Jump to content
Maia

New information in FaB and it's implications for the novels/novellas

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Is it? I don't recall any indication that it is illegal in the North. But regardless, even before Targaryen exceptionalism, strong followers of the Faith like the Hightowers and Arryns, as well as King Durrandon, freely offered up their own as an additional wife to Aegon. What is a prohibited sin to the realm is not a prohibited sin to the Targaryens.

We don't know whether it is 'illegal' as such, but we do know it is not part of their custom to have more than one wife. There are no polygamous kings or lords known in the North. Even before the Andals the only known First Men kings to have more than one wife at the time where Gardeners and Durrandons (or rather: a bastard Durrandon king). There is no such precedent for a lord or king in the North.

In the end, though, it doesn't really matter all that much. Rhaegar married Elia in the Great Sept in a ceremony officiated by the High Septon himself. He was supposed to have one wife and one wife only. The Northmen may have accepted Lyanna as his second wife, but the people following the Seven may have had severe issues with that. At least while he was still a prince.

And further: the status of the child of the Rhaegar-Lyanna union is completely in the air, especially if this second wedding had been done in secret without any public announcement.

Which is actually part of the reason why I assume that Rhaegar actually married Lyanna in public or at least announced that he had taken her as a second wife, very much like Maegor did after the deed was done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, in the past few days, I've come to think that the reason Rhaegar was gone for so long was because he was trying to force everyone's hand into accepting his marriage to Lyanna. It's not like no one in his family has ever done that before. And I don't think the High Septon was the problem in this case. We have seen High Septons be willing to bend the rules when they needed to, like with Duncan and Jenny or absolving Aemon from his maester and NW vows.

The problem would have been Aerys's small council.

I still think Elia was set to join the Faith after her condition was revealed. 

Edited by Alexis-something-Rose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very simple, and not as complicated or convoluted as argued by some who love to hear themselves speculate.

Rhaegar faces only political consequences for taking a second wife and fathering a child on her. His Targaryen father might threaten to disinherit him and remove him from the succession. His Martell wife's family might threaten to renounce fealty to the Iron Throne and threaten violence. His still hypothetical Stark wife's family might threaten the same. Lords that support one of these parties or see an opportunity to gain something from supporting them in opposition to Rhaegar's actions might lend their voices to their causes.

By no means is a decision by Rhaegar to wed a second wife and father a child on her a decision without consequences, especially when he is but a prince, and he is doing so without the permission of his father the king, his Martell wife and her family, and the father and family of his Stark woman he abducted. But it is a decision that need not be concerned with religious consequences, and the stain of religious sin or illegitimacy. That ship sunk long ago when it comes to the Targaryens.

The Faith and the whole realm had already long ago accepted the Doctrine of Targaryen Exceptionalism nearly two and a half centuries before Rhaegar would have wed Lyanna, and they had continued to support Targaryens who wed siblings and were born to siblings for nearly a century and a half after the death of the last Targaryen dragon.

That includes the much beloved Rhaegar, born to two straight generations of sibling incest between Aerys II/Rhaella, Jaehaerys II/Shaera, descended from the sibling incest of Aegon IV/Naerys, the sibling incest of Baelon/Alyssa, the sibling incest of Jaehaerys I/Alysanne, and from the polygamous sibling incest of Aegon I and his second wife Rhaenys.

The Faith of 283 AC had no basis or power to prohibit, invalidate, or delegitimize such a union, or a child born of such a union, any more than they had the power to retroactively prohibit, invalidate, or delegitimize Rhaegar, Aerys, Rhaella, and their incestuous predecessors. Only in 300 AC does the Faith even begin to resemble something that might wish or have the power to overturn the Doctrine of Targaryen Exceptionalism. That remains to be seen.

If you wish to cling to such an untenable position as expressed, by all means, have fun. Such baseless speculation is of no interest to me,.

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

I think Martin uses prophecy more as a literary device than plot device, but either way I agree this is an Easter egg and meant to be no more than that. 

 

Either that or Lys. Maybe some suitor would present himself to Dany claiming descent from Saera. It is implied that she came to thrive. I am not sure if that necessarily meant happiness. I got two impressions from Saera. That she was capable enough not to simply fade away under any circumstances and that much of what she did up to and including becoming a prostitute in Lys and particularly her gimmick was meant as a middle finger to her father. 

If we reach back to I think a couple of years ago now, GRRM did some charity thing for the wolf sanctuary and one ‘prize’ was to be written into WoW and killed off. One of the two persons I believe chose to be someone of Valyrian descent. It would be pretty nifty if they ended up a descendant of Saera! 

Could even work as a suitor to Dany if he comes in all cocksure gung ho and Drogon decides to go ahead and devour him :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody doubts that a King Rhaegar could have, perhaps, forced his subjects to accept both Elia and Lyanna (or only Lyanna) as his queen, and his children by Lyanna as legitimate royal children. But even if that happened - what's the will and the wishes of a king worth when the king is dead? Would have a child of Elinor Costayne, Jeyne Westerling, Tyanna of the Tower, or Alys Harroway ever sat the Iron Throne, or would have such children has great a chance to ascend the Iron Throne as Princess Aerea? What about Viserys I's wishes that Rhaenyra succeed him, or Robert's that Eddard Stark serve as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm?

We don't know that - and we don't know what the Realm would have thought of the brats of Rhaegar the Bigamist while his body was getting cold...

But it never came to that. It is irrelevant what Rhaegar could have done. It is relevant what he actually did. His second marriage either took place in secret (which makes it very much a non-existing marriage) or the birth of his child was at least successfully erased from history by Eddard Stark.

The idea that a majority of the people in Westeros suddenly consider the fruit of a (secret) polygamous union legitimate is as likely as the average American baptist having no issue with the polygamous marriages of some backwater Mormon sect. One (or two, if one wants to count Maegor the Usurper as a proper precedent a king descended from Aenys and Jaehaerys I would want draw upon) precedent(s) in the past don't make a rule. Westeros is a continent where the royal family can practice incest. That had been confirmed. That flies. Polygamy doesn't even remotely have the same status. It is not part of the Doctrine of Exceptionalism and the guy writing said Doctrine - King Jaehaerys I - wasn't exactly in favor of polygamy.

People could prattle all day long why Prince Rhaegar may have had precedent and the right to do that, but that is not going to cause the average Joe - and by that I mean most lords of the Realm - to cheer and hail both this polygamous union nor any children born from that. And this is my major issue - I don't care what a living Prince Rhaegar may have tried to do, or what a King Rhaegar may have done. I care about how Jon Snow and Rhaegar/Lyanna's marriage may be seen by the public once the story gets out (assuming the marriage was secret).

It is not about what the Faith decrees, it is about what the majority of the people of Westeros consider to be right and proper behavior. What they accept in a prince or in a king. There is a reason why Duncan the Small had to pay for his wife with his future throne.

Even if there were a bunch of people who want to see Rhaegar's second marriage as valid and 'Jon Snow' as a royal prince there could - and should be - twenty people against polygamy for any one who is in favor of this thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More baseless speculation. The prohibitions and sins that apply to others do not apply to Targaryens. You are in serious denial if you think people who accept Targaryen incest are gonna put their foot down about polygamy over religious beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

More baseless speculation. The prohibitions and sins that apply to others do not apply to Targaryens.

That's the root of it. The Doctrine of Exceptionalism provides an out for the Faith to support the offspring of a polygamous marriage as being legitimate if circumstances put them in a situation where the Faith had to make such a choice. They have a precedent for saying that those of Targaryen blood are a people apart, a people whom the gods judge differently than other men.

It certainly allows a lot of wiggle room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the motherhouse in Gulltown where lords send their bastard daughters will be relevant in Alayne arc. It is outright a reference to Alayne Stone imo. 

 

Gulltown seems so boring compared to other cities so GRRM is filling it with things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

More baseless speculation. The prohibitions and sins that apply to others do not apply to Targaryens. You are in serious denial if you think people who accept Targaryen incest are gonna put their foot down about polygamy over religious beliefs.

Show us how the Doctrine of Exceptionalism favors or supports or condones polygamy.

Show us that the average person in Westeros likes the idea of a polygamous Heir Apparent or king.

Without that, there is no argument there to be made.

My argument is that people going against social norms - and the social norm on marriage is monogamy in Westeros, for peasants, merchants, knights, lords, princes, and even kings (two exceptions from the rule on the kingly level do not change the rule) - are not going to be cheered for it. If you want applause, support, love, and praise you fucking do as people expect of you, you don't go against expectations or behave like a mad eccentric.

Westeros could be made to accept Targaryen incest. But other queer things are not accepted. Foreign wives like Larra Rogare are a no go, just as spouses following other gods. They will be vilified and quickly enough hounded out of the land (the male Rogares are already gone, Larra will soon follow). You also don't marry a peasant if you want to rule (Jenny), and so on.

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

That's the root of it. The Doctrine of Exceptionalism provides an out for the Faith to support the offspring of a polygamous marriage as being legitimate if circumstances put them in a situation where the Faith had to make such a choice. They have a precedent for saying that those of Targaryen blood are a people apart, a people whom the gods judge differently than other men.

It certainly allows a lot of wiggle room.

Sure, authorities can decide what they want if they see reason to do so. There is no question that Rhaegar could, under the right circumstances, have convinced everybody to see (his version of) reason there.

My point just is that this is very unlikely to happen without good cause or without sufficient pressure. And since Rhaegar is dead there is no such pressure there, nor does it seem to have been there while he was alive (if the whole thing was a secret marriage).

The people of Westeros are not going to applaud and cheer Jon Snow as the rightful and trueborn son of Lyanna Stark, lawful second wife of Prince Rhaegar, unless they have to. Just as they didn't say 'Well, if Queen Rhaenyra has legitimized Alyn of Hull we'll never again mention he was born a bastard and will henceforth treat as if he was the trueborn son of Laenor Velaryon.' Or take Bloodraven as another example.

What motivation anyone in Westeros could have to find polygamy great I don't really know.

In fact, at this point the only scenario I can see the 'Jon Snow' thing can be spun in favor of the legitimate Targaryen side in a political meaningful way is if polygamy lands on the table even before the Jon Snow thing becomes a politically interesting thing. Perhaps with Dany, perhaps with Aegon.

But somebody in the series is actually going to go down the polygamy road. If there is a recent precedent for this then Rhaegar's deeds might make more sense.

Or, perhaps, it will turn out that Rhaegar-Lyanna were a public precedent after all. They married out in the open or Rhaegar later announced it publicly and Aerys II and the High Septon were okay with it, too, for some reason. Then the only issue in the Jon Snow will be to prove that he is Lyanna's son by Rhaegar, and not also that they were married and that their marriage is considered to be as legitimate as any other monogamous marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs.Grumpy said:

I think the motherhouse in Gulltown where lords send their bastard daughters will be relevant in Alayne arc. It is outright a reference to Alayne Stone imo. 

 

Gulltown seems so boring compared to other cities so GRRM is filling it with things.

I admit, I'm curious to see Gulltown. We have a bit of sense of Lannisport, but Gulltown has been fairly avoided in terms of getting any story details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mrs.Grumpy said:

I think the motherhouse in Gulltown where lords send their bastard daughters will be relevant in Alayne arc. It is outright a reference to Alayne Stone imo. 

 

Gulltown seems so boring compared to other cities so GRRM is filling it with things.

I forgot about that. Martin seems to be setting some background for Sansa's cover story, starting with Alys Turnbury delivering probably Roy Connington's red haired daughter beofr being married off to a lord similar to LF in stature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

 You are in serious denial if you think people who accept Targaryen incest are gonna put their foot down about polygamy over religious beliefs.

At the same time the Doctrine of Exceptionalism didn't stretch to the acceptance of Prince Duncan's marriage with  a commoner, nor did any Targaryen king since Maegor test it with polygamy, not even the Unworthy, for some reason. You'd think he would have tried... We have yet to see how the alleged son of Aemond and Alys Rivers fares, who is also supposedly a product of a secret marriage.

I also very much suspect that Brandon Stark wasn't convinced -  since given all the new historical precedents from FaB it is almost certain that Starks were informed as soon as the marriage was done and Aerys may have been as well. Rhaegar and Lyanna were trying to follow Jaehaerys and Alysanne's script, it seems - only, given the lack of dragons, they had to hide better. It also makes a sort of mad sense that Aerys considered Brandon a traitor despite his own very strained relationship with his heir - Brandon was attacking the very doctrine that provided the king's own legitimacy. 

To me, given the new facts it now seems that Rhaegar might have been able to establish his bigamy as legal if he had lived and|or if either Aerys or the Starks had publicly supported him. As is, all the evidence  - if it even exists, given that it looks like all the witnesses are dead and documents can be easily falsified, both of Jon's parentage and of existence and validity of his parents' marriage are going to be suspect and open to questioning.

All the historical false princes aren't going to help either, nor will Ned's secrecy about Jon's mother, since even if Jon mounts a dragon, it leaves the door open for him to be a dragonseed through his mother.

That is not to say that some wouldn't believe in Jon's claim even so, but it would be very far from universal acclamation and far from what he could have gotten if his parents marriage had been made public at the time and the 3 KG from the ToJ had taken him into exile in Essos as a baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that motherhouse in Gulltown be the place where 'Alayne Stone' was raised in her cover story?

The only way for the 'Jon Snow story' to turn into the Targaryen direction is if key Targaryens - Aegon, Dany, Tyrion, and/or their people - end up buying, accepting, and embracing the story. If Dany publicly embraced Jon Snow, calling him 'my beloved nephew (and consort)' (or Aegon him 'my beloved brother') then a majority of the lords and people might be willing to take this completely outlandish story at face value.

How eager people are to see people associated with bastardy - and Jon's cover story is going to stick, there will always be people who don't buy his story and continue to see him as Ned Stark's bastard - as lords or rulers can be seen with Alyn Velaryon during the Regency era.

And Jon's greatest issue is that he doesn't look like a Targaryen at all. Aegon does, and he is (supposed to be) the son of Rhaegar everybody knew about. Jon's very existence is part of the outlandish story of his conception and birth. He is not somebody who merely was believed to be dead, he is somebody nobody ever knew even existed.

A dragon certainly could help, but a dragon could also mean he ends like Hugh or Ulf.

And if people don't want to believe he is Rhaegar's son they could go with 'he is some great-great-grandson of the Unworthy from a lowborn whore' or just take a page out of Rhaenyra's book - claim that he has no dragonlord blood at all and bound the dragon to his will using sorcery (like Nettles supposedly did with both Sheepstealer and Daemon). Depending on how much Targaryen blood the Daynes have they could also just insist Ashara Dayne was his mother after all.

Share this post


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

Wouldn't that motherhouse in Gulltown be the place where 'Alayne Stone' was raised in her cover story?

The only way for the 'Jon Snow story' to turn into the Targaryen direction is if key Targaryens - Aegon, Dany, Tyrion, and/or their people - end up buying, accepting, and embracing the story. If Dany publicly embraced Jon Snow, calling him 'my beloved nephew (and consort)' (or Aegon him 'my beloved brother') then a majority of the lords and people might be willing to take this completely outlandish story at face value.

How eager people are to see people associated with bastardy - and Jon's cover story is going to stick, there will always be people who don't buy his story and continue to see him as Ned Stark's bastard - as lords or rulers can be seen with Alyn Velaryon during the Regency era.

And Jon's greatest issue is that he doesn't look like a Targaryen at all. Aegon does, and he is (supposed to be) the son of Rhaegar everybody knew about. Jon's very existence is part of the outlandish story of his conception and birth. He is not somebody who merely was believed to be dead, he is somebody nobody ever knew even existed.

A dragon certainly could help, but a dragon could also mean he ends like Hugh or Ulf.

And if people don't want to believe he is Rhaegar's son they could go with 'he is some great-great-grandson of the Unworthy from a lowborn whore' or just take a page out of Rhaenyra's book - claim that he has no dragonlord blood at all and bound the dragon to his will using sorcery (like Nettles supposedly did with both Sheepstealer and Daemon). Depending on how much Targaryen blood the Daynes have they could also just insist Ashara Dayne was his mother after all.

Seems pretty obvious to me at this point that we are heading for another Great Council towards the end of the series, to pick a new King. 

And if by then we have a Stark in Winterfell, a Stark/Tully ruling Riverrun, a Vale under Sansa’s sway and Tyrion (Jon’s friend ) ruling the West, then we have Jon’s pathway to the Throne set quite clearly.

Especially if it comes after the War for the Dawn where he was a central leader of humanity’s salvation.

As I have always said, Jon won’t be a conqueror. He will be a ruler. He won’t crave power. He will grudgingly accept it out of duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think there will be another Great Council but who will organize it? Maybe it’s Willas’ future role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seems pretty obvious to me at this point that we are heading for another Great Council towards the end of the series, to pick a new King.

But this is not about what we think might happen in the end. It is about the implications certain things in FaB can have on the plot - what kind of plots can make sense in light of the new information.

As of that we have:

1. A man in the service of Lord Varys Strong (Perkin the Flea) claiming his squire/charge is the son of a Targaryen (Trystane Truefyre). This may be a nod to Jon Connington and Aegon.

2. I always thought the riot that ended Rhaenyra's reign in KL is foreshadowing for another such riot ending the reign of a king or queen in our series. With the details of Lord Varys Strong being one of the main hands behind the riots - both by spreading lies about Rhaenyra as well as by instigating the riots directly through Ser Perkin - and the revelation that it was the news about Queen Helaena's death (and the alleged manner of it) that caused things to explode, this might be a hint as to what the Varys-instigated riot in KL in favor of Aegon and against the Tyrells/Lannisters might cause - the unexpected and cruel death of a popular figure at court, perhaps even a queen. Myrcella could fit the bill if she were both popular and well-known, which she isn't. Tommen is not known by the crowds, either, nor is loved (the sparrows openly despise him). Cersei is out of the question - that would basically leave Queen Margaery.

3. The entire episode of Aegon III being besieged in Maegor's Holdfast could provide the background for a similar setting of a 'civil war' taking place within the Red Keep itself, in the wake of Kevan and Pycelle's murder, with possibly Cersei and Tommen taking refuge in there while Mace commands the rest of the castle. Considering that there is a secret escape route there this could be how Cersei (and Tommen?) get out of the castle and city when Aegon finally takes the Iron Throne. Perhaps we get the 'Margaery is cruelly killed' scenario in connection to this considering that as queen Margaery should also reside in Maegor's Holdfast. If Cersei somehow contrived to seize the control of the castle within the castle (and given certain machinations done by Qyburn and especially with the help of Ser Robert Strong this could technically be done) then a 'Justice for Margaery!'-riot could possibly be spun in favor of Aegon if that's done after the majority of the Tyrell army has left KL (and already been defeated by) the Golden Company and their allies.

13 minutes ago, Mrs.Grumpy said:

I also think there will be another Great Council but who will organize it? Maybe it’s Willas’ future role.

If there is one such Great Council I find it much more likely it is going to be called to bring the guys together in the fight against the Others rather than to talk mundane and irrelevant politics after the War for the Dawn has been won.

I mean, seriously, how likely is it that more than one proper claimant to the Iron Throne (or perhaps a married couple) will be left after all is said and done? Stannis will be gone, Shireen will be gone (and neither Stannis nor especially Shireen were very popular claimants, anyway - nobody would have to call a Great Council to get rid of them), Edric Storm is a joke, Aegon will be likely either dead or revealed to be not Rhaegar's son, any children of Aegon's should be too young to have any support, and Euron should be dead, too (never mind that he doesn't really have a claim).

If Jon Snow and/or Daenerys will lead the war against the Others they will effectively rule the Seven Kingdoms anyway - even if they don't sit or hold the Iron Throne during that time. They won't need some council to confirm that afterwards. And if people band together to fight against the Others then any rival claimants would either be killed before that or reduced to insignificance during that fighting. Neither is a good background for a Great Council.

But a discussion about the Others and the dangers they pose and what should be done about them in addition to discussing the various claims that would be on the table at that particular time - that could make some sense.

 

Share this post


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

But this is not about what we think might happen in the end. It is about the implications certain things in FaB can have on the plot - what kind of plots can make sense in light of the new information.

As of that we have:

1. A man in the service of Lord Varys Strong (Perkin the Flea) claiming his squire/charge is the son of a Targaryen (Trystane Truefyre). This may be a nod to Jon Connington and Aegon.

2. I always thought the riot that ended Rhaenyra's reign in KL is foreshadowing for another such riot ending the reign of a king or queen in our series. With the details of Lord Varys Strong being one of the main hands behind the riots - both by spreading lies about Rhaenyra as well as by instigating the riots directly through Ser Perkin - and the revelation that it was the news about Queen Helaena's death (and the alleged manner of it) that caused things to explode, this might be a hint as to what the Varys-instigated riot in KL in favor of Aegon and against the Tyrells/Lannisters might cause - the unexpected and cruel death of a popular figure at court, perhaps even a queen. Myrcella could fit the bill if she were both popular and well-known, which she isn't. Tommen is not known by the crowds, either, nor is loved (the sparrows openly despise him). Cersei is out of the question - that would basically leave Queen Margaery.

3. The entire episode of Aegon III being besieged in Maegor's Holdfast could provide the background for a similar setting of a 'civil war' taking place within the Red Keep itself, in the wake of Kevan and Pycelle's murder, with possibly Cersei and Tommen taking refuge in there while Mace commands the rest of the castle. Considering that there is a secret escape route there this could be how Cersei (and Tommen?) get out of the castle and city when Aegon finally takes the Iron Throne. Perhaps we get the 'Margaery is cruelly killed' scenario in connection to this considering that as queen Margaery should also reside in Maegor's Holdfast. If Cersei somehow contrived to seize the control of the castle within the castle (and given certain machinations done by Qyburn and especially with the help of Ser Robert Strong this could technically be done) then a 'Justice for Margaery!'-riot could possibly be spun in favor of Aegon if that's done after the majority of the Tyrell army has left KL (and already been defeated by) the Golden Company and their allies.

If there is one such Great Council I find it much more likely it is going to be called to bring the guys together in the fight against the Others rather than to talk mundane and irrelevant politics after the War for the Dawn has been won.

I mean, seriously, how likely is it that more than one proper claimant to the Iron Throne (or perhaps a married couple) will be left after all is said and done? Stannis will be gone, Shireen will be gone (and neither Stannis nor especially Shireen were very popular claimants, anyway - nobody would have to call a Great Council to get rid of them), Edric Storm is a joke, Aegon will be likely either dead or revealed to be not Rhaegar's son, any children of Aegon's should be too young to have any support, and Euron should be dead, too (never mind that he doesn't really have a claim).

If Jon Snow and/or Daenerys will lead the war against the Others they will effectively rule the Seven Kingdoms anyway - even if they don't sit or hold the Iron Throne during that time. They won't need some council to confirm that afterwards. And if people band together to fight against the Others then any rival claimants would either be killed before that or reduced to insignificance during that fighting. Neither is a good background for a Great Council.

But a discussion about the Others and the dangers they pose and what should be done about them in addition to discussing the various claims that would be on the table at that particular time - that could make some sense.

 

You simplify matters too much. Likely influenced by your overriding belief that Daenerys will have such an ovewhelming horde of Easterners and Dragons that no serious effort will need to be expended to get the approval of the Lords of Westeros.

Whenever this Great Council happens, it will be Westerosi who decide the future ruler of Westeros. Not some foreign horde.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You simplify matters too much. Likely influenced by your overriding belief that Daenerys will have such an ovewhelming horde of Easterners and Dragons that no serious effort will need to be expended to get the approval of the Lords of Westeros.

Whenever this Great Council happens, it will be Westerosi who decide the future ruler of Westeros. Not some foreign horde.

Nope. I really don't care who ends up on the throne - it could be Moon Boy for all I care. If Moon Boy were to lead humanity against the Others and won then I also think he not ask some lords for their approval to worship. He would be like Jesus Come Again, like Azor Ahai Reborn. More god than man.

Share this post


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

Nope. I really don't care who ends up on the throne - it could be Moon Boy for all I care. If Moon Boy were to lead humanity against the Others and won then I also think he not ask some lords for their approval to worship. He would be like Jesus Come Again, like Azor Ahai Reborn. More god than man.

Moving along (because not sure how to address a statement like the above), my broader point is merely that the Great Council was likely introduced to set the scene for the election of a new king in the current series.

And that would only be a significant and dramatic event justifying the set up and page time devoted to it, if the outcome was in doubt, with contending claimants all with realistic prospects of succeeding. In other words, the opposite of a Divine Saviour / All powerful Dragon Queen that sweeps all resistance away.

In fact, I can see the outcome going down to the wire, until Tyrion as Lord of the West breaks the tie to support his friend Jon in an act of redemption for his character.

And who knows, maybe Jaime as Lord Commander of the Kings Guard has the final say in some way, exlaining George’s somewhat out of place yet dramatic namedropping of Cristen Cole “the Kingmaker” in Jaime’s White Book chapter.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Moving along (because not sure how to address a statement like the above), my broader point is merely that the Great Council was likely introduced to set the scene for the election of a new king in the current series.

Kings are not really 'elected' at Great Councils in the series. Those are not Kingsmoots. Those are gatherings to discuss issues the king actually wants an opinion on, not be it the succession of the king or some other important issue. In that sense I think the concept might come up again in the future, but it would actually be a mistake to misinterpret especially the Great Council of 101 AC (what Yandel called the 'Great Council' of 136 AC in TWoIaF actually turned out not a Great Council as such but rather an informal gathering of a lot of lords that might be called a Great Council.

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

×