R + L = J v.167

[SerTarod]

14 hours ago, Ygrain said:

 

Those insinuations tend to be based on a sense of elitism ("I know better"), rather than on the actual reading of the text.

Simultaneously you have also described yourself and those of a like mind who appear to engage in concerted attacks on anyone who thinks differently. 

 

[Ygrain]

52 minutes ago, SerTarod said:

I am curious. Could you clarify the bolden please. Is it a case of the KG questioning the messenger or the source? 

Given your other comment, are you sure you are interested in a response?

 

[SerTarod]

I am not fussed. But to clarify on my request, I read your statement to be that the KG gets to chose which orders they will follow or recognise.

[Ygrain]

36 minutes ago, SerTarod said:

I am not fussed. But to clarify on my request, I read your statement to be that the KG gets to chose which orders they will follow or recognise.

You are reading correctly. I think that with Dayne and Whent, their choice had already been made (though they probably tried to stick to their oaths to Aerys as much as they could). Hightower, the "you swore to protect the king, not judge him" guy, though... but we have Barristan also reassessing his actions and loyalties, though had been a stickler for rules. I don't think it out of the realm of possibility that the three men decided they would follow the usual succession rules, rather than the whim of a mad king who chose an heir already showing the same inclinations as himself. 

However, since we haven't heard about Aerys' choice in the series proper, I think it is quite probable that the news didn't spread much and the KG simply didn't know.

[SerTarod]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

You are reading correctly. I think that with Dayne and Whent, their choice had already been made (though they probably tried to stick to their oaths to Aerys as much as they could). Hightower, the "you swore to protect the king, not judge him" guy, though... but we have Barristan also reassessing his actions and loyalties, though had been a stickler for rules. I don't think it out of the realm of possibility that the three men decided they would follow the usual succession rules, rather than the whim of a mad king who chose an heir already showing the same inclinations as himself. 

However, since we haven't heard about Aerys' choice in the series proper, I think it is quite probable that the news didn't spread much and the KG simply didn't know.

 Cheers, I agree with your comment (in bold). 

[lehutin]

7 hours ago, BRANDON GREYSTARK said:

Then what does murdering of  Bran has to do with Cercei's children ?

Sorry, I don't understand your thought process here. What does your question have to do with Ned not listing Jon together with "Robb and Sansa and Arya and Bran and Rickon" when Cersei asks Ned, "you love your children, do you not?"

 

In any case, Jaime attempted to murder Bran to prevent the possibility that Bran would reveal the Jaime/Cersei incest.

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, HugorHell said:

We've seen Martin do this before. Early precedent gets overturned. Things fans thought could only mean X, turn out to mean something else.

After five books, there was no sign that Aerys' heir after the Trident was anybody but Aegon. We would have said all the clues pointed to Aegon.  We could have cited numerous passages making this case.

To be sure, it was never really sure who the king's heir was since we have the concept of a Great Council assessing and dismissing various claims since ACoK. No text ever established that a grandson of a king always comes before a younger son - that kind of thing was modern thinking (there being actually fixed rules of succession and an actual clear line of succession) imposed on the text, something that's not there in the text.

But it is one thing to tacitly assume little Aegon may have been the Mad King's heir after the death of Rhaegar and quite another to assume being the heir makes him the king after the death of his grandfather.

And to be sure, it is rather interesting how certain people pick and choose what the KG at the tower may have known (that Aegon and Rhaenys were dead) and what they wouldn't have known (that the Mad King named a new heir two weeks before the Sack) when in fact it stands to reason that the latter information is more likely to have reached them by what obscure means they used to gather information (considering the time that passed and their interest in Targaryen stuff) while the former stuff clearly would have been something the victorious rebels wouldn't exactly have communicated on all channels available to them considering how bad and butchery that would make them look. Robert technically could be crowned king without even announcing to a broader public that Rhaenys and Aegon were dead.

22 hours ago, HugorHell said:

Then the World book came along. It plainly said Aerys named Viserys his heir, not Aegon. Whoops. (This also killed the argument that the kingsguard fought Ned because Jon was the true Targ king.)

This idea was always crap ... and we didn't need TWoIaF for that to come out, ADwD already did that for us, when it came out that Aegon's gang doesn't refer to him as King Aegon VI but rather modestly just as Prince Aegon. They think he is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, alright, but they don't see him as a king yet. Aegon isn't even a king by the time he named his first Kingsguard in Rolly Duckfield. He is still a prince.

If Connington and company who actually want to make their Aegon a king do not consider him a king before he is crowned, then the three guys at the tower also wouldn't have thought Lya's child was a king. They certainly may have thought he could or perhaps should be a king one day, that he could be a pretender, that they would even support his bid for the throne, but it is pretty ludicrous to assume they would be taking/proclaiming/crowning an infant their king without double-checking with the remnants of the actual royal family first. That would turn those morons into dialed-up versions of evil Criston Cole doing their best to put the remnants of House Targaryen against each other (Queen Rhaella on Dragonstone would not double-check with some KG in the middle of nowhere before crowning her son the new king).

It is a naive and simplistic view to assume those guys would have to believe the infant they may have been protecting is a king when all they needed to do that was their vows and an order by Rhaegar or Aerys II or whoever else they thought was in charge to do what they did.

[Megorova]

22 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

We are told that at the time of the rebbellion Aerys only visited Rhaella's bed chamber when he burned someone.  After Jaime stood guard over Rhaella's (or at least presumably Rhaella) rape he didn't see her again until the morning she left for Dragonstone.

So assuming this is Dany's conception, the conception had to take place prior to the Battle of the Trident because Jon Darry was standing next to Jaime.

George has pretty much used a fortnight (two weeks) as the standard of time it took to travel to the area around the fork.  That's how long it took Ned to get to King's Landing from the battle, and that's how long it took Cat and Rodrik to travel to the Inn at the crossroads.

So at the bare minimum a month had to elapse between the time that Chelsted was burned and that Dany was allegedly conceived and the time it took for Ned to get to King's Landing.

So then we can surmise that Jon's birth should have taken place at the minimum two weeks prior to the Battle of the Trident up to the time that Ned arrived at King's Landing.

Everything wrong.

We are told that at the time of Rebellion Aerys always visited Rhaella's chambers on those days when he burned someone. Which doesn't mean that he didn't visited her on other days, days when he didn't burned anyone.

Chronological order of those events:

1. Qarlton Chelsted found out about the wildfire plot and resigned from his post. Aerys burned him and later that night raped Rhaella. While Jaime and Jonothor Darry were outside of her room.

2. Rhaegar and Darry went to Trident.

3. Rhaegar was killed in the battle.

4. Aerys received information about Rhaegar's death, and sent Rhaella with Viserys to Dragonstone. Their departure from King's Landing happened 9 months prior Dany's birth.

5. Jon's birth. Either at the time of Rhaella's departure to Dragonstone (if he is 9 months older than Dany), or one month after it (if he is 8 months older than Dany).

Fulltermed pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, that's 280 days, which is actually more than 9 months. If Planetos' months are 30 days long (according to one of Arya's chapters in Braavos), then the duration of pregnancy is 9 months (280 : 30 = 9,33) and 10 days.

Which means that Dany was conceived ~10 days prior the day of Rhaella's departure from King's Landing.

AGOT, Dany I - "The midnight flight to Dragonstone, ... She had been born on Dragonstone nine moons after their flight, ..."

Aerys sent Rhaella to Dragonstone already after they got news about Rhaegar's death. Which means that it happened at least 14 days after the day of Qarlton Chelsted's burning (because Rhaegar needed ~14 days to get from KL to Trident, +how many days passed between Rhaegar's death and his family receiving news about it). Thus Dany was conceived after Rhaegar's departure to Trident. Not on the night when Aerys burned his ex-Hand, and Jonothor Darry was still at King's Landing. The conception happened 4+ days later.

 

Speed of horses - traveling on level terrain, on roads, average speed 40 miles per day; thru mountainous terrain, 20 miles per day.

From Trident Ned went to KL - 435 miles/40 = 10,9 days.

From KL to Storm's End - same 435 miles = 10,9 days.

From Storm's End to the Tower of Joy - either 570 miles thru land-route (570/20 = 28,5 days), or by sea-route (either around Stormlands 1045 nautical miles, 1045/5/24 = 8,7 days + 35 more miles thru untrailed marshlands, 10 miles per day, 3,5 days; 12,2 days in total; or 170 miles to Grandview, 170/20 = 8,5 days, from there by ship or boat 495 nautical miles, 495/5/24 = 4,13 days + 3,5 days thru mountains; 16,13 days in total).

So it took Ned approximately 2-4 weeks (12-29 days) to get to the Tower of Joy, depending on the route he took.

 

After arriving to Storm's End, Ned found out where Lyanna was, so he took the fastest route to get to her. Also afterwards he needed to somehow transport Lyanna's body, Wylla and newborn Jon. Thus, it seems more than likely, that from Storm's End to Dorne Ned traveled on a ship.

The distance between Trident and KL is approximately the same as between KL and Storm's End. In the books characters covered that distance in 14 days. So let's use this as a basis for further calculations. It took Ned ~28 days to get from Trident to Storm's End, and then additional 12-16 days to get to the Tower of Joy (via ship).  40-44 days in total.

Ned came to the Tower of Joy approximately 40-44 days after Rhaegar's death at Trident. 14 days out of that time Ned was going from Trident to King's Landing. Ned arrived to KL 26-30 days prior his arrival to the Tower of Joy. Though for sea-travel I was using average speed of 5 knots per hour, but medieval ships were able to sail up to 10+ knots per hour.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/TAPA/82/Speed_under_Sail_of_Ancient_Ships*.html

https://www.movehub.com/blog/largest-ships-history/

So Ned could have arrived from Storm's End to the Tower of Joy in just 1-2 weeks instead of 2-4. Though, even if he was traveling on a slower ship, he still could have arrived to the Tower of Joy less that 30 days after the Sack of King's Landing. ~26 days (14 days to Storm's End and 12,2 from there to the TofJ).

After Rhaegar got killed, several days passed before Targaryens received news about what happened. And possibly several more days passed before Aerys sent Rhaella to Dragonstone. Probably, he decided to send her to safety not when they got news about Rhaegar's death, but several more days later, when they got information that the rebel army is approaching King's Landing. Thus, it's likely that when Rhaella was departing to Dragonstone, Ned was already approaching King's Landing. It's even possible that he got there a day or two days after she was sent to Dragonstone. And 9 months later Dany was born. So, if Jon is 8 months older than Dany, then Ned had 30 days to get to Lyanna (before she gave birth to Jon) after his arrival to King's Landing. Could be that Ned found Lyanna hours after she gave birth to Jon, or even when she was still in labour, or maybe several days after she gave birth.

Dany was born 9 months after Rhaella's departure to Dragonstone. If Jon is 8 months older than Dany, then he was born 30 days after Rhaella left King's Landing. Ned could have arrived to the TofJ ~26 days after his departure from KL. If he arrived to KL a day or two after Rhaella's departure, then he had additional day or so to prepare for his journey from KL to Storm's End, and a day to find a ship that sailed him from Storm's End to Dorne.

This timing works. While your assumption, that Jon was born before the Battle at Trident, is wrong. You're also wrong that Dany was conceived on the night of Chelsted's burning. If that was the case, then the duration of Rhaella's pregnancy would have been more than 9 months and 14 days.

14 days between Rhaegar's departure and his arrival to Trident + how many days passed between the Battle at Trident and Rhaella's departure from KL + 9 months between her departure and Dany's birth.

There were rare cases when pregnancy lasted for more than 40 weeks/280 days/9 months + a few more days. Like 17 months long pregnancy, or 13 or 12 months long pregnancies. Though, I doubt that GRRM wrote into Rhaella's storyline a prolonged pregnancy. Why would he? To match your theory?  I doubt it.

Dany was conceived AFTER Rhaegar went to Trident. That night, mentioned by Jaime, wasn't the night of Dany's conception. She was conceived at least 4 days later. Or, most likely, even more than 4 days later.

If a month's duration on Planetos is always 30 days, and if in that world duration of pregnancy is exactly 9 months, then Dany was conceived one day before Rhaella left King's Landing. In this case the conception happened more than 14 days after Rhaegar's departure to Trident.

[corbon]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And to be sure, it is rather interesting how certain people pick and choose what the KG at the tower may have known (that Aegon and Rhaenys were dead) and what they wouldn't have known (that the Mad King named a new heir two weeks before the Sack) when in fact it stands to reason that the latter information is more likely to have reached them by what obscure means they used to gather information (considering the time that passed and their interest in Targaryen stuff) while the former stuff clearly would have been something the victorious rebels wouldn't exactly have communicated on all channels available to them considering how bad and butchery that would make them look. Robert technically could be crowned king without even announcing to a broader public that Rhaenys and Aegon were dead.

Riiiight.
So the victorious rebels are going to announce to the world that Aerys named Viserys his heir. because thats important for their westeros to know.
Or Aerys is going to be proclaiming to all westeros that he's just suffered a catastrophic defeat and loss and Rhaegar is dead and Viserys is the new heir over Aegon.

But the rebels aren't going to announce that Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon are dead "because that makes them 'butchery".
Never mind that its provides a good reason for 'loyalists' around the continent to lay down their arms and stop fighting. There's nothing left worth supporting.

Its funny how its always everyone else who is naive and simplistic...

 

[SFDanny]

6 hours ago, corbon said:

So the victorious rebels are going to announce to the world that Aerys named Viserys his heir. because thats important for their westeros to know.
Or Aerys is going to be proclaiming to all westeros that he's just suffered a catastrophic defeat and loss and Rhaegar is dead and Viserys is the new heir over Aegon.

But the rebels aren't going to announce that Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon are dead "because that makes them 'butchery".
Never mind that its provides a good reason for 'loyalists' around the continent to lay down their arms and stop fighting. There's nothing left worth supporting.

I have no doubt Rhaegar's death at the Trident goes far and wide across Westeros as fast as word can travel. Be that by raven or courier or word of mouth by people gossiping about the shocking news.

Nor do I think Aerys is likely to make his announcement of Viserys as his heir is some kind of closely guarded secret. Secret heirs are almost a contradiction in terms - Jon being a possible exception to this rule for obvious reasons discussed over and over again in these threads. Aerys also has the added motive of punishing the Dornish for his belief of their betrayal at the Trident. Aerys wants everyone to know he names the next king, not people disrespectful of his wishes or interests contrary to his. We have the example of both Robb's naming of Jon as his heir and asking his bannermen to witness his decree, and of Viserys I Targaryen calling his vassals to court to pledge their support of his daughter. Aerys has every reason to do the equivalent concerning his young son Viserys. Meaning to make it as widely known as he can under the circumstances.

The question is really, to me anyway, is the Tower of Joy so remote and without sources of information that the three Kingsguard don't know the news of the naming of Viserys. I find it hard to believe they are. Not only does Ned's dream seem to reflect his belief the Kingsguard knew of Aerys's death at the hands of Jaime, but they look to have known about Rhaegar's death, the surrender of the besiegers of Storm's End, and that Rhaella, Viserys, and Ser Willem are at Dragonstone. If Ned's dream is by and large mostly true, as I think it is, it makes if likely the news of Viserys as the new heir is also known at the Tower of Joy.

On top of this is the skills of the Kingsguard at the Tower. Both Hightower and Dayne, at least, are skilled military commanders who are unlikely to have left themselves with no sources of information from the outside world. Nor does the nature of the partisan political battles between Aerys and Rhaegar likely mean that Rhaegar has no supporters in the area of the Tower.

It does raise questions about the motivations of the Kingsguard. I've laid out my arguments of what I think those motivations are likely to be in my signature, so I won't repeat them here.

Edited August 19, 2020 by SFDanny

[Ygrain]

On 8/17/2020 at 5:54 PM, HugorHell said:

in the first four books "ice dragon" nearly always means the constellation.

But then in book five that situation changes. The exact same phrase suddenly takes on a new meaning:

All of a sudden we find out about ancient myths we never heard of before. Whoops.

This is a bit different, though - constellations are usually named after real things they resemble, or stuff from myths and lengends (which may have been real, as well, people just forgot). It's not a reveal of a new information or meaning when we learn that there are tales of ice dragons.

But you are right that those gradual reveals are just GRRM's thing, he does that all the time. Most notably for this thread, the way we learn about the exact nature of the blue roses that Ned keeps bringing up in connection with Lyanna.

[Alexis-something-Rose]

I don't think who knew what about Viserys being named Aerys's heir ahead of Aegon matters at all, because the next logical step after the deaths of Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon is to crown Viserys. The loyalists still had a king to fight for. Viserys was still there. He became the head of House Targaryen after the Sack. Did any of the loyalists travel to Dragonstone to show Rhaella and Viserys their support? Because it sure sounds like the new Targaryen king was abandoned by his loyal subjects.

I think for me it really begs the question of who the loyalists were fighting for in the end on the Trident. Were they fighting for Aerys? Or were they fighting for Rhaegar? House Targaryen lost everything not when Aerys died, but when Rhaegar died. All those reluctant lords who stayed out of the war went over to the rebels when Rhaegar died.  

The loyalists bent the knee instead of fighting for Viserys, who was now their rightful king. And the loyalists didn't even know what the three Kingsguard at the ToJ knew when they chose to lay down their arms and take Robert as their new king. 

One of the loyalists Houses, House Darry, keeps portraits of the Targaryen kings, from Aegon the Conqueror all the way down to Aerys II Targaryen, but no portrait of their young King Viserys III Targaryen? Why is that? He was their rightful king after all.

That tells me everything I need to know about Aerys's idea to bypass Aegon as his heir and name Viserys instead. The loyalists didn't seem to give a rat's ass about Viserys or what happened to him.

[Bael's Bastard]

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I have no doubt Rhaegar's death at the Trident goes far and wide across Westeros as fast as word can travel. Be that by raven or courier or word of mouth by people gossiping about the shocking news.

Nor do I think Aerys is likely to make his announcement of Viserys as his heir is some kind of closely guarded secret. Secret heirs are almost a contradiction in terms - Jon being a possible exception to this rule for obvious reasons discussed over and over again in these threads. Aerys also has the added motive of punishing the Dornish for his belief of their betrayal at the Trident. Aerys wants everyone to know he names the next king, not people disrespectful of his wishes or interests contrary to his. We have the example of both Robb's naming of Jon as his heir and asking his bannermen to witness his decree, and of Viserys I Targaryen calling his vassals to court to pledge their support of his daughter. Aerys has every reason to do the equivalent concerning his young son Viserys. Meaning to make it as widely known as he can under the circumstances.

The question is really, to me anyway, is the Tower of Joy so remote and without sources of information that the three Kingsguard don't know the news of the naming of Viserys. I find it hard to believe they are. Not only does Ned's dream seem to reflect his belief the Kingsguard knew of Aerys's death at the hands of Jaime, but they look to have known about Rhaegar's death, the surrender of the besiegers of Storm's End, and that Rhaella, Viserys, and Ser Willem are at Dragonstone. If Ned's dream is by and large mostly true, as I think it is, it makes if likely the news of Viserys as the new heir is also known at the Tower of Joy.

On top of this is the skills of the Kingsguard at the Tower. Both Hightower and Dayne, at least, are skilled military commanders who are unlikely to have left themselves with no sources of information from the outside world. Nor does the nature of the partisan political battles between Aerys and Rhaegar likely mean that Rhaegar has no supporters in the area of the Tower.

It does raise questions about the motivations of the Kingsguard. I've laid out my arguments of what I think those motivations are likely to be in my signature, so I won't repeat them here.

I agree, I think we must accept a few likely facts:

1. The 3 KG likely remained at the TOJ at the command of Rhaegar (the LC had been commanded there by Aerys, but IMO, remained at the command or persuasion of Rhaegar).

2. The 3 KG had already learned the info Ned questioned them about.

3. The LC of the KG was completely loyal to Aerys's kingship until his death.

4. All 3 KG fought to the death at the TOJ anyways.

[Lord Varys]

14 hours ago, corbon said:

Riiiight.
So the victorious rebels are going to announce to the world that Aerys named Viserys his heir. because thats important for their westeros to know.

Not the victorious rebels, the not-yet-defeated Mad King. Little Targaryen lackeys, like Dayne, Whent, and Hightower, would have been interested what their mad monarch had to say, no? Much more, in fact, than what the Usurper and his lackeys had to say.

14 hours ago, corbon said:

Or Aerys is going to be proclaiming to all westeros that he's just suffered a catastrophic defeat and loss and Rhaegar is dead and Viserys is the new heir over Aegon.

Of course he would do this, that is why a historian even knows about that.

14 hours ago, corbon said:

But the rebels aren't going to announce that Aerys and Rhaegar and Aegon are dead "because that makes them 'butchery".
Never mind that its provides a good reason for 'loyalists' around the continent to lay down their arms and stop fighting. There's nothing left worth supporting.

They have reason to continue the fight, actually, learning what they did to Elia and the children - especially the Dornish, but not only the Dornish. It is like Aegon II murdering Rhaenyra the way he did - that kind of thing can fuel fear and hatred, causing people to continue a fight, rather than motivate them to back down.

Like, you know, the Red Wedding didn't exactly motivate the Manderlys and many other Northmen and Riverlanders to be loyal little Bolton/Frey sycophants...

Announcing the death of the king, sure, that is necessary for Robert to send the message the war is over and the issue has been settled. But he doesn't have to tell anyone that the children are dead. He could just be silent about that.

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I have no doubt Rhaegar's death at the Trident goes far and wide across Westeros as fast as word can travel. Be that by raven or courier or word of mouth by people gossiping about the shocking news.

That is even a contentious issue, since we actually do hear that a lot of ravens flew after the Trident. What and how could reach the guys at the tower is a separate issue, since we really have no clue/way of knowing how isolated they were up there.

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Nor do I think Aerys is likely to make his announcement of Viserys as his heir is some kind of closely guarded secret. Secret heirs are almost a contradiction in terms - Jon being a possible exception to this rule for obvious reasons discussed over and over again in these threads. Aerys also has the added motive of punishing the Dornish for his belief of their betrayal at the Trident. Aerys wants everyone to know he names the next king, not people disrespectful of his wishes or interests contrary to his. We have the example of both Robb's naming of Jon as his heir and asking his bannermen to witness his decree, and of Viserys I Targaryen calling his vassals to court to pledge their support of his daughter. Aerys has every reason to do the equivalent concerning his young son Viserys. Meaning to make it as widely known as he can under the circumstances.

Of course. Yandel may not even have known that Viserys was the new heir if that hadn't been some public ceremony/event. The man never was to KL as far as we know, and wouldn't have any opportunity to talk to surviving courtiers from the era.

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The question is really, to me anyway, is the Tower of Joy so remote and without sources of information that the three Kingsguard don't know the news of the naming of Viserys. I find it hard to believe they are. Not only does Ned's dream seem to reflect his belief the Kingsguard knew of Aerys's death at the hands of Jaime, but they look to have known about Rhaegar's death, the surrender of the besiegers of Storm's End, and that Rhaella, Viserys, and Ser Willem are at Dragonstone. If Ned's dream is by and large mostly true, as I think it is, it makes if likely the news of Viserys as the new heir is also known at the Tower of Joy.

The problem is that we have reason to believe the dream might not be entirely accurate/complete. And it is the only source about what these people may have known or not.

And to be sure - the dialogue is not that they raise issues with Ned, Ned talks ritualistically about events that took place, and they answer. If we assume the dialogue is not accurate as given but only Ned's recreation of a longer, more detailed, more alive conversation that took place ... then Ned actually could be their source about what took place elsewhere.

Any scenario to imagine how those people got detailed information is pretty far-fetched at this point. However, if there was such a way in place, it is more plausible that they received information for, say, KL while Aerys II was still in power and the city in control of the loyalists than that such a system still worked after the Sack. People there would have had something better to do, one assumes.

And that sort of implies they would have had about the Trident and Viserys the new heir and not so much about the details of the Sack.

8 hours ago, SFDanny said:

On top of this is the skills of the Kingsguard at the Tower. Both Hightower and Dayne, at least, are skilled military commanders who are unlikely to have left themselves with no sources of information from the outside world. Nor does the nature of the partisan political battles between Aerys and Rhaegar likely mean that Rhaegar has no supporters in the area of the Tower.

Oh, but that depends on their actual mission. I mean, if Rhaegar told them to lay low and hide they would have laid low and hid, no? And it is not inconceivable that they could conceal who they actually were, and only buy food in the next village/settlements ... and their only source of outside information being talk and rumors from such a settlement.

We have to keep in mind that it is rather significant that they were at that tower and not at a castle of Rhaegar's friends - Starfall, Griffin's Roost, Harrenhal, etc. One assumes that there will be a reason for this. Meaning the gang could have had reason to lay low.

56 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I don't think who knew what about Viserys being named Aerys's heir ahead of Aegon matters at all, because the next logical step after the deaths of Rhaegar, Aerys and Aegon is to crown Viserys. The loyalists still had a king to fight for. Viserys was still there. He became the head of House Targaryen after the Sack. Did any of the loyalists travel to Dragonstone to show Rhaella and Viserys their support? Because it sure sounds like the new Targaryen king was abandoned by his loyal subjects.

Technically it doesn't matter at all. It only gets raised because there were readers who developed the notion the tower knights thought/must have thought 'Jon Snow' was 'the rightful king' who they actually crowned in the middle of nowhere.

That Viserys III was the only option for House Targaryen after the Sack is pretty clear since he was the only male claimant left ... unless we assume Rhaella and her people on Dragonstone knew about Lya's child and everything about his conception.

One can even speculate whether the tidbit about Viserys being the new heir is actually a stab by George against the 'Jon Snow is the rightful king' narrative certain readers have been pushing ... since as you pointed out, it isn't really a necessary plot point to explain why Viserys III was later crowned.

It has some sort of value for Daenerys later on to establish her as having a stronger/equally strong/valid claim than Aegon or Jon Snow, being the chosen heir of Viserys III, himself the chosen heir of the last Targaryen king in Westeros, but it could also explain why Queen Rhaella thought Viserys III should succeed his father if she actually had news about what happened at the tower of joy. After all, if the king had named Viserys his new heir then the queen dowager would have followed her brother-husband's wishes when crowning Viserys III rather than choosing between her son and the obscure child in the middle of nowhere.

56 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I think for me it really begs the question of who the loyalists were fighting for in the end on the Trident. Were they fighting for Aerys? Or were they fighting for Rhaegar? House Targaryen lost everything not when Aerys died, but when Rhaegar died. All those reluctant lords who stayed out of the war went over to the rebels when Rhaegar died.  

Oh, that is not completely true. Back when we first hear about the Sack we learn that the Mad King was with several thousand loyalists inside KL and the Red Keep (in part most likely survivors from the Trident). They lost a crucial battle at the Trident, but they were not completely finished. Tywin could certainly have helped them if he had sided with them, not to mention how things could have gone if the royal fleet had returned from Dragonstone to attack the rebels during a siege, supported by Mace Tyrell and the Reach forces coming up from Storm's End.

The reason why none of that happened most likely has to do with the fact that Rhaegar was dead and very few people actually loved the Mad King or thought he was a great king worth to be defended by leal lords.

56 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

The loyalists bent the knee instead of fighting for Viserys, who was now their rightful king. And the loyalists didn't even know what the three Kingsguard at the ToJ knew when they chose to lay down their arms and take Robert as their new king. 

Oh, I don't think all loyalists bent the knee after the Sack. Dorne played with the idea of proclaiming for Viserys III, and we have to assume that all the Narrow Sea lords - led by the Velaryons - stood with the King on Dragonstone until the royal fleet was crushed in the night of Dany's birth and the Queen Dowager died. Then they were down to a young boy, a newborn infant girl, and a nonexisting fleet.

56 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

One of the loyalists Houses, House Darry, keeps portraits of the Targaryen kings, from Aegon the Conqueror all the way down to Aerys II Targaryen, but no portrait of their young King Viserys III Targaryen? Why is that? He was their rightful king after all.

Perhaps Viserys III never sent him his portrait from across the Narrow Sea?

56 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

That tells me everything I need to know about Aerys's idea to bypass Aegon as his heir and name Viserys instead. The loyalists didn't seem to give a rat's ass about Viserys or what happened to him.

We have to wait and see how many Targaryen loyalists come out of the woodwork during the Aegon campaign. And with the secret Martell marriage pact it would not be surprising if some Reach and Riverlands houses also stayed in touch with Willem Darry ... especially the Darrys themselves.

I mean, you have to keep in mind our Westerosi POVs are, for the most part, not Targaryen fans nor close to any of their loyalists. I'd not be surprised if it turned out that, say, Mathis Rowan secretly sent money to the exiled Targaryens - or rather: to whatever hosts they had in the early years of their exile, to ensure they were treated properly.

[Frey family reunion]

21 hours ago, Megorova said:

We are told that at the time of Rebellion Aerys always visited Rhaella's chambers on those days when he burned someone. Which doesn't mean that he didn't visited her on other days, days when he didn't burned anyone.

This bit is possible, though unlikely.  At least unlikely for it to have happened after Rhaegar and company left for the Battle of the Trident.  It left Jaime as the only Kingsguard with Aerys.  Barristan, Darry, and Martell off with Rhaegar to the Trident.  And Hightower, Dayne, and Whent, umm, "far away".  

Jaime specifically indicates that after standing guard for Aerys' and Rhaella's night of passion, he didn't see Rhaella again, until the hooded Rhaella left for Dragonstone one, umm, morning.

It seems unlikely that there would have been other nights of passion involving the king that Jaime would have been unaware of.  Especially since Jaime would have been tasked with knowing of the king's coming and goings at all times.

[Bael's Bastard]

Yandel's primary source for the reign of Aerys II was clearly Pycelle, who was present through to the sack, so there's no need to wonder how Yandel learned of Viserys, whether or not it was widely known, or there was some major public ceremony. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. But Yandel knows what he knows, or thinks he knows, from Pycelle.

[Alexis-something-Rose]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, that is not completely true. Back when we first hear about the Sack we learn that the Mad King was with several thousand loyalists inside KL and the Red Keep (in part most likely survivors from the Trident). They lost a crucial battle at the Trident, but they were not completely finished. Tywin could certainly have helped them if he had sided with them, not to mention how things could have gone if the royal fleet had returned from Dragonstone to attack the rebels during a siege, supported by Mace Tyrell and the Reach forces coming up from Storm's End.

And all those loyalists will either have died during the Sack or bent the knee.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, that is not completely true. Back when we first hear about the Sack we learn that the Mad King was with several thousand loyalists inside KL and the Red Keep (in part most likely survivors from the Trident). They lost a crucial battle at the Trident, but they were not completely finished. Tywin could certainly have helped them if he had sided with them, not to mention how things could have gone if the royal fleet had returned from Dragonstone to attack the rebels during a siege, supported by Mace Tyrell and the Reach forces coming up from Storm's End.

Dorne played with the idea of supporting Viserys, made a marriage pact, then left Viserys to twist in the wind. Their support for Viserys or Dany has nothing to do with them and everything to do with what they can give them. I doubt Doran would have sent Quentyn to Meereen to fetch back Dany if she hadn't hatched herself three dragons.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We have to wait and see how many Targaryen loyalists come out of the woodwork during the Aegon campaign. And with the secret Martell marriage pact it would not be surprising if some Reach and Riverlands houses also stayed in touch with Willem Darry ... especially the Darrys themselves.

Willem Darry might have stayed in touch with his House, maybe he tried to pass messages through his House. But his House was finished. They were ground down by Robert. They lost a lot of capital when the Targaryen's fell. And who can they trust. The realm is under a brand new anti-Targaryen regime.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, you have to keep in mind our Westerosi POVs are, for the most part, not Targaryen fans nor close to any of their loyalists. I'd not be surprised if it turned out that, say, Mathis Rowan secretly sent money to the exiled Targaryens - or rather: to whatever hosts they had in the early years of their exile, to ensure they were treated properly.

Well, it would be sweet of Mathis Rowan to send money to the Targlings, but Viserys was 22 years old when he died. By that time he had been exiled for 13-14 years. The loyalists had time to at the very least make sure he knew that he had their support. But the reality is that they chose to bend the knee rather than continue fighting for him. Then they seem to have forgotten all about him.

Look at what's going on in the north and all the plots the northmen are part of to get rid of Roose Bolton and install the Starks back in Winterfell. They are marching in abysmal conditions with people they don't care about, they are inside Winterfell plotting, they are at the Wall.

And sure, the north is isolated from the rest of the realm and it's a small scale operation compared to Robert's Rebellion, but that's what loyalists do, they continue to fight to set a wrong to right.

The Targaryen loyalists did not continue fighting, or at least give support to the one who is their new king, because I don't think they had any interest in him. 

But I think the story will be entirely different with Aegon and even Jon once he is revealed.

Edited August 19, 2020 by Alexis-something-Rose

[Back in Black-Snow]

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I agree, I think we must accept a few likely facts:

1. The 3 KG likely remained at the TOJ at the command of Rhaegar (the LC had been commanded there by Aerys, but IMO, remained at the command or persuasion of Rhaegar).

2. The 3 KG had already learned the info Ned questioned them about.

3. The LC of the KG was completely loyal to Aerys's kingship until his death.

4. All 3 KG fought to the death at the TOJ anyways.

I agree with you here. But I disagree with your choice of words. Facts are facts. What are "likely facts"? It's either a fact, or it isn't.

[Megorova]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

It seems unlikely that there would have been other nights of passion involving the king that Jaime would have been unaware of.  Especially since Jaime would have been tasked with knowing of the king's coming and goings at all times.

Even though Jaime was the only Kingsguard left at King's Landing, he wasn't with Aerys all the time.

When Rhaegar was leaving, and Jaime went to send him off, Aerys also wasn't there. If he was there, then Rhaegar wouldn't have said to Jaime, that after his return, he will summon the Great Council, concerning Aerys.

When Jaime was killing Rosart, it also happened away from wherever Aerys was at that time.

They weren't together all the time.

[corbon]

17 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I have no doubt Rhaegar's death at the Trident goes far and wide across Westeros as fast as word can travel. Be that by raven or courier or word of mouth by people gossiping about the shocking news.

Agreed.

17 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Nor do I think Aerys is likely to make his announcement of Viserys as his heir is some kind of closely guarded secret. Secret heirs are almost a contradiction in terms - Jon being a possible exception to this rule for obvious reasons discussed over and over again in these threads. Aerys also has the added motive of punishing the Dornish for his belief of their betrayal at the Trident. Aerys wants everyone to know he names the next king, not people disrespectful of his wishes or interests contrary to his.

Agreed. I wasn't intending to insinuate Aerys wanted to keep it entirely secret. And I am aware that the way I worded it made it look that way, sorry.
I think when Aerys spreads the word, he's just gonna say Viserys is the new heir, not much more. 

I just don't think anyone else cares to 'spread the word' with anywhere like the same efficiency as the news of the Trident, the Sack and the deaths of the Targaryens would spread.

17 hours ago, SFDanny said:

The question is really, to me anyway, is the Tower of Joy so remote and without sources of information that the three Kingsguard don't know the news of the naming of Viserys. I find it hard to believe they are. Not only does Ned's dream seem to reflect his belief the Kingsguard knew of Aerys's death at the hands of Jaime, but they look to have known about Rhaegar's death, the surrender of the besiegers of Storm's End, and that Rhaella, Viserys, and Ser Willem are at Dragonstone. If Ned's dream is by and large mostly true, as I think it is, it makes if likely the news of Viserys as the new heir is also known at the Tower of Joy.

I disagree. 
I think its clear that they really are quite isolated there, relatively speaking. 
I think its likely that news comes to them, not they go to news. 
Which means that they get news that their secret unknown outside support who knows where they are deems important enough to get to them in a no doubt difficult method (they are isolated and off the raven-grid - they could have ravens to fly out, but no one has ravens to fly in to them, so messages must be carried to them by hand.

I am certain that the news of the Trident, the Sack, and stuff associated with that, like Jaime's betrayal, Aegon's murder, etc, came to them. Ned's conversation proves that and all of that is likely to be one 'packet' of information.

I am substantially less certain that the news of Aerys naming Visery over Aegon came through to them. Thats a separate packet of information. 
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. That really depends on their outside source and what that source deems critical for them to know.

Consequently, I can easily see how they know about the Sack, the Trident the deaths of Aerys, Rhaegar and Aegon, but not know about the naming of Viserys as heir. 
Their conversation with Ned does not show that they are aware of Visery's status change the way it shows their awareness of the other things.

Again, maybe they do, maybe they don't. But its not logical or even reasonable to me to insist that if they know one they must know the other.