legal precedents have to be seen in context. A specific case is resolved, a specific sentence is given, etc. and then later people chose to cite that decision in relation to another case.

But Laenor vs. Viserys isn't the same as Rhaenyra vs. Aegon. There are parallels there, but it is not the same situation.

Nor was there any 'no women, only men allowed' rule established in 101 AC. The Great Council did not actually establish a binding law of succession for the Iron Throne. The lords just discussed the claims of the claimants who came forward at the council. That is all pretty arbitrary and Viserys' own succession is not conditional on 'the rules' that brought him to the throne.

Just as Maegor's successful usurpation does not exactly establish 'a rule' that usurpation is now a legitimate means to rise to a the throne. Never mind that King Maegor ruled that the Iron Throne would go to the man powerful enough to seize it when he executed Grand Maester Gawen.

On 1/3/2019 at 10:47 PM, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

What would have happened had Alysanne got her way and Jaehaerys named Daenerys heir apparent? The very king accepting a daughter inheriting before a son will be seen by some as a comfirmation that women should be equal in terms of succesion (see how the greens knew that they could not count on Jeyne Arryn because she was a woman. Jeyne had no brothers, but she knew that should she back a male claimant, her own claim to the seat of house Arryn would be doubted). What lord of the Seven Kingdoms would be fine now that his older daughters might demand to succeed him instead of a younger son? What about the lords that are younger sons? What man in Westeros is going to accept a king whose actions might lead to internal conflict in their lands? Those who are directly threatened might argue that Jaehaerys himself has no right to the throne by his own lights, and may even rise in rebellion.

Who cares about any of that? Laws and customs do change. Just look at Dorne. There was no equal primogeniture in House Martell or elsewhere in Dorne until this was established. But this did not mean that society crumbled. The various former kings, etc. also accepted that they were no longer kings and were now mere lords who had to do homage to other kings, etc. 

Rhaenyra certainly could have used her own case to push her lords to adopt equal primogeniture. It seems to be a pretty irrational fear that this would cast doubts on old claims. New laws usually do not affect legal issues in the past.

On 1/3/2019 at 10:47 PM, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

If nothing happens during his lifetime, what about after he's dead (in a scenario where the Shivers do not carry off Daenerys)? Daenerys and Aemon were no Aegon II and Rhaenyra, but what about the people at court who have reasons to back either Daenerys or Aemon? Daemon Blackfyre seemed to have no ill feelings toward Daeron II, and yet he still rebelled against him. 

Daenerys and Aemon were supposed to marry each other.

Daemon Blackfyre had clashes with his royal half-brother. I doubt they liked each other very much.

Jaehaerys I was one of the most powerful kings in Westerosi history. He could pass over his granddaughter for his younger son, he could just as well passed over all his sons in favor of his eldest daughter if he had wanted to do that. Just as dragonless Nymeria could force the Dornishmen to first accept her as their ruler (rather than see power being transferred to her eldest daughter by Mors Martell upon her husband's death) and later ensure that Sunspear and all Dorne passed to said daughter upon her own death.

On 1/3/2019 at 10:47 PM, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

Messing up with the succession is a recipe for disaster. If Jaehaerys took the throne by stepping over a sister and two nieces, then it is only logical that this model of primogeniture should be followed so there won't be any questions of succession. Alysanne's suggestion could had easily led to war between two or even three Targaryen lines.

It is made pretty clear that the crucial thing in most questions of succession is not law and custom, but actual royal favoritism - meaning a lord or king actually treating one of his children or brothers or other king as his heir. That is the deciding factor, more than anything else. Aenys Targaryen was a weakling unfit to actually inherit the throne of his father but he was the unquestioned heir to the Iron Throne because Aegon the Conqueror treated him as his heir. Tyrion Lannister should be the heir of Casterly Rock but since Lord Tywin does neither acknowledge nor accept nor treat him as his heir he is not, in fact, the heir to Casterly Rock.

Aegon the Elder should have been his father's heir in the mind of many - but he wasn't. Rhaenyra was her father's heir and everybody knew that.

Successions are the Achilles' heel of any monarchy because even if the heir is clear there is no new king until the king is made and securely in power.

If Aerea had lived and Jaehaerys' sons had all died without issue then his succession would have also been pretty convoluted never mind that Aerea never rose to the throne. If she had outlived Jaehaerys she could have laid claim to the throne after him. That she was passed over once doesn't mean she cannot try again. Same goes for any children she may have had. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So, it's probably been discussed, but does the apoearance of Alyssa Targaryen, daughter of Jahaerys and Alysanne, pretty much prove Tyrion is the son of Aerys? Or is GRRM messing with us?

Edited by Urien the Ragged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Urien the Ragged said:

So, it's probably been discussed, but does the apoearance of Alyssa Targaryen, daughter of Jahaerys and Alysanne, pretty much prove Tyrion is the son of Aerys? Or is GRRM messing with us?

@Ran wants to believe he is messing with us. I say Shiera Seastar's mismatched eyes could have been a coincidence, making her more exotic/beautiful. Alyssa Targaryen is a pattern, as is the entire story about Joanna/Aerys in TWoIaF and ADwD. And it is very telling that Alyssa's eyes are purple and green. Since there are no green-eyed ancestors of Alysanne and Jaehaerys mentioned (the Masseys we know of have blue eyes) this could even be seen as a hint that the singer/mummer/mime who may have been the true father of King Aenys may have been a fair-haired, green-haired man from Lannisport going by the name of Hill.

We have no reason to believe George is deliberately misdirecting us about the true parentage of a character by using pretty subtle clues. He never did that before anywhere in the books, did he?

If we seriously doubt the possibility that Tyrion is Aerys' son we could basically use the same argument to dismiss the possibility that Rhaegar and Lyanna are Jon's parents. After all, just as Aerys and Joanna may have had an affair once, Rhaegar and Lyanna could have had an affair/be married without ever conceiving a child or with said child being stillborn or dying in infancy.

There may be some red herrings in TWoIaF - perhaps even the three dragon eyes Rhaena lost - but I don't think this is one of them. The Tyrion idea rests on more clues than just Alyssa's eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×