Should Aerys had replaced the Kingsguard who remained in tower of Joy

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

You are confusing two different concepts.  Line of succession is one concept.  Appointing a successor by Will is another concept.

In principle I could agree with that ... if we had evidence that there was something like a clear line of succession. There are such preliminary lines, of course. A father is followed by his eldest son and while the eldest son doesn't have children the second eldest son comes next.

But how it is if you add girls to the mix isn't clear. During the reign of the Conqueror folks knew that Prince Aenys was the Heir Apparent (because Aegon had made him his heir) but when Aenys' eldest child Rhaena was born folks no longer knew who would come after Aenys - Maegor or Rhaena. After the births of Aegon, Viserys, and Jaehaerys it was clear that they came before Maegor ... but with the girls things were still unclear.

It is also quite clear in which order Ned's children should succeed him in ideal circumstances. Talk about a line of succession indicates that there are clear and universally accepted rules - and they do not exist.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Appointing a successor by Will does not change the line of succession, though it may trump the line of succession.  Whether the Will will be honored is an entirely separate legal question, general subject to its own separate rules.

Oh, but a line of succession would also be something a king would have to approve of. And there is no indication that any king ever did that. It would have been rather easy for a king who had a son who had a son to publicly decree who was first and who second in the line of succession.

But that never happened. Jaehaerys I, for instance, apparently didn't change any previous ruling after the death of Aemon. He simply named a new heir and it wasn't Rhaenys. Meaning she was never formally second in line to the Iron Throne before her father's death. And Baelon also wasn't officially second in line while both Rhaenys and Aemon lived or else Rhaenys and Corlys would have had no right/pretext to complain. They would have known back in 90 AC when they married that neither Rhaenys nor any of her children would ever sit the Iron Throne. It would have been clear that the throne would, eventually, pass to Baelon.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Example.  King Robb knows that if he dies, Sansa will be next  in the Stark line of succession by law (which in this case does not exclude females).  But Sansa is married to the Imp, and he does not want the Imp to get Winterfell.  So he tries to get around this by making a Will.  The Will does not change the line of succession.  However, it may or may not be honored (according to whatever rules apply) and if it is honored that will trump the line of succession; in much the same way that a later Will will often trumps an older Will.

Robb rules on his succession for the first time when he makes that will - and we still don't know exactly what it contains as George himself pointed out. Robb had a number of presumptive heirs - very much like the Young Dragon back in the day - but the first time he actually names a presumptive heir would be that will. And at that time he only has one heir left - Sansa Stark. And he seems to be disinheriting her.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

WE MIGHT ALSO perhaps consider whether Aegon's youth justifies a Counsel passing over him in the line of succession, to Viserys (who, as far as we know) is next in line.   But that too is a separate question.  The Line of Succession is a specific concept that exists independently of whether and how it is applied in any given case.

If various kings and councils can make rather arbitrary decisions when an anointed heir dies then there clearly is no fixed and clear line of succession. Because if this was a legal concept ingrained in the fabric of society then folks would more often go by it. In the case of Rhaegar's death it would be just a formality for Aerys II to anoint his next heir - Prince Aegon. But that didn't happen. And it also didn't happen in a number of other cases.

The Seven Kingdoms aren't really a society that goes by such an idea. Basically, all they do is go by a rule of thumb that the children of the guy in charge - lord or king - are his heirs. How it is with grandchildren or more distant relations is unclear. And it is custom to have the eldest son be publicly declared heir and be treated as such in public, so the lords and smallfolk alike know and understand who one day is going to follow the guy in charge.

You also see that with the troubled successions I mentioned above already - Rosby, Hornwood, Jeyne Arryn. If there were lines of succession then neither of those succession would be particularly problematic. Folks would ask a maester and he would point out the rightful heir.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Jahaerys I was succeeded by his grandson Viserys, who was also earliest in the line of succession (if you don't count the girls).    He was not too young to take the throne.

Viserys' status as the king's heir prior to the Great Council was unclear. Else there wouldn't have been a Great Council. It was so unclear, in fact, that the king realized he no longer had the authority to rule on his own succession and had to create a broader consensus if he wanted to prevent a succession war.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

If he had been too young, then perhaps a Counsel could have been called to determine whether to pass over him in the line of succession.  But that is a separate issue, that exists entirely independent of the fact that grandsons can and do precede sons in the line of succession.

Oh, but Archmaester Vaegon was only passed over - assuming Jaehaerys I truly wanted to offer him the throne (which is a rumor, not a fact) - because (1) he did not want the throne, (2) had sworn vows that made it impossible for him to inherit, and (3) he wasn't exactly popular with the people who had largely forgotten he even existed.

If Jaehaerys I truly wanted Vaegon to succeed him that his line of succession for the Iron Throne would have been a succession of sons - Aemon would have been the first in line, Baelon the second, and Vaegon the third ... with the grandchildren not featuring in it at all or only coming after no sons were left. And, who knows, perhaps he would have preferred his own daughters to his grandchildren, too, we don't know.

Once a king was crowned and anointed his heirs would be his children - meaning the throne could never possibly revert to a line that had been passed over earlier. At least not without a fight.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Maegor was an usurper.  After his downfall he was succeeded by Jahaerys, the surviving son of his predecessor ... following the line of succession.  Curiously, Jahaerys was also Maegor's successor in the line of succession.  I believe Maegor tried to disinherit Jahaerys, but after Maegor's death, his wishes in that regard were not honored.

Actually, it is made pretty clear that Jaehaerys I wasn't the natural heir of Maegor the Cruel. That were Aerea and Rhaella, who were the children and heirs of Aegon the Uncrowned, Aenys' eldest son and rightful successor.

Maegor also disinherited Jaehaerys and Alysanne when he married Rhaena, and he named Aerea his presumptive heir until such a time as he had a son of his own.

How Maegor gained the throne isn't really relevant. His ascension and reign is a precedent for the brother of a king coming before that king's son(s). In a precedant-based legal system Maegor is just as much a precedent as Jaehaerys I's decision in 92 AC or the Great Council of 101 AC.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Which ones?  Can't guess what you are getting at here.

Baelon and Viserys both set precedents for the son/grandson from a younger branch of the family coming before the grandchildren/great-grandchild of a king through the elder branch. And Aerys II follows those precedents - as well as the precedent of 233 AC - when he makes Viserys his heir rather than Aegon.

In fact, there is actually no precedent for a king choosing his grandson over a younger son in a scenario where the eldest son and heir predeceased the king. This is rather significant. And people knowing their Targaryen history - like knights of the Kingsguard - would be aware of that.

We also seem to see a similar scenario in the succession of Cregan Stark - after his heir Rickon died, he turned to his younger sons by his third wife rather than the descendants of Rickon. We don't know the details of that as of yet, but the tendency clearly is that lords/kings prefer their own children over their grandchildren.

But, of course, this, too, is just a rule of thumb.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

Maegor was explicitly earlier than Aegon V in the "line of succession".  The Counsel explicitly passed over him in the line of succession, partly because he was an infant, partly because of fears he would inherit his father's insanity, and partly because his mad father had given him a name of ill omen.

Maegor is the first case where an the male scion of an elder male line is passed over in favor of a scion of the younger male line, yes. But this decision is still very much in line with the Great Council of 101 AC. The only difference is that Maegor was a Targaryen through the male line while Laenor was a Targaryen through the female line.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

The fact that multiple factors were considered tends to show that Counsels do not automatically pass over people in the line of succession merely because they are infants.

Well, Great Councils seem to be more 'Kingsmoot limited to folk who (claim to) have the blood of the dragon' than learned debates about a line of succession. Because - again - if people believed there was a binding line of succession then there would be no need for a Great Council. The lords would just tell the rival claimants to suck it up and listen to the maesters who would explain them who was the rightful heir. But that never happened.

Those are more popularity contests - which is why Viserys I had it very easy whereas Aegon V faced considerable problems. If there is a choice between a healthy young adult man and a young child or infant then it is always clear who is going to win out. Because even before the Regency of Aegon III very few people would want an unstable regency government.

7 minutes ago, Mister Smikes said:

HIs line seems to have quietly died out, avoiding the future problems that result when you pass over people in the line of succession.

I guess we can safely say that Maegor or hypothetical children of his are no longer around in Westeros by the time of the novels. Like with any hypothetical children of Duncan and Jenny those folks could have left Westeros or ended up in obscurity.

The chance for a passed over bloodline to stir up trouble after a Great Council dismissed their claims is not very likely. The Velaryon claim seems to have been finished by the Great Council of 101 AC, after all. The Rhaenyra-Laenor marriage (and earlier the suggestion that Viserys I marry Laena) was supposed to heal a rift that existed, but it wasn't arranged because anyone feared Laenor or Laena could try to usurp the throne.

In that sense, chances that Prince Maegor ever made much problems for Aegon V are not that likely.

[Mister Smikes]

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In principle I could agree with that ... if we had evidence that there was something like a clear line of succession.

It is called "THE line of succession" for a reason.  And after 300 years of Targ history and targ precedent, we have a pretty good idea how it works in the year 300.  It is unreasonable to expect a 5 volume law treatise in a work of fantasy, but even that would not satisfy you.    If I mentioned the concept of "murder" you could play the same identical game you are playing here.  Yes, laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Yes, there are exceptions to the general rule.  Yes, sometimes people break the law and get away with it.   No I cannot answer all your questions about Westerosi murder laws by consulting a 5 volume Westerosi law treatise on murder.  So what?  I can still mention the concept of "murder", and I can mention the "line of succession" too.

We're done. 

[Frey family reunion]

17 hours ago, LynnS said:

Since Martin brought up the business of Hodor, not so much holding the door; but rather holding the pass against enemies when they come; the simple answer might be that the 3 KG were holding the Prince's Pass against enemies when they come.  Stopping enemies from proceeding to Starfall and/or Sunspear.  That whomever is being protected or guarded is located beyond the Pass and the ToJ. 

I mean it’s possible that’s what they were doing, but it still doesn’t change the main issue that I’m addressing, which everyone else seems to be ignoring. 

Why would Aerys want three of his Kingsguards guarding the Prince’s Pass, as opposed to guarding him or fighting in his war?  What would Aerys have to gain by having the Kingsguards guard Rhaegar’s alleged paramour and her unborn child?

Because if that’s what the Kingsguards were doing, then that’s what they seem to firmly believe fell within their duties as Kingsguards.  It’s all well and fine if Rhaegar was the one who directly gave them their orders, but if they believed that those orders were not orders the King approved of, or would approve of then they would know that they weren’t being good Kingsguards.  That they weren’t following their vows, to either guard the King with their life or to obey his orders.

And then you couple that with the fact that Gerold Dayne, who Jaime believes was loyal to Aerys until his bitter end, joins with the other two Kingsguards, makes it even more baffling.  

Then you couple that with the fact that Aerys does not appear to believe they deserted him, makes me come up with the only conclusion, that Aerys approved of these three Kingsguards being at the Prince’s Pass rather than guarding him or fighting his war.

@LynnS, you know my basic suspicion of what was really happening.  That Rhaegar’s interest in Lyanna and any child she would have was probably linked to his beliefs about the Prince that was promised prophecy.  And if Aemon is to be believed, then the prince that was promised prophecy also seems to require the presence of dragons.  Which also seems to fit with Rhaegar’s obsession with Summerhall.  Which has been described as a Targaryen dream of dragons.

So my guess is that this might be the one place that father, Aerys, and son, Rhaegar, may have found common ground.  The return of dragons.  And if that was what the Kingsguards were assisting Rhaegar with, then that could explain why it met with King Aerys approval.  Aerys’ pyromania and megalomania lining up with Rhaegar’s obsession with a prophecy that involved bringing dragons back.  

And if Melisandre is to be believed then this process might require the sacrifice of Kingsblood.  Which may be where Lyanna’s unborn child fits in.  And might explain why Eddard rode to put an end to it, knowing that this was going to be a battle to the death. And it also might explain Eddard’s odd statement to Robert:

Quote

“Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?”

 

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

It is called "THE line of succession" for a reason.  And after 300 years of Targ history and targ precedent, we have a pretty good idea how it works in the year 300.  It is unreasonable to expect a 5 volume law treatise in a work of fantasy, but even that would not satisfy you.    If I mentioned the concept of "murder" you could play the same identical game you are playing here.  Yes, laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Yes, there are exceptions to the general rule.  Yes, sometimes people break the law and get away with it.   No I cannot answer all your questions about Westerosi murder laws by consulting a 5 volume Westerosi law treatise on murder.  So what?  I can still mention the concept of "murder", and I can mention the "line of succession" too.

We're done. 

You still don't get it. There is no fixed and clear line of succession. Just folks who think they know who comes after who. It is really that simple. Talks about a line of succession imply there are clear rules that are accepted by everybody - and that's clearly not the case. So whenever somebody talks about a line of succession then there is no universally accepted reference point. Your line of succession wouldn't necessarily be my line of succession, especially if we were talking a line of succession which included more individuals than just the children of a given lord or king.

George even went out of his way in that SSM where he is asked about succession explaining that succession laws in Westeros are deliberately left vague because the guys in charge do not really want to bound by laws.

45 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Why would Aerys want three of his Kingsguards guarding the Prince’s Pass, as opposed to guarding him or fighting in his war?  What would Aerys have to gain by having the Kingsguards guard Rhaegar’s alleged paramour and her unborn child?

Since we talk a Mad King here, there are all kinds of mad reasons why Aerys II may have wanted to use the KG in that fashion - one being that he may have started to distrust those men due to his paranoia, and that he felt more comfortable with them being away.

That said - the fact that Lya didn't accompany Rhaegar back to KL definitely needs explanation. That is a rather big and crucial puzzle piece we are missing at that point.

45 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Because if that’s what the Kingsguards were doing, then that’s what they seem to firmly believe fell within their duties as Kingsguards.  It’s all well and fine if Rhaegar was the one who directly gave them their orders, but if they believed that those orders were not orders the King approved of, or would approve of then they would know that they weren’t being good Kingsguards.  That they weren’t following their vows, to either guard the King with their life or to obey his orders.

Yes and no. If you look at how Barristan Selmy treats Hizdahr in Dany's absence it is quite clear that there are all kind of rationalizations imaginable how a KG could go against his monarch or his family while still thinking he is loyal to his vows.

However, it is quite odd that such men would still publicly paint themselves as die-hard Aerys loyalists. Which is why I think we will eventually learn the dream dialogue actually didn't happen that way.

45 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

And then you couple that with the fact that Gerold Dayne, who Jaime believes was loyal to Aerys until his bitter end, joins with the other two Kingsguards, makes it even more baffling.  

I think here we can expect Jaime being wrong about a guy yet again. Keep in mind this fellow thinks Littlefinger would be a great Hand for Tommen in AFfC. The idea would be that Hightower was actually not okay with what Aerys was doing and that his attempts to force Jaime to get his act together and ignore what's going on was basically an attempt to deal with his own guilt.

In addition, he may have feared what would happen to the youth if Jaime ever publicly displayed his anger/disgust/terror at what Aerys was doing ... because chances are very high that Aerys would have then tortured and burned Jaime, too.

Hightower ending up with Lyanna only makes sense if either the king commanded him to do this or if Hightower himself decided he wanted to do this - meaning he gladly followed Rhaegar when he asked him to do this or he volunteered for this task because he didn't want to return to KL.

And one also wonders whether the other KG also did their best to get out of the Red Keep. We hear about Lewyn leading the Dornish army, we hear about Selmy and Darry fetching back Jon Connington's army after Stoney Sept, and Lewyn, Barristan, and Jonothor Darry ended up accompanying Rhaegar to the Trident. And Jaime wanted to go with Rhaegar, too.

It seems that most of Aerys' Seven weren't that keen to actually be in his presence and protect the royal person. Especially if you compare this where the other KG were during most of the other wars. Occasionally KG do command armies in battle in the king's absence, but this isn't the rule. That Gerold Hightower was on the Stepstones in 260 AC was likely due to Prince Aerys being with the army, not because Jaehaerys II thought a KG should protect a royal army.

It might be that Aerys II always decided that it should be the Kingsguard in question doing this stuff ... but it could just as well be that those men volunteered for those jobs.

45 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Then you couple that with the fact that Aerys does not appear to believe they deserted him, makes me come up with the only conclusion, that Aerys approved of these three Kingsguards being at the Prince’s Pass rather than guarding him or fighting his war.

We can safely say that Aerys wouldn't have viewed them as traitors. After all, he also didn't view Rhaegar as such after his return.

[LynnS]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

“Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?”

Yes I understand your assumptions and the frame you are using and why.  That is a possibility. I guess my assumptions are simpler: that Rhaegar would have taken steps to safeguard his son if he thought he was the PWIP and Aerys, possibly even Aemon may have thought the same thing.  We also know from Edric Dayne that his family history includes Jon Snow being at Starfall at some point.  So it seems likely to me that Aegon was spirited off to Sunspear while Jon was located at Starfall.  The details or the context is missing. 

I'm not sure what Ned meant concerning the murder of children and if this has something to do with warfare in general or the insurrection at Duskendale.  But it does seem clear to me that after taking King's Landing that Robert had no second thoughts about what should happen to dragonspawn.  

How did Ned know to meet the KG at the ToJ unless they were issued a challenge? What was at stake? Did Robert ask Ned to kill any dragonspawn he might come across?  Is that why they fought?

[Mister Smikes]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

You still don't get it. There is no fixed and clear line of succession.

You still don't get it.  I am telling you the conversation is over and I'm asking you to get out of my face.  

I already told you.  I don't care how "fixed" it is; I don't care how "clear" it is.   But you don't listen

[Frey family reunion]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Since we talk a Mad King here, there are all kinds of mad reasons why Aerys II may have wanted to use the KG in that fashion - one being that he may have started to distrust those men due to his paranoia, and that he felt more comfortable with them being away.

The problem is they seem to be the last men that Aerys trusted (with the notable exception of Jaime):

Quote

From Dorne, in defense of Princess Elia, ten thousand spears came over the Boneway and marched to King’s Landing to bolster the host that Rhaegar was raising. Those who were there at court during this time have recounted that Aerys’s behavior was erratic. He was untrusting of any save his Kingsguard—and then only imperfectly, for he kept Ser Jaime Lannister close at all hours to serve as a hostage against his father.

It was the Kingsguard member he least trust that he kept close to him.  Otherwise, they were apparently the people he trusted the most.  So my guess is if he sent them away it was for a greater reason than him wanting them away from him.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

However, it is quite odd that such men would still publicly paint themselves as die-hard Aerys loyalists. Which is why I think we will eventually learn the dream dialogue actually didn't happen that way.

GRRM has warned not to take the fever dream too literally.  Having said that, I’m not sure what it accomplishes having Eddard misrepresent their dialogue in his dream.  Since his memory of that encounter appears fairly strong.  If there is any part of the dream that I’m a bit suspect of, it’s the appearance that his last conversation with Lyanna takes place at the same location or time as his battle with the Kingsguard.  We don’t have any other reason to believe that Lyanna lay on a bed in an abandoned tower in a desolate area of Prince’s Pass.  That’s the one aspect of the dream that is not corroborated by Eddard’s memories.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think here we can expect Jaime being wrong about a guy yet again. Keep in mind this fellow thinks Littlefinger would be a great Hand for Tommen in AFfC. The idea would be that Hightower was actually not okay with what Aerys was doing and that his attempts to force Jaime to get his act together and ignore what's going on was basically an attempt to deal with his own guilt

The reason I brought it up has less to do with Jaime’s opinion of Hightower and more to do with the apparent lack of any evidence that Aerys thought Hightower abandoned or deserted him.  Since Jaime was with Aerys almost 24 7 after the other Kingsguards left, Jaime would have probably been aware of any issues Aerys had with Hightower’s absence.  

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Hightower ending up with Lyanna only makes sense if either the king commanded him to do this or if Hightower himself decided he wanted to do this - meaning he gladly followed Rhaegar when he asked him to do this or he volunteered for this task because he didn't want to return to KL.

Once again, I think the evidence we currently have suggests that Hightower was commanded to be at the tower of joy, by Aerys himself.  There seems to be no suggestion that they ever abandoned their loyalty to Aerys, and there is no suggestion that Aerys ever thought they abandoned him.  While they may not have been too disappointed to be away from Aerys, my guess is they wouldn’t have those same conflicting emotions about the Queen and her children and grandchildren.  So I don’t think they would have willfully abandoned all the Targaryens in their hour of need.  I think that they were given a task which took them “far away”.

We see that a bit with Barristan Selmy.  While he certainly didn’t have any fond memories of Aerys, he did feel guilt that he abandoned Aerys children after the war. And to atone he sought Dany out.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It seems that most of Aerys' Seven weren't that keen to actually be in his presence and protect the royal person. Especially if you compare this where the other KG were during most of the other wars. Occasionally KG do command armies in battle in the king's absence, but this isn't the rule. That Gerold Hightower was on the Stepstones in 260 AC was likely due to Prince Aerys being with the army, not because Jaehaerys II thought a KG should protect a royal army.

It might be that Aerys II always decided that it should be the Kingsguard in question doing this stuff ... but it could just as well be that those men volunteered for those jobs.

Like I stated above, we don’t have any reason to question their loyalty (at the very least not Hightower’s loyalty).  And the impression is that their sense of duty outweighed their personal feelings.  And no matter their personal opinion of Aerys, there were still the other Targaryens who were left without protection.  

But their command isn’t just to protect, it’s also to obey.  Which means, that they are obligated to carry out whatever tasks the king commands them to undertake.  My question is if they are given a task by a king who subsequently dies, do they feel duty bound to finish the task?

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

You still don't get it.  I am telling you the conversation is over and I'm asking you to get out of my face.  

I already told you.  I don't care how "fixed" it is; I don't care how "clear" it is.   But you don't listen

Man, I'm not in your face when I'm posting in a public message board. You also don't end a conversation by constantly replying. Just stop replying.

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The problem is they seem to be the last men that Aerys trusted (with the notable exception of Jaime):

Yeah, it was just a possibility. It is rather odd that Aerys sent the men away from his side he apparently trusted the most. But then, perhaps he felt the fact that he could trust them caused him to believe they would do what he commanded.

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

GRRM has warned not to take the fever dream too literally.  Having said that, I’m not sure what it accomplishes having Eddard misrepresent their dialogue in his dream.  Since his memory of that encounter appears fairly strong.  If there is any part of the dream that I’m a bit suspect of, it’s the appearance that his last conversation with Lyanna takes place at the same location or time as his battle with the Kingsguard.  We don’t have any other reason to believe that Lyanna lay on a bed in an abandoned tower in a desolate area of Prince’s Pass.  That’s the one aspect of the dream that is not corroborated by Eddard’s memories.

My idea why Ned would have this kind of dream has to do with whatever guilt he feels that caused this dream. The dream we are witnessing seems to dance around the Lyanna/Jon issue - we have the KG confrontation, not his confrontation with Lya which, presumably, would come later in the dream - which we don't see because Ned is woken early. Later in his cell he seems to have the same dream again which then includes stuff with Lyanna. And that definitely could indicate that Lya was at that tower, too. Although I agree that we don't really know that at this point.

The way the gang behaves in the dream also implies that the characters all sort of know how things are going and their exchange is very ritualistic and not the kind of thing you would expect from real people - which means Ned's mind may create some kind of variation of real events that is quite common when you remember the death of folks that were dear to you which you regret. I had dreams like that, too, years after somebody I loved very much committed suicide.

For instance, we can likely expect that Howland Reed and Ethan Glover at least spoke up during the entire thing. Reed because of his connection to Lya going back to Harrenhal, Glover because he was one of Brandon's companions.

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

The reason I brought it up has less to do with Jaime’s opinion of Hightower and more to do with the apparent lack of any evidence that Aerys thought Hightower abandoned or deserted him.  Since Jaime was with Aerys almost 24 7 after the other Kingsguards left, Jaime would have probably been aware of any issues Aerys had with Hightower’s absence.  

Here I think we have to consider that what people at court thought about the three missing KG is something that the author deliberately kept secret so far. Outside Ned's mind their mission in the south has been completely absent so far, most likely because the mission is going to be directly connected to what was going on between Rhaegar and Lyanna - and that's something George clearly did not want to reference or hint at or reveal in the first five novels of the series.

In that sense I think we should postpone judgment on what we can deduce about their mission from the snippets we have - sort of like we should have postponed judgment on the question whether Tywin ever smiled or laughed back when readon AGoT and ACoK.

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Once again, I think the evidence we currently have suggests that Hightower was commanded to be at the tower of joy, by Aerys himself.  There seems to be no suggestion that they ever abandoned their loyalty to Aerys, and there is no suggestion that Aerys ever thought they abandoned him.  While they may not have been too disappointed to be away from Aerys, my guess is they wouldn’t have those same conflicting emotions about the Queen and her children and grandchildren.  So I don’t think they would have willfully abandoned all the Targaryens in their hour of need.  I think that they were given a task which took them “far away”.

That is certainly possible, although you should keep in mind that Hightower basically joining the other two KG around the time Rhaegar returned to KL - which was about half a year before the Trident - means the royal family wasn't really that much in danger at that point. Aerys II was safe in his castle, behind high walls, and protected by four other KG. Queen Rhaella and Viserys were with the king as well, and Elia and her children don't seem to have been sworn shields from the KG appointed to them.

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Like I stated above, we don’t have any reason to question their loyalty (at the very least not Hightower’s loyalty).  And the impression is that their sense of duty outweighed their personal feelings.  And no matter their personal opinion of Aerys, there were still the other Targaryens who were left without protection.  

Well, as I said, one can make sense of the fever dream dialogue by assuming they wanted to show Ned a united, pro-Targaryen front, preventing him from exploiting existing differences/conflicts of loyalty among them. It also might be that whatever caused Rhaegar to return to KL ended the factionalism among Rhaegar's and Aerys' followers - or at least caused them to make some sort truce until the rebels were dealt with because Robert had become a dangerous threat to Rhaegar and Aerys both.

What kind of relationship Rhaegar and Aerys had after Rhaegar's return is also completely unclear at this point.

Finally, there is also the possibility that the Trident and the Sack had considerable impact on the feelings and opinions of the three knights. The earlier factionalism may have completely disappeared after the death of Rhaegar and Aerys.

23 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But their command isn’t just to protect, it’s also to obey.  Which means, that they are obligated to carry out whatever tasks the king commands them to undertake.  My question is if they are given a task by a king who subsequently dies, do they feel duty bound to finish the task?

This would be my take.

And I'd point to Rickard Thorne (who protected Prince Maelor after Rhaenyra had taken the Iron Throne - Aegon II wasn't dead as far as he knew, but he had been formally deposed) and, especially, to Willis Fell to illustrate this.

Larys Strong told Willis Fell to serve as the sworn shield to Princess Jaehaera and that he did. He remained with her at Storm's End even after Aegon II was restored to the Iron Throne (technically, Aegon II could have written to him to command him to stay there for the time being, but nothing of that sort is mentioned).

However, the crucial thing is that Willis Fell remains at Storm's End and continues to protect Jaehaera even after Aegon II is dead and Aegon III has been proclaimed king. Even after Lady Elenda Baratheon has accepted Corlys Velaryon's peace terms, Fell remained at Storm's End and only returned Jaehaera to court for Aegon III's wedding/coronation.

This sort of illustrates that a Kingsguard can and did get a specific task which he dutifully fulfills even after the king in whose name it had been given was dead.

You could also cite Arys Oakheart who continued to protect Myrcella even after Tyrion - who had given him the task - was no longer Hand, and after King Joffrey in whose name this command had been given was dead.

Basically, the Kingsguard continue with a task given in this manner until another king or person they view as wielding royal authority revokes the command.

The knights at the tower would thus be stuck with Lyanna and/or her unborn child - depending what command was given to them - while they were still alive. And loyalty to their late king/prince would mean that after the Trident and the Sack they would continue keeping those persons safe instead of coming up with other jobs they could also do.

Viserys III was pretty safe on Dragonstone protected by the loyal royal fleet, where he could name his own KG - not to mention that Aerys II could actually have replaced the KG who died at the Trident before the Sack.

[Mister Smikes]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Man, I'm not in your face when I'm posting in a public message board. You also don't end a conversation by constantly replying. Just stop replying.

Fine.  Continue with your preaching.  I'm sure the audience will love it.  If you don't care whether I read them or not, you may even address your preaching to me.  

[Mister Smikes]

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

The problem is they seem to be the last men that Aerys trusted (with the notable exception of Jaime):

It was the Kingsguard member he least trust that he kept close to him.  Otherwise, they were apparently the people he trusted the most.  So my guess is if he sent them away it was for a greater reason than him wanting them away from him.

Aerys kept Jaime close to him because he did not trust Tywin.  And he kept Ellia, Rhaenys and Aegon close to him because he did not trust Rhaegar.  

As for Oswald, Gerold and Arthur, he may have wanted them out of his presence precisely because he did not trust them.  From the dream sequence, we may conclude that they were loyal, but hardly that Aerys trusted them.  Remember, Aerys was paranoid, and insane.

Quote

GRRM has warned not to take the fever dream too literally.  Having said that, I’m not sure what it accomplishes having Eddard misrepresent their dialogue in his dream.  Since his memory of that encounter appears fairly strong.  If there is any part of the dream that I’m a bit suspect of, it’s the appearance that his last conversation with Lyanna takes place at the same location or time as his battle with the Kingsguard.  We don’t have any other reason to believe that Lyanna lay on a bed in an abandoned tower in a desolate area of Prince’s Pass.  That’s the one aspect of the dream that is not corroborated by Eddard’s memories..

One possibility is that the dream conversation did not occur at all, but that GRRM nonetheless uses the dream conversation to convey meaningful inforrmation to the reader, inspired, perhaps by other things Eddard knew or later learned.

Quote

The reason I brought it up has less to do with Jaime’s opinion of Hightower and more to do with the apparent lack of any evidence that Aerys thought Hightower abandoned or deserted him.  

If he sent them away himself, it would be hard for him to have such opinion, mad though he is.  He would probably refocus his paranoia on the people around him.

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

On 5/20/2021 at 3:06 PM, Corvus Black said:

Yes there is. Aerys named Viserys as his heir and sent him to Dragonstone. The three Kingsguard members are aware of this and explicitly state that Viserys is not their king.

I have a couple problems with this argument:

1) We don't necessarily know that they were told that Aerys declared Viserys to be his new heir over Aegon. We don't know who their source was for learning about the Battle of the Trident and the fall of KL and if that information made its way to them. 

2) Whether in real life or in the story, kings did not necessarily have an uncontested ability to unilaterally appoint an heir contrary to standard succession practices. Whether they could or did depended very much on circumstance, and anyone passed over would have a strong claim. The one time a Targaryen king actually tried to do this resulted in a civil war, and Stannis (who considers himself to be all about following the rules and laws) considers Rhaeneyra to be a usurper despite being the preferred heir of Viserys I. Obviously there was a gender dynamic there that isn't present in this example, but I think the point remains that it isn't established in Westeros that kings have the absolute right to pick their heir. Your argument assumes that the KG are traitors if they don't accept Aerys putting Viserys over any sons of Rhaegar, and I don't know that this is a valid assumption based on what we know. 

[frenin]

25 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Whether in real life or in the story, kings did not necessarily have an uncontested ability to unilaterally appoint an heir contrary to standard succession practices.

In the story they do seem to have it, as in they do have the legal power to do so. It's simply that they can't always enforce it and they certainly can't enforce it from the grave. At least Jaeharys 1, Aerys 1 and Viserys 1 picked their own heirs.

 

27 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

The one time a Targaryen king actually tried to do this resulted in a civil war,

It's not the only time. Jaeharys picked Baelon over Rhaenys and Aerys picked Aelora and then Maekar.

In Viserys 's case, while gender played a crutial role it all came down to who was better connected. The greens's early connections to the Hightower and Lannisters and then their betrothals to the Baratheons sealed the deal for them.

At the end of the day their act is no different than Cersei tearing Robert's will apart.

No one ever claimed however that Viserys couldn't  do it, more like he shouldn't. 

 

33 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

and Stannis (who considers himself to be all about following the rules and laws) considers Rhaeneyra to be a usurper despite being the preferred heir of Viserys I.

Stannis's own issues towards women is so strong that i fail not to consider his comment inmaterial. Regardless of the fact that Rhaenrya was not counted as an official monarch  ever, how this came to pass with her own children and her blood ending up ruling still baffles me, so Stannis isn't doing anything more than repeating what he has learned.

 

35 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

but I think the point remains that it isn't established in Westeros that kings have the absolute right to pick their heir. 

I think it pretty much is. As with everything Kings must to enforce their rulings and they can't always do so.

When talking about Rhaegar and Daeron the good being disowned or passed over by their respective parents the talk was never that they couldn't do so but that such action would lead to war given how many supporters the heirs had.

 

 

[Frey family reunion]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is certainly possible, although you should keep in mind that Hightower basically joining the other two KG around the time Rhaegar returned to KL - which was about half a year before the Trident - means the royal family wasn't really that much in danger at that point. Aerys II was safe in his castle, behind high walls, and protected by four other KG. Queen Rhaella and Viserys were with the king as well, and Elia and her children don't seem to have been sworn shields from the KG appointed to them.

But Rhaegar only returns when the war started going badly for the Targaryens.  That the royal army was defeated and reeling after a major battle.  It's an odd time to up and abandon your king, if you are considered a loyal Kingsguard.  And it seems evident that Hightower was considered a loyal Kingsguard.  

Of course this all begs the question as to whether Gerold actually went and retrieved Rhaegar.  It's not etched in concrete until it actually makes one of the books authored by GRRM, or at least one of the books that GRRM helped to write.  And so far both the series and TWOIAF are all very murky as to what caused Rhaegar to return.  Other than Rhaegar returns after the disaster of the Battle of the Bells.

For all we know Rhaegar received word of the outcome of the Battle of Bells and the banishment of Connington, and decided he was needed back at King's Landing on his own without any prompting from Aerys.  And we don't necessarily know that Gerold's disappearance from King's Landing necessarily coincides with Rhaegar's return.  Even though I lean towards this being a likely scenario.

The one thing we do know is that Gerold Hightower was present for Lord Rickard's burning, and it doesn't appear that Rhaegar was.  We also have no reason to believe that either Arthur Dayne or Oswell Whent were present.  

So while we certainly can't rule out Oswell or Arthur being one of Rhaegar's six companions when he initially left King's Landing (it seems fairly likely they were) we can probably rule out Gerold Hightower being one of Rhaegar's six.

Couple that with the fact that Gerold Hightower volunteered to leave the Harrenhal tourney , which certainly appears to be Rhaegar's brain child, we can perhaps deduce that Hightower may not have been one of Rhaegar's inner circle.  Maybe.

So for Hightower to take up Rhaegar's "pet project" in Dorne really, really makes me think that Aerys gave his approval.

 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

In the story they do seem to have it, as in they do have the legal power to do so. It's simply that they can't always enforce it and they certainly can't enforce it from the grave.

They can't always enforce precisely because it is not a universally accepted right of the monarch.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

It's not the only time. Jaeharys picked Baelon over Rhaenys and Aerys picked Aelora and then Maekar.

Neither example is a monarch making a unilateral choice contrary to clear norms of succession. Under agnatic (male-line) succession, Baelon was the rightful heir ahead of Rhaenys. Aelora had an argument under male-preference rules (I still think we need some more light on this example from GRRM as it's unique among post-Dance events AFAIK). Aside from Maegor usurping Aegon, the only time a male who was the clear heir by both male-line and male-preference rules got passed over was Aerion's son Maegor, and that was via a Great Council. Viserys tried to do this by putting Rhaeneyra ahead of his eldest son, and it didn't work out.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Stannis's own issues towards women is so strong that i fail not to consider his comment inmaterial

Stannis certainly has issues with women (which is not at all unique to him in their society, which is relevant to the question), but it's still an odd sentiment coming from a stickler for rules if kings were commonly viewed as having absolute discretion over who their heir was

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Regardless of the fact that Rhaenrya was not counted as an official monarch  ever, how this came to pass with her own children and her blood ending up ruling still baffles me

Aegon III was the rightful heir by male-line succession through Daemon independent of Rhaeneyra being his mother. I think after the Dance they wanted to avoid future conflict from potentially unclear succession rules and that's why Rhaeneyra wasn't viewed as the rightful Queen.

 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

I think it pretty much is. As with everything Kings must to enforce their rulings and they can't always do so.

They can't always do so precisely because there is dispute over their authority. Nothing in the books has established that KG would be universally seen as traitors for not accepting the old king's personal choice of heir if it contradicted standard norms and wasn't backed up by a Great Council or something similar. 

[frenin]

11 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

They can't always enforce precisely because it is not a universally accepted right of the monarch.

Nope, they can't always enforce it because people won't always like what they are saying.  

Rights always play second fiddle to pragmatism and politics. 

 

16 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Neither example is a monarch making a unilateral choice contrary to clear norms of succession. Under agnatic (male-line) succession, Baelon was the rightful heir ahead of Rhaenys. Aelora had an argument under male-preference rules (I still think we need some more light on this example from GRRM as it's unique among post-Dance events AFAIK). Aside from Maegor usurping Aegon, the only time a male who was the clear heir by both male-line and male-preference rules got passed over was Aerion's son Maegor, and that was via a Great Council. Viserys tried to do this by putting Rhaeneyra ahead of his eldest son, and it didn't work out.

Well, it indeed was.

Agnatic succesion was not a thing in the South and Andal law clearly favours the daughter over the late ruler's brothers and their offspring.  That's precisely why the fuss started in the first place. Baelon was never the rightful heir ahead of Rhaenys.

Aelora is chosen as heir after the "Iron Precedent", which completely disregards every female regarding their side of the branch over the male line of the family, is somewhat established, over the male line of her House.

 

 

21 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Stannis certainly has issues with women (which is not at all unique to him in their society, which is relevant to the question), but it's still an odd sentiment coming from a stickler for rules if kings were commonly viewed as having absolute discretion over who their heir was.

Stannis's issues with women are certainly rare in the society, as it's highlighted. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Aegon III was the rightful heir by male-line succession through Daemon independent of Rhaeneyra being his mother. I think after the Dance they wanted to avoid future conflict from potentially unclear succession rules and that's why Rhaeneyra wasn't viewed as the rightful Queen.

Nope, Aegon 3 was the rightful heir because Aegon 2 made him heir and because, and far more importantly, the Blacks won the war and crowned king anyways. Him being the rightful heir through Daemon is never brought up.

 

 

25 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

They can't always do so precisely because there is dispute over their authority. Nothing in the books has established that KG would be universally seen as traitors for not accepting the old king's personal choice of heir if it contradicted standard norms and wasn't backed up by a Great Council or something similar. 

They can't always do so for the same reason Kings can't always pass the laws they want. Nominal and legal power are inmaterial if they don't have practical power. And even if they do have the legal power to issue a decree, without the power to enforce it, it's irrelevant. Like who is the King, the one who sits on the throne or the one with better claim.

In the books is established that Kings and lords have the legal ability to rule on their succesion, so if they do not follow those orders (if they found out about it that is) they are indeed traitors.

[Frey family reunion]

20 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

Aerys kept Jaime close to him because he did not trust Tywin.  And he kept Ellia, Rhaenys and Aegon close to him because he did not trust Rhaegar.  

As for Oswald, Gerold and Arthur, he may have wanted them out of his presence precisely because he did not trust them.  From the dream sequence, we may conclude that they were loyal, but hardly that Aerys trusted them.  Remember, Aerys was paranoid, and insane.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but none of what you said is actually established in the text.  In fact the opposite is true:

Quote

Those who were there at court during this time have recounted that Aerys’s behavior was erratic. He was untrusting of any save his Kingsguard—and then only imperfectly, for he kept Ser Jaime Lannister close at all hours to serve as a hostage against his father.

Quote

“My Sworn Brothers were all away, you see, but Aerys liked to keep me close. I was my father’s son, so he did not trust me. He wanted me where Varys could watch me, day and night. So I heard it all.”

It was Dorne that he didn’t trust, which is why he sent Lewyn Martell with the reminder to the Dornes that he held Elia and her children hostage.

When Rhaegar returned from Dorne there didn’t appear to be any major rifts between the two at that time.  In fact, he listened to Rhaegar’s counsel, swallowed his pride and sent a raven to Casterly Rock to ask Tywin for help.  He turned over the royal army to Rhaegar.  

So this idea that Aerys believed that Rhaegar and the Kingsguards at the tower of joy were traitors, simply isn’t supported in the text.  

ETA: nor is the idea that Aerys sent Kingsguards away that he didn’t trust.  

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I have a couple problems with this argument:

1) We don't necessarily know that they were told that Aerys declared Viserys to be his new heir over Aegon. We don't know who their source was for learning about the Battle of the Trident and the fall of KL and if that information made its way to them. 

If we take the fever dream talk at face value - which we don't have to - then folks apparently knowing that Viserys and Rhaella were sent to Dragonstone with Darry very strongly implies they also learned why this was done - to keep the new Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne safe from harm.

But even if they had no idea about that Viserys III would still be the natural head of House Targaryen after the Sack. This would even be the case if little Aegon and Rhaenys survived because they were both small children whereas Viserys was much older.

Also, Viserys was the son of a king, whereas the children of Rhaegar were all merely royal grandchildren.

Quote

2) Whether in real life or in the story, kings did not necessarily have an uncontested ability to unilaterally appoint an heir contrary to standard succession practices. Whether they could or did depended very much on circumstance, and anyone passed over would have a strong claim. The one time a Targaryen king actually tried to do this resulted in a civil war, and Stannis (who considers himself to be all about following the rules and laws) considers Rhaeneyra to be a usurper despite being the preferred heir of Viserys I. Obviously there was a gender dynamic there that isn't present in this example, but I think the point remains that it isn't established in Westeros that kings have the absolute right to pick their heir. Your argument assumes that the KG are traitors if they don't accept Aerys putting Viserys over any sons of Rhaegar, and I don't know that this is a valid assumption based on what we know. 

The KG would be traitors if they were making up their minds/deciding who should be king. That is not that call, and we see how a KG who thought he should decide who should be king - Criston Cole - is vilified for that. When the succession is contested and civil threatens or his fought - then lords and councillors decide who should wear the crown, not the Kingsguard. They do as they are told because they are sworn to obey. They have to pick a side, of course, but they do not create their own faction.

The Kingsguard are sworn to obey the king, so they definitely have less leeway than the average lord or knight or courtier to have their own opinion on the royal succession. If the king chose an heir then this heir would also be the next king for the Kingsguard. Else their vows of obedience to the king would be worth nothing.

In light of all that the way the guys at the tower viewed the political landscape would be that it was their duty to protect Lyanna and her unborn/newborn child because this was the task given to them by either Aerys or Rhaegar or both ... but nothing further than that.

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

But Rhaegar only returns when the war started going badly for the Targaryens.  That the royal army was defeated and reeling after a major battle.  It's an odd time to up and abandon your king, if you are considered a loyal Kingsguard.  And it seems evident that Hightower was considered a loyal Kingsguard.

Aerys II apparently did send Hightower from his side to find Rhaegar around that time, so this isn't really unusual. Especially since he also sent Darry and Selmy to the Riverlands to bring back the remnants of Connington's army. We do need an answer for the question why Lya didn't accompany Rhaegar back to KL and why the KG in question remained with her instead of returning with Rhaegar to KL.

This is certainly somewhat odd, but in context apparently not that strange. George included Selmy's musings on KG duty for a reason in ADwD. The line about there being precedents that KG be assigned to protect royal mistresses and bastards (I guess we are to learn that Aegon IV assigned KG to some of mistresses as well as to Daemon Blackfyre, and Daeron II may have also assigned KG to a young Brynden Rivers) would make it not that terribly unusual that the three KG remained with Lyanna.

The only thing that's strange is that the Lord Commander was one of them and, perhaps, that three KG were given this task. But in the end even that can be easily explained - if Lya's safety was terribly important for Rhaegar then his two good friends would have easily volunteered for that. And in Hightower's case it could have been a royal or princely command, possibly in combination with him looking for an honorable excuse to not return to KL.

We can expect George to shed light on those issues, when he turns to the nature of Rhaegar's and Aerys' relationship after Rhaegar's return. It is pretty much inconceivable that the king and his court did not ask Rhaegar where he had been, where Lyanna Stark was, and what happened to Hightower and the other two KG. We can be pretty sure that Jaime and Barristan both know a lot about those things - but they simply never thought about them in their chapters so far.

Quote

Of course this all begs the question as to whether Gerold actually went and retrieved Rhaegar.  It's not etched in concrete until it actually makes one of the books authored by GRRM, or at least one of the books that GRRM helped to write.  And so far both the series and TWOIAF are all very murky as to what caused Rhaegar to return.  Other than Rhaegar returns after the disaster of the Battle of the Bells.

For all we know Rhaegar received word of the outcome of the Battle of Bells and the banishment of Connington, and decided he was needed back at King's Landing on his own without any prompting from Aerys.  And we don't necessarily know that Gerold's disappearance from King's Landing necessarily coincides with Rhaegar's return.  Even though I lean towards this being a likely scenario.

We do know that Hightower was sent to find Rhaegar. Whether he did isn't clear, nor indeed what caused Rhaegar to return to his father. But the best take would be that Hightower did indeed find Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Quote

The one thing we do know is that Gerold Hightower was present for Lord Rickard's burning, and it doesn't appear that Rhaegar was.  We also have no reason to believe that either Arthur Dayne or Oswell Whent were present.

Those trials are another big question mark so far. We need to learn what Brandon and Rickard were accused of, why they were executed, and how it came to be that Ethan Glover survived. Also, why the hell Aerys II wanted Ned's and Robert's head in addition to the dead Starks. Ned might be kind of understandable since he was the heir of both Rickard and Brandon, but Robert was no Stark and not yet married to Lyanna Stark. Instead, he was Aerys II's and Rhaegar's own cousin, a member of the extended royal family. Why should Aerys want to see him dead?

My take on all that is that the Starks should accused of conspiring against the king with Rhaegar. I think Aerys II and his cronies interpreted Lya's abduction as a signal for the beginning of a rebellion launched by Rhaegar, and Brandon's challenge to duel Rhaegar as an elaborate distraction. This is why I think Aerys II demanded that Brandon's father and the fathers of his companions show up. He wanted to get to the bottom of this imagined conspiracy. And when they all refused to confess 'their treason' he put them all to death - with Glover being the exception because he may have broken and confessed whatever Aerys wanted him to say.

The command to also execute Ned and Robert would then have been an afterthought - Aerys trying to tie up loose ends after he just successful crushed the Stark-Rhaegar rebellion before it could even start.

Anything else I have difficulty to imagine because, in the end, sending a letter to Jon Arryn with the command to execute two young lords was just so stupid an idea in that context that the only way this can make sense if the folks making that decision didn't give Ned and Robert much thought - nor consider them big threats.

They would have been preoccupied with Rhaegar's whereabouts and where he would turn now that the king had successfully crushed his Stark allies. Because all that makes only sense if Rhaegar and Lyanna truly weren't at KL and had no way of influencing events there.

Quote

So while we certainly can't rule out Oswell or Arthur being one of Rhaegar's six companions when he initially left King's Landing (it seems fairly likely they were) we can probably rule out Gerold Hightower being one of Rhaegar's six.

Of course, Hightower is out there. The companions likely included Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, Jon Connington, Myles Mooton, and Richard Lonmouth. Prince Lewyn could have been the sixth, although I'm not so sure about that. It might have been an unknown character so far - say, the maester of Dragonstone at that time, or some other person. It is also possible there were only sixth people in total, Rhaegar included. We only got that from TWoIaF, so Yandel may not have been completely accurate.

Quote

Couple that with the fact that Gerold Hightower volunteered to leave the Harrenhal tourney , which certainly appears to be Rhaegar's brain child, we can perhaps deduce that Hightower may not have been one of Rhaegar's inner circle.  Maybe.

While Hightower volunteered that task to give Jaime the opportunity to shine, we should not discount the possibility that another reason may have been to get away from the Mad King. We don't really know how much time Hightower spent with Aerys while he served him in his last years. He would have been on the council, of course, but as the Lord Commander it would have fallen to Hightower to assign the shifts of his sworn brothers. He may have chosen to guard the queen and Viserys more often than the king's person.

It is quite clear that with Aerys trusting his KG so much he would also have often been around Aerys.

Quote

So for Hightower to take up Rhaegar's "pet project" in Dorne really, really makes me think that Aerys gave his approval.

I think we can safely say that Aerys II must at least have decided to not send further men to fetch back Hightower, Lyanna, and the other KG. He would have had both time and opportunity after Rhaegar's return. Half a year passed between Rhaegar's return and the Trident, and it doesn't seem as if Hightower looked for Rhaegar half a year. If he found them - which is a reasonable assumption - then it might also be the case that Aerys merely sent Hightower to find his son at a location he already know of to talk to him. The idea that the king would send out Hightower of all people on the kind of wild goose chase Brienne does in AFfC is not very likely. He was too important an asset for that kind of thing.

Instead we should assume that Aerys had Varys look for reports on Rhaegar's whereabouts. And if that was the case then he may have been able to more or less pinpoint his location.

1 hour ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

They can't always enforce precisely because it is not a universally accepted right of the monarch.

Basically all the heirs who succeeded to the throne were previously named by the respective kings. The idea that this didn't play the crucial role in them eventually ascending the throne is pretty far-fetched, especially in the early Targaryen era when there weren't any precedents post-Conquest. Aenys succeeded Aegon the Conqueror because he was named Heir Apparent by his father. If Aegon I had named Maegor or a Velaryon or Baratheon cousin the Heir Apparent then they would have succeeded to the throne, one imagines.

There isn't really any difference between Viserys I naming Rhaenyra Heir Apparent or Jaehaerys I naming Aemon Heir Apparent in 62 AC or Baelon in 92 AC.

Quote

Neither example is a monarch making a unilateral choice contrary to clear norms of succession. Under agnatic (male-line) succession, Baelon was the rightful heir ahead of Rhaenys.

But there was no agnatic primogeniture prior to 92 AC. That's why Jaehaerys I's decision for Baelon was controversial. If agnatic primogeniture had been the rule at that point then Rhaenys and Corlys and Alysanne would have never believed Rhaenys would be queen one day because Baelon would have always been second in line after Aemon. The throne could then only pass to the descendants of a hypothetical King Aemon I if Aemon and Jocelyn had a son - which was increasingly unlikely in 90 AC when Corlys and Rhaenys married.

But as I point out further above in the thread there are no clear succession laws for the Iron Throne and no clear line of succession. Kings name heirs on a case-by-case basis. The standard rule, of course, is that the eldest son is the Heir Apparent, and that a younger brother is the heir presumptive if you don't have any children of your own (yet).

But when we ask whether the daughter of a king without sons comes before the king's brother or nephew we already enter very unclear territory.

Quote

Aelora had an argument under male-preference rules (I still think we need some more light on this example from GRRM as it's unique among post-Dance events AFAIK).

I think we are going to learn that prior to the Third Blackfyre Rebellion (Aelor died in 217 AC) neither Aerys I nor Bloodraven were willing to entertain the notion that Prince Maekar could succeed Aerys I on the Iron Throne. Which would mean that after Rhaegel's and Aelor's death Aelora was next in line. This may have changed if Maekar reconciled with and proved his loyalty to his royal brother and Bloodraven during the war against Haegon Blackfyre. Even more so if he played a or the crucial role in defeating the Blackfyres.

This could then also explain why Maekar and not Daenora was named heir after Aelora's suicide. Although if Aerion and Daenora were already married or betrothed at that time Aerys I and Bloodraven may have thought it too dangerous to name an heir whose consort was/would be mad Aerion Brightflame. Maekar's heir was Daeron, so if they named Maekar the next heir the prospect of Aerion controlling the Iron Throne could, perhaps, be avoided.

Quote

Aside from Maegor usurping Aegon, the only time a male who was the clear heir by both male-line and male-preference rules got passed over was Aerion's son Maegor, and that was via a Great Council. Viserys tried to do this by putting Rhaeneyra ahead of his eldest son, and it didn't work out.

No, we also have Aegon V being king instead of Aerion's son Maegor. And then we also have the precedent of Jaehaerys II becoming Heir Apparent instead of Duncan Targaryen. It was because of his marriage and all, but this definitely sets a precedent that a younger brother can come before an older brother under certain circumstances.

Quote

Stannis certainly has issues with women (which is not at all unique to him in their society, which is relevant to the question), but it's still an odd sentiment coming from a stickler for rules if kings were commonly viewed as having absolute discretion over who their heir was

Stannis' view is very odd here, since the only thing that makes Rhaenyra sort of a usurper is that she was killed during the war. Her side won the war and her son replaced Aegon II and her bloodline continued House Targaryen. Dynastically, Rhaenyra won the Dance of the Dragons, even if she did not live to see it.

Stannis would never have the view that, say, his defeat on the Blackwater decided that he was a usurper and Joffrey the rightful king. Nor does he seem to think that him being defeated in battle at Winterfell would cause his daughter Shireen to not be queen after him. If Tommen's leal man, Ramsay Bolton, were to capture Stannis and feed him to his dogs but eventually young Shireen would succeed King Tommen on the Iron Throne in an Aegon III-like scenario (like, with Tommen acknowledging Shireen as his heir before his death) would Stannis then think he should be viewed as a usurper while Queen Shireen would be a rightful monarch?

I don't think so.

In that sense, we should assumes Stannis' words there as him reading the wrong history books or him interpreting this issue as the misogynist that he is ... combined with the bias that would come with his knowledge that his ancestor Borros Baratheon was a committed Green.

Quote

Aegon III was the rightful heir by male-line succession through Daemon independent of Rhaeneyra being his mother. I think after the Dance they wanted to avoid future conflict from potentially unclear succession rules and that's why Rhaeneyra wasn't viewed as the rightful Queen.

That is actually *never* mentioned in FaB. Aegon III doesn't ascend the Iron Throne of being Daemon Targaryen's son - and thus the Old King's great-grandson - but as Rhaenyra's son. Aegon III is proclaimed and crowned king because the Greens lost the war on the Kingsroad and effectively Aegon II's entire court turned Black and killed their king.

If we had a scenario where Aegon III were proclaimed and crowned by both factions after they had agreed to a peace treaty, and if he had been chosen to be king solely on the merits of his male line descent from Daemon and Baelon and Jaehaerys I Targaryen then you would have a point here. But this isn't the case.

Instead, the victory of the Blacks is reflected in the fact that Aegon II was murdered in a Black coup - and it was that coup staged by Larys Strong and Corlys Velaryon which ensured that Aegon III would be king. Without that, and if the Greens had had any voice in the matter of the succession, chances were pretty good that they would have pushed for Jaehaera to be crowned queen, possibly without her marrying Rhaenyra's son. Because they would have known that both Aegon II and Alicent didn't exactly like that prospect.

Aegon II rightful heir was his daughter considering that Rhaenyra and all her children were clearly traitors and usurpers from the Green point of view.

The only guy who brings up the 'iron precedent of 101 AC' after the Dance is Munkun - and that's kind of a joke since he wants to look for a male line descendant of House Targaryen who no longer existed ... unless we count Aemond's son by Alys Rivers, of course.

Most of the court seem to be rather fine with the idea that simple Jaehaera be excluded from the succession and the throne pass directly from Aegon III to one of his half-sisters or their (male) descendants.

Quote

They can't always do so precisely because there is dispute over their authority. Nothing in the books has established that KG would be universally seen as traitors for not accepting the old king's personal choice of heir if it contradicted standard norms and wasn't backed up by a Great Council or something similar. 

Actually, there is. For one, KG choosing kings of their own have bad results if you think not only of Criston Cole - who is vilified because he betrayed the wishes of his king, Viserys I - but also Olyver Bracken and Raymund Mallery who thought they could just defect from Maegor to Jaehaerys.

The Kingsguard are sworn to obey the king, not the laws of the land or some vague laws of succession. And they are also not sworn to make kings or take matters of state into their own hands. Basically, they just do as they are told.

And without clearly knowing what House Targaryen would do after the Sack it is kind of weird to assume they would have thought about making a new king.

Even Jon Connington didn't make a king in exile. Aegon might have a strong claim to the Iron Throne, he might even be the rightful heir to the Iron Throne in the eyes of many ... but nobody crowned or proclaimed him king in Essos. He still goes by the style of prince.

In that sense we should assume that the knights at the tower at best thought that Lyanna's child was a prince or a princess - and even that is little bit of a stretch considering the Targaryens were already deposed by the time the child was (likely) born. Is the posthumous child of a dead prince whose house has been overthrown and destroyed even a prince? That is a question open to debate.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 5/17/2021 at 4:34 PM, Mrstrategy said:

Should Aerys had replaced the Kingsguard who remained in tower of Joy for not being at the trident or guardian him and instead remained in a a unknown location to Aerys and charge them with desertion?

 

 

Those men were loyal to Aerys. They didn't turn their backs on him. They were there on a mission from Aerys to find Lyanna and bring her to KL. She would have made a good hostage. 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

9 minutes ago, frenin said:

Nope, they can't always enforce it because people won't always like what they are saying.  

Rights always play second fiddle to pragmatism and politics. 

These go hand in hand. In medieval society and modern society, people generally don't justify controversial political actions with "lol, because I can," even if that's their real motivation.

11 minutes ago, frenin said:

Agnatic succesion was not a thing in the South and Andal law clearly favours the daughter over the late ruler's brothers and their offspring.  That's precisely why the fuss started in the first place. Baelon was never the rightful heir ahead of Rhaenys.

I don't think we by any means have enough information to say agnatic succession wasn't a thing in the south. I don't think there really are clear, universal rules of succession, perhaps excepting Dorne's unique practice of equal inheritance. Off the top of my head, one possible instance of agnatic succession in the south - Shella Whent's father is said to have been a Lord Whent, yet Shella's husband was clearly the ruler of Harrenhal when he was alive. Since non-Targs don't practice sibling incest, he must have been an uncle or cousin, which would put him behind Shella under male-preference inheritance. Furthermore, the Targs were not Andals. Baelon had a strong claim to being the rightful heir. The entire concept of "rightful heir" has a lot of subjectivity to it, that's part of my point and Martin makes that clear as well. All of these things - being the heir by X form of primogeniture, being the preferred pick of the ruler, etc. - matter, but none of them are in all cases definitive when it comes to succession. My argument isn't about who really is the "true heir," it's about whether Westeros universally accepts that the "true heir" is whoever the dead monarch says it was, and that anyone denying that is a traitor, and I do not think that is at all established in the story. Certainly you'd feel that if you supported the monarch's pick, but that doesn't mean everyone would agree with you. Hell, Barristan accepts Robert as his king after the Rebellion, and isn't widely considered a traitor even by Targ loyalists, and that's a lot more egregious than supporting the male heir to the senior line of the family over his father's younger brother.

24 minutes ago, frenin said:

Nope, Aegon 3 was the rightful heir because Aegon 2 made him heir and because, and far more importantly, the Blacks won the war and crowned king anyways. Him being the rightful heir through Daemon is never brought up.

It isn't explicitly stated because it doesn't have to be. If the official histories regard Rhaeneyra as a usurper, which they do, the only basis for Aegon III being the rightful king is that he was the senior male-line heir to the house. Obviously there are ulterior factors at play here, as there were with Robert becoming king in the Rebellion, but regimes care about presenting legitimacy, and it doesn't make sense for Aegon III's regime to both cast aside Rhaeneyra in the histories and view Daemon's parentage of Aegon as meaningless. For all of the succession disputes in Targ history, in the official line there are only two kings who inherited contrary to agnatic primogeniture, Maegor (widely hated and considered a usurper) and Aegon IV, who was crowned by a Great Council.

 

30 minutes ago, frenin said:

Stannis's issues with women are certainly rare in the society, as it's highlighted. 

The extent of it sure, but Westeros is a very misogynistic society in general

30 minutes ago, frenin said:

In the books is established that Kings and lords have the legal ability to rule on their succesion, so if they do not follow those orders (if they found out about it that is) they are indeed traitors.

It's established that kings and lords can rule on and influence their succession in some circumstances, it is never established that this is widely viewed as an absolute right and that any who deny it in any circumstance are traitors. Just as methods and norms of succession are not absolute or always applied consistently.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

It isn't explicitly stated because it doesn't have to be. If the official histories regard Rhaeneyra as a usurper, which they do, the only basis for Aegon III being the rightful king is that he was the senior male-line heir to the house. Obviously there are ulterior factors at play here, as there were with Robert becoming king in the Rebellion, but regimes care about presenting legitimacy, and it doesn't make sense for Aegon III's regime to both cast aside Rhaeneyra in the histories and view Daemon's parentage of Aegon as meaningless. For all of the succession disputes in Targ history, in the official line there are only two kings who inherited contrary to agnatic primogeniture, Maegor (widely hated and considered a usurper) and Aegon IV, who was crowned by a Great Council.

Actually, the official histories don't count Rhaenyra as usurper. The only guy calling her usurper is Stannis. She is not on the king list in the appendix of AGoT, but the usurper Maegor is there, too, so this list doesn't tell us anything about who is 'rightfully' king but rather who effectively was king. That is also why Robert and Joffrey who both, effectively, are usurpers yet who are still counted as monarchs.

2 minutes ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

It's established that kings and lords can rule on and influence their succession in some circumstances, it is never established that this is widely viewed as an absolute right and that any who deny it in any circumstance are traitors. Just as methods and norms of succession are not absolute or always applied consistently.

You seem to overlook the fact that every heir - even the clearest of heirs, an eldest son - is always formally named and anointed heir of his father. Both with the lords and the kings. And it is that public ceremony that actually makes them heirs. If that is lacking then you have something like Tyrion who clearly is not Tywin's heir during the first three books. He should be his heir but he is not.

People somehow think it is an automatic process that you are the heir because you are the eldest son, etc. - but that's not the case. You have to be named heir, you have to be treated as such, people have to know who and what you are, etc. If that doesn't happen you aren't the heir.