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

[Mister Smikes]

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

Now here you kind of buried the lead a bit.  Let's talk about the six people that Eddard took with him to the tower of joy.  You call them warriors loyal to Robert.  I think in reality we're dealing with six warriors extremely loyal to Eddard, and Lyanna, and Brandon, and the North.

1.  Howland Reed:  One of Winterfell's subjects.  Fairly recently broke bread with the Starks at Harrenhal.  More notably we can at least surmise that Lyanna Stark took up Howland Reed's cause.  So we're talking about a guy who probably owes a debt of gratitude to Lyanna Stark.

2.  Willam Dustin.  A Lord sworn to House Winterfell.  One of Eddard's wedding guests to his marriage to Catelyn Tully.  Probably was close friends to Brandon Stark back in the time Brandon Stark was fostered at House Dustin.

3.  Ethan Glover:  Was with Brandon Stark when they rode to King's Landing to call out Rhaegar Targaryen in regards to Lyanna Stark.  Notably he was Brandon Stark's squire, and as we know there's probably no relationship closer than that of Knight and Squire.

4.  Martyn Cassel: the son of Winterfell's master at arms.  Probably someone that grew up in Winterfell.  Probably very loyal to the Starks.

5. Theo Wull.  One of the clan chiefs.  Eddard considered him faithful.  Any interest he had in who sat on the Iron Throne was probably minimal.  However, it appears that the Mountain clan chiefs are all very loyal to the Stark family.

6.  Mark Ryswell.  A member of House Ryswell where both Brandon Stark and Lyanna Stark would "ride the Rills".  So I'd wager someone who knew both Lyanna and Brandon, and may have been friends with both.

So, that was not really a whetstone Oswald was using.  It was an ipad, and he was using it to look up all these characters on the wiki of ice and fire, and then supplement them with fan theories, to decide if he could trust them or not.

Problem is, you are assuming the Kingsguard know everything that you know, and I'm not even sure everything you know is necessarily correct.  They only have to be wrong about one of these people to result in disaster.  

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

 

So while the common theory is that Eddard rode to the tower of joy to free Lyanna, Robert's betrothed, it seems very unusual that Eddard rode with such a small party and rode only with men who would have been extremely loyal to him, House Stark,Winterfell, Lyanna and the memory of Brandon Stark.  So not just any soldiers.  And notably no one associated with Robert Baratheon, despite the fact that this is supposed to be a mission to free Robert's betrothed  It seems odd that Robert wouldn't have contributed anything to this mission.

He chose specific people for a certain mission, and it led to an encounter.  I see no need in this context to stretch for conclusions.   You stretch even further when you assume that the 3 Kingsguard members were able to read their collective minds.

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But if Eddard rode to the tower of joy, knowing that this was also a mission (or perhaps only a mission) to free Lyanna's child, a child who might also be Rhaegar Targaryens child, then this small group of people, people that Eddard can trust to keep a secret, even (especially) from Robert Baratheon, this lineup begins to make more sense.

As it happened only one of them, Howland Reed, had to join him in keeping this secret (and maybe Willam too, but that's a theory).  If he had had to rely on all 6 of them keeping a secret, he would have been taking a much bigger risk.

I have no reason to assume he knew the risk he was taking when the fight began.  It was fate that determined there would be only 2 (3?) survivors, and that he would end up having to trust only 1 (2?) persons.

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

ETA: so earlier you indicated that Eddard at the time he left King's Landing didn't know about any other dragonspawn. 

Well ... except Viserys of course.

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

That may be true.  But I contend at some point he must have learned about Lyanna's pregnancy or birth, which is why he assembeled the six men he did.  To retrieve her child without Robert's knowledge.

I see no evidence of this.  Surely it is enough to assume he was there to retrieve Lyanna -- maybe even without Robert's knowledge.  And we can hardly say we even know that.  Even if his mission generally was to find Lyanna, he may hardly have assumed he was about to find her at this very day and hour, and had to surround himself on the exact occasion with exactly the right people.

54 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

But by all accounts both sides knew coming in that this was going to be a battle to the death. 

All accounts?  We only have one account, and if anyone seems to know the outcome it is Eddard, who had replayed the sequence in his head for the last 15 years.  So yeah, of course he knows the outcome ... in his dream.  

 

[ATaleofSalt&Onions]

22 minutes ago, frenin said:

No, you're arguing that if there's no might behind a law, there's no law and thus a grey area. Which is true or false for any society that ever existed and will exist.

No, I'm contesting your notion that "the law" in Westeros is something that is always universally clear to everyone involved.

23 minutes ago, frenin said:

They have a claim, their claim is lesser. Daughters inheriting over non brothers in most kingdoms is a fairly good sample don't you think?? Saying that there's no basis in the text when a rather clear pattern can be seen is rather odd.

We have a few examples of women inheriting, that doesn't mean there's a consistent and universal standard for succession. When the author has explicitly said that there isn't, I think we should take him at his word.

27 minutes ago, frenin said:

No, there seemed to be quite a unified pattern among those Kingdoms. And if the Tarts followed the principle of "King chooses"... how isn't clear??

There wasn't any sort of clear principle of "King chooses whoever he wants and that's that," or really any sort of clear principle at all. There was a custom that the king recognized their eldest son as their heir. Viserys I was the only person who went against this and it resulted in civil war. In cases where there wasn't an eldest son available, controversy arose. Kings had more leeway here, but these disputes were often settled through councils. In any case, the end result was usually that the senior male-line heir was recognized, with a couple exceptions like Egg becoming king over Maegor. That the king's power here was not absolute isn't something that I think would really be disputed, it's just a matter of where the line is. If Viserys had named Mushroom his heir, do you think virtually anyone would have seen that as valid? I don't mean your whole thing about "it's a law but it's not enforced" I mean do you think most people would have actually viewed that as a legally valid decree that anyone was bound to obey or else become a traitor?

[Mister Smikes]

1 hour ago, Frey family reunion said:

As for the Kingsguard, they do swear a pledge to keep the King's secrets.  But how is Lyanna's child with Rhaegar one of Aerys' secrets?  Once again, we have to ask why would Aerys have an investment in the child of Rhaegar's paramour?  

Missed this before.

Your idea seems to be that if the Kingsguard is guarding the King's family member, and then learns that the King has died, he just says "Oh well, kid, I guess you are on your own now"?  Somehow I don't think it is supposed to work that way.  A kingsguard serves for life, his duties don't go POOF the instant the king dies, and his duties are extended to the king's family, in part no doubt to cover situations like this one.

As for Lyranna being (supposedly) only a paramour, I don't want to draw any such assumptions.  Nor do I want to assume that Lyanna's newborn was necessarily the only child they were guarding.

[Frey family reunion]

2 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

So, that was not really a whetstone Oswald was using.  It was an ipad, and he was using it to look up all these characters on the wiki of ice and fire, and then supplement them with fan theories, to decide if he could trust them or not.

Problem is, you are assuming the Kingsguard know everything that you know, and I'm not even sure everything you know is necessarily correct.  They only have to be wrong about one of these people to result in disaster.  

He chose specific people for a certain mission, and it led to an encounter.  I see no need in this context to stretch for conclusions.   You stretch even further when you assume that the 3 Kingsguard members were able to read their collective minds.

As it happened only one of them, Howland Reed, had to join him in keeping this secret (and maybe Willam too, but that's a theory).  If he had had to rely on all 6 of them keeping a secret, he would have been taking a much bigger risk.

I have no reason to assume he knew the risk he was taking when the fight began.  It was fate that determined there would be only 2 (3?) survivors, and that he would end up having to trust only 1 (2?) persons.

Well ... except Viserys of course.

I see no evidence of this.  Surely it is enough to assume he was there to retrieve Lyanna -- maybe even without Robert's knowledge.  And we can hardly say we even know that.  Even if his mission generally was to find Lyanna, he may hardly have assumed he was about to find her at this very day and hour, and had to surround himself on the exact occasion with exactly the right people.

All accounts?  We only have one account, and if anyone seems to know the outcome it is Eddard, who had replayed the sequence in his head for the last 15 years.  So yeah, of course he knows the outcome ... in his dream.  

 

Ok, it seems that we're arguing two different points.  

Yes, I've heard this argument before.  And it's probably the first thought most readers have when they start to piece things together.  That the Kingsguards were guarding baby Jon, because he's the current king of the land, and they're trying to keep him safe from Eddard, Robert's primary ally because word has gotten out that Robert wants Rhaegar's children dead.  And maybe if they had just taken the time to sit and talk things out, they would have realized Eddard wasn't a threat to his sister's child.

Of course this all begs the question as to why Aerys' Kingsguard (three of them) were guarding Lyanna and her child (whether born or unborn) before the events that would have led to this alleged turn of the succession.  And what's more, why do they think they're being such good Kingsguards throughout the war, when as Eddard pointed out they weren't guarding their king, or fighting with Rhaegar ect. ect.

So, what I'm suggesting is that we look a little deeper.  And specifically look at who Eddard was with, and perhaps more importantly who isn't with Eddard's party at the time of the toj.  And then ask ourselves why.  Why was the group so small?  Why was it only people who would have had a personal relationship with Eddard, Lyanna, and/or Brandon?  

And one possible answer is that Eddard took a small group of people that he could trust with a very important secret.  A secret that needed to be kept from everyone, including, and perhaps especially, Robert Baratheon.  So their mission is probably not (or not just) to rescue Lyanna.  But instead to rescue Lyanna's child.  Especially if Eddard believed that child to have been Rhaegar's as well.  This would be a reason that he would have kept the rescue party small, and consisting of only people he could trust.  

And Eddard's motivation to keep his rescue party a secret from Robert, in this case, is due to what happened with Rhaegar's children at King's Landing.

So the next question I have is, why are the Kingsguards involved at all?  Is it because Rhaegar secretly married Lyanna, and they've figured out that their loyalty should now lie in protecting Jon, because he's the rightful king?

I think that was my initial assumption, and one I held on to for a long time.  But then an alternative, darker reason started to become a possibility in my mind.

And all we really have to do is look at the parallel beliefs that Aemon Targaryen and Melisandre seem to share.  I bring up Aemon, because he's probably as close as we're going to get to deciphering Rhaegar's beliefs and motivations.  And I bring up Melisandre because she's the only other person in the story who seems to be trying to prepare her AAR/PTWP for the Battle for the Dawn.

So Melisandre believed that Stannis was AAR and also TPTWP.  That these seemed to be two interchangeable ideas.  Melisandre's believes this due to a prophecy of being born (or reborn) in salt and smoke, when the stars (or star, or red star) is bleeding.  Melisandre believes that AAR is foretold to wake a stone dragon.  Melisandre believes that the sacrifice of a child with king's blood is also necessary to wake the stone dragon.  And finally that AAR or TPTWP was the key to winning the Battle for the Dawn, to either end or stave off the Long Night.

Melisandre became obsessed with sacrificing Edric Storm.  A boy who's bloodline includes Targaryen Kings, Storm Kings, and even allegedly Gardner Kings, if the claims of House Florent can be believed.

Aemon also believes that TPTWP is slated to to fight in the Battle for the Dawn.  Aemon also looked for persons who were born amidst smoke and salt as fulfiller of this prophecy.  Aemon notes that Rhaegar believed the bleeding star had to be a comet.  While Aemon never directly comments on the portion of the prophecy about waking dragons from stone, he notably came to believe that Dany's dragons proved that she was TPTWP.  So in other words bringing dragons back seemed to also be a necessary part of tptwp prophecy.

And finally, when Jon gets wind of Melisandre's intentions of sacrificing a child with king's blood, Aemon doesnt' scoff at the notion.  Far from it.  He agrees that there is indeed a power in king's blood, and "better men than Stannis, have done worse".  

Soooo, that bring me back to Rhaegar.  We know Rhaegar believed his son was TPTWP.  We also know that Rhaegar was considered a go getter a real type A personality.  And specifically, he's been called singled minded.  So if his beliefs in the prophecies mirror Melisandre's at all, then it shouldnt' be a surprise that he also believes that his son needs dragons to return to fulfill the prophecy.  And it shouldn't come as a surprise that Rahegar may also come to the conclusion that to bring dragons back he needs a fiery sacrifice of someone (or multiple someones) with kingsblood.

Add on the fact that Rhaegar seemed inspired by Summerhall, another event that seemed to deal with fire, death and the Targaryen's obsession with dragons, and once again this motivation really shouldn't be a surprise.

After all Valyrian magic is rooted in "fire and blood".  

And if we're looking at the one area that father, Aerys, and son, Rhaegar, might come together, it would be here.  In a desire to bring dragons back to House Targaryen.  Aerys for his own meglomania, and Rhaegar because they are needed to fulfill his son's prophecy and to help his son fight in the Battle for the Dawn.

And that takes us to Aerys' Kingsguard.  And why they were tasked to be in Dorne with Lyanna and with her unborn child a child who, like Edric Storm, would be possessed of valuable King's blood.  And why the Kingsguards and Eddard and his hand picked brotherhood knew that this was going to be a fight to the death.

 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I'm sure many did, what I'm saying is that I can easily see different factions emerging among Targ loyalists had Aegon openly survived. You yourself seem to acknowledge that when you say that you expect the Dornish would have only jumped on Viserys's wagon after the Sack.

Oh, but that is because I think the Martells were at best lukewarm Targaryen loyalists due to the whole Lyanna thing ... and perhaps no longer on board after the Mad King threatened Elia and the children after the Trident. It would have been only after the Sack that they returned into that camp because they wanted revenge against the Lannisters.

They are still not *really* Targaryen loyalists but merely wanted to exploit Viserys and Daenerys to get what they wanted.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Fair point, but they clearly consider the throne to be rightfully his. Whether they want to wait to formally crown and proclaim him that isn't particularly relevant to the overall point I'm making. If you believe the throne belongs to him, someone else being crowned doesn't change that.

This point is important because it is a strong sign that the knights at the tower would have neither made a new king nor decided who their future king would be without first consulting with other members of House Targaryen - namely the Dowager Queen or other important people.

Aegon's kingship is completely dependent on what they eventually do with him. While the plan was to marry him to Daenerys it wasn't even clear whether he would be a king (consort) or merely a prince consort - that would be part of whatever kind of deal they would make with Daenerys.

And Aegon's legitimacy problem coming from the fact that folks believe him to be dead is very obvious in the book. I don't think he would have ever had a chance of his own without getting the support of either Viserys III or Daenerys. At least in an original plan scenario where Westeros was not ravaged by a homemade civil war before Aegon arrived there.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Darry would presumably have no way of knowing about Jon's birth or whether he was a boy, and he's still doing his duty protecting the royal family whether or not Viserys is king. It's just the way that paragraph is constructed that seems odd if they think Viserys is their king - Ned is basically like "Viserys is your king, Willem Darry is with him, why aren't you?" and their response is basically "He's cool, but he's not Kingsguard like us" which is a weird response if he's the only one of them actually protecting the king. Maybe it is just that they made some special vow and their honor and duty compels them to fulfill that over protecting their king, but to me it just seems like the wording is designed to set off some bells in the reader's mind.

The answer is only weird since Ned implies the knights could have gone with Viserys. Ned apparently learned only rather recently that they were with Lyanna, so he hoped he would not find them when he found Lyanna.

Ned doesn't tell them Viserys is their king, he just says that he expected them to have gone with Queen Rhaella and Prince Viserys to Dragonstone. And he implies that Rhaella and Viserys and Darry fled - this is what they KG object to. They say the Kingsguard does not flee. But it is a misconstruction that Darry fled. He just obeyed a command of his king.

There are also hints that George may have reconceived the circumstances of Rhaella and Viserys going to Dragonstone - Dany remembers Viserys' tale as a 'midnight flight' with moonlight shimmering on black sails - which clashes with Jaime's memory of Rhaella leaving early in the morning. It may be that Rhaella and Viserys were originally only getting out of the city around the time of the Sack, not two weeks earlier.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

He did it after a Great Council and not unilaterally, but this is exactly what happens when Jaehaerys names Viserys as his heir after Baelon dies. Other than that, how many times did this scenario (specifically involving a son of a son, I'm not talking about scenarios involving a daughter vs her uncle or cousin) come up? Baelor Breakspear's sons seem to have died very soon after he did and shortly before Daeron II did (they all died in the same year), do we have any indication that Aerys would have come ahead of them had they survived? Aelor Targaryen was named as Prince of Dragonstone after Rhaegel died (technically not the exact same scenario you're describing since Rhaegel was Aerys's brother rather than his son, but the principle is the same), ahead of Maekar, and even Aelora was apparently named after he died (which is odd considering the rest of Targ history, wonder when we'll learn more about that). I think the only other example of an eldest son dying with male issue was Aerion, and Maekar didn't name any heir in that scenario. Egg eventually got chosen by a Great Council for multiple reasons as we've already discussed. There was no clearly-established norm to pass over the sons of eldest sons if a king's heir predeceased him.

Again, we do have precedents were the younger son comes first in such a scenario, while there is no precedent where the son of son became king.

Prince Valarr may have been named Heir Apparent after Baelor's death, yes, but we have no confirmation of that. It might be that Daeron II never got around doing that.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

As for the Jaehaerys-Aerea thing, I think that just has to do with Rogar taking whatever position was in his self-interest at the moment. I don't think the lesson from that situation is that Jaehaerys had no claim to being the rightful heir to the throne.

It is pretty clear that Jaehaerys wasn't the rightful heir. Gyldayn discusses this in detail and also explains why that is - basically because Maegor is viewed as a usurper, meaning Aegon the Uncrowned was the rightful king, and if this was the case then Aegon's daughters are the rightful heirs, not Jaehaerys. If Maegor weren't a usurper and the rightful king then technically Jaehaerys and Alysanne are disinherited and Aerea is the heir, too.

You have to keep in mind that Maegor the Cruel wasn't properly deposed or even defeated in battle. He just died.

Rogar's approach to things shows that legal arguments are made up on the fly. They are not consistent and deliberately made so by the people interpreting 'the law'. In the end, it was just Alyssa Velaryon's loyalty to her son that saved Jaehaerys' kingship. If he had installed Aerea on the Iron Throne and invited Rhaena to serve as the regent then Jaehaerys and Alysanne would have to rise up in bloody rebellion against their own niece and stepfather. They could have prevailed, but it would have been a bloody mess.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I acknowledged Rivers's comment, I don't give it much weight because I see no reason to think he would be in the know on what Illyrio and Varys's plans are. Hell, his words make that pretty clear themselves. I think Viserys had a role to play in Varys's plan, and maybe he'd even be publicly put forth as an initial claimaint, but I don't think Aegon and JonCon (particularly JonCon) were only expecting him to become king after Viserys died.

How do you think Aegon could have become king before Viserys III? Viserys already was a king in exile and is addressed as such by Illyrio. Drogo married Viserys' sister and would have invaded Westeros in Viserys' or Daenerys' name ... not in the name of Aegon.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Honestly Martin makes this more complicated in his world than it would have been IRL. Many titles in medieval Europe operated off of Salic law where Baelon and Viserys would have been the clear heirs over Rhaenys and Laenor as women and their heirs were forbidden from inheriting (at least so long as there was a male-line heir available). There were a bunch of times when a King of France died with only daughters and was succeeded by a brother, uncle, or cousin, if you had told them that they were disinheriting the senior branch of the royal family in doing so they would have looked at you like you were crazy. As Jaehaerys came to power over his older brother's daughter, it makes all the sense in the world for him to apply that principle to his heirs.

It is actually not that easy. George was very much inspired by Maurice Druon's novels on this topic which very much show how Salic Law is basically 'invented' to disinherit the daughter of Louis X. And that ends up biting Philip V in the ass considering he himself has only daughters, so his bloodline is invalidated, too, in favor of that of his younger brother and eventually the Valois cousins. George plays around with that thing when Viserys I takes the throne as a male line only descendant but doesn't want that his daughter be pushed aside in the same manner he pushed aside Rhaenys and her children.

But while France had a binding succession law with the interpretation of Salic Law thanks to Philip V, Westeros never had something like that. There women were only individually passed over, not in a manner that ever led to a clear law of succession which stipulated that women couldn't inherit.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

As a side note, I personally don't buy the story that Jaehaerys offered Vaegon the throne FWIW.

Well, it makes more sense than to assume Jaehaerys just wanted to talk to his son for some other reason. The man was old already, but I didn't think he really needed an archmaester's advice to come up with the idea of a Great Council. He was called the Conciliator for a reason, after all.

My take would be that Jaehaerys I thought Vaegon could be an alternative to both Viserys and Rhaenys/Laenor, and once he had left his order he could mount a dragon and marry Laena or Rhaenyra to ensure the other guys fall in line. And I guess this could have worked if Vaegon had wanted to be king.

Jaehaerys seems to have been pretty guilt-ridden in his last years as his desire to see Saera again shows. He had pushed Vaegon away earlier, too, confident that he two elder sons would shoulder his burdens.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

I have a different take on things. I would say there are limits, but they're informal and undefined. Westeros seems to operate off of custom as much as anything else and I don't think people necessarily think of "the law" the same way we do. Take the Red Wedding - Walder Frey technically had authorization to do it from the Hand of the King (of an underage monarch), but most people would view it as a ghastly violation of the ancient custom of guest right, which I think they'd view essentially as a law as much as any king's decree.

Guest right is only this holy in the North, not in the Andal kingdoms. But I'd contest that Tywin authorized the Red Wedding. Tywin wanted Walder and Roose to murder Robb. He didn't want them to murder tens of thousands of people at a wedding. Tywin himself says he expected them to arrange an accident for Robb - an arrow gone astray. That would still be murder, of course, but not breaking of guest right if done during a hunt in the woods or in the field.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

If everyone accepted the king's power as absolute there wouldn't be any succession disputes when they had named an heir or any need for Great Councils.

Most succession struggles go back to there not being a clearly anointed heir. This has less to do with the power of a king and more with how people feel what they themselves should be. A king's power ends with his death, his succession isn't something he can control in all circumstances. Mostly he does, but it is part of the system that this doesn't work always.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

The feudal relationship entails mutual obligations and every lord would at some point consider their liege breaking them to be a violation that justifies rebellion. The liege and their supporters will of course see that as treason, as in any such dispute.

I think we can best show how little institutional power the lords have against the king with Aegon V's (attempted) reforms not meeting legal opposition but bloody rebellions, apparently. The lords may have thought they had hallowed and ancient rights, but they were not codified anywhere, nor was there any law prohibiting the king from taking away such rights from the lords - or granting new rights and privileges to the smallfolk.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

To bring it back to our example, I'm not saying that Aerys wouldn't consider the KG traitors for not backing his chosen heir, or that his personal loyalists might not agree. I'm saying that I think it's entirely possible that many supporters of House Targaryen who were more on "Team Rhaegar" would find it acceptable to go with his son. Or consider the scenario where Rhaegar was able to pull of some sort of coup against Aerys; there'd surely be some sort of pseudo-legal basis for it, Aerys being incapacitated due to his insanity, the lords of the realm backing Rhaegar, etc. does that make it legal? Is there an objective answer to that question? Would any of the KG have accepted Rhaegar as their king if he pulled it off? I think yes, and I don't think most people would consider them traitors for it. Or to take your example of a modern rebellion, it may be the case that the rebels are officially criminals or traitors from a legal standpoint, but that doesn't preclude the government from being technically in the wrong legally as well. 

Oh, I agree with your scenario in a clash between Rhaegar and Aerys ... but I don't think House Targaryen still had two factions after the Sack. There were just one. In fact, I think there was also just one back when Rhaegar returned to his father to lead his armies.

The idea that the Kingsguard of Aerys II would want to create a second pretender in addition to Viserys III is something that makes no sense to me. Two royal princes acting in their own right, sure. They might do something like that like Stannis and Renly did, or Aenys Blackfyre who wanted to be king instead of Daemon III. But children on the run would not fight each other, nor would the protectors of one such child turn him into a (mortal) enemy of his uncle and vice versa.

Again, we even see the willingness to work together in the team Targaryen with Viserys III, Daenerys, and Aegon. Their supporters all try to team up somehow in ADwD.

If you cut to the chase you have to presuppose that people supporting Aegon or Jon Snow against Viserys III were obsessed with an imagined interpretation of an imagined line of succession.

And if the history of the Targaryens and their succession wars teaches us anything then that effectively nobody relied on such arguments when he or she challenged the claim of another pretender.

2 hours ago, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

Again, I think this is an area where Martin didn't really do a great job worldbuilding. I think law and institutions were more developed in medieval Europe than he seems to think they were. Absolute monarchy was definitely more of a post-medieval thing (and even then not in all places by any means) and the checks that existed in the Middle Ages were a lot more formal than in Westeros.

Of course, George is severely lacking especially in the judicial department. He actually seems to be thinking his kings do sit in judgment over all legal cases presented to them, for instance.

Although medieval monarchy in the countries where absolutism later flourished all had an absolutist ideology before. The difference just was that for most of the middle ages the kings only absolutist rulers in name only. Ideologically they always were. And if you look at France then Philip the Fair then he was pretty much a proto-absolutist king - the monarchy later lost the grip on the state he had established, but the ideology never changed.

[Mister Smikes]

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

 Yes, I've heard this argument before.  And it's probably the first thought most readers have when they start to piece things together.  That the Kingsguards were guarding baby Jon, because he's the current king of the land, and they're trying to keep him safe from Eddard, Robert's primary ally because word has gotten out that Robert wants Rhaegar's children dead.  And maybe if they had just taken the time to sit and talk things out, they would have realized Eddard wasn't a threat to his sister's child.

Again, I am only looking at what can be reasonably inferred from what we know.  So I never mentioned "baby Jon".   I did mention Baby Aegon (since there is some evidence he may have survived) and also Lyanna's newborn (whoever that might be).   There is, BTW, some evidence that Jon Snow may be too old to be the newborn born at the TOJ, so perhaps they were guarding as many as 3 children:  Baby Aegon, Lyanna's first child born a year earlier, and Lyanna's latest newborn.  Or maybe something else that I have not thought of.  

But there are hints that they thought they were doing kingsguard duty; and hints that they did not think their king was Viserys.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Of course this all begs the question as to why Aerys' Kingsguard (three of them) were guarding Lyanna and her child (whether born or unborn) before the events that would have led to this alleged turn of the succession. 

Not clear what you are saying.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

And what's more, why do they think they're being such good Kingsguards throughout the war, when as Eddard pointed out they weren't guarding their king, or fighting with Rhaegar ect. ect.

Evidently they were doing something else.  And we don't know what that is.  And we don't have enough information to guess what it is.   The problem is not that this is impossible to explain.  The problem is that there are far too many possible explanations.  I don't see what we can do here except realize this does not contradict their declared loyalty to Aerys.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

So, what I'm suggesting is that we look a little deeper. 

My suggestion is that we have far too little information; we should just accept that we do not know.  Any guesses we make are 99% likely to be wrong.  There are just too many possibilities.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

And specifically look at who Eddard was with, and perhaps more importantly who isn't with Eddard's party at the time of the toj.  And then ask ourselves why.  Why was the group so small? 

Unknown.  Unclear.  Insufficient data.  If we try to answer this question, we are only writing fan fiction.  The problem is not that this is impossible to explain.  It is just that there are too many possible explanations.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Why was it only people who would have had a personal relationship with Eddard, Lyanna, and/or Brandon?  

I would guess that when Stark went warring in the South, he took Stark forces with him, and left the Baratheon forces behind to guard the king.   It is a division of labor that makes sense in a Feudal system - each soldier serves under his respective Lord.  The relationships don't seem all that deeply personal to me.  They are just all distantly connected to the Starks as you would expect from Stark men.  I see nothing here to explain.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

And one possible answer is that Eddard took a small group of people that he could trust with a very important secret.  A secret that needed to be kept from everyone, including, and perhaps especially, Robert Baratheon.  So their mission is probably not (or not just) to rescue Lyanna.  But instead to rescue Lyanna's child.  Especially if Eddard believed that child to have been Rhaegar's as well. 

You just made a giant leap from "possible" to "probable".  It is conceivable Eddard could have found out that Lyanna was with child.  But I see absolutely no reason to think it likely.  How would he find out?  From gossiping peasants?  There are 1000 possible reasons Eddard's party was small.  And even if we assume the party was small because of secrecy concerns, there are still 1000 possible secrecy concerns other than the one you mentioned.   

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

So the next question I have is, why are the Kingsguards involved at all?  Is it because Rhaegar secretly married Lyanna, and they've figured out that their loyalty should now lie in protecting Jon, because he's the rightful king?

Or maybe because Aegon is the rightful king, and because Lyanna's child or children (assuming Aegon is not himself present) are the King's brothers and sisters - the king's family.  And perhaps pretty important family, if you buy those "dragon has 3 heads" prophetic hints.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think that was my initial assumption, and one I held on to for a long time.  But then an alternative, darker reason started to become a possibility in my mind.

And all we really have to do is look at the parallel beliefs that Aemon Targaryen and Melisandre seem to share.  I bring up Aemon, because he's probably as close as we're going to get to deciphering Rhaegar's beliefs and motivations.  And I bring up Melisandre because she's the only other person in the story who seems to be trying to prepare her AAR/PTWP for the Battle for the Dawn.

So Melisandre believed that Stannis was AAR and also TPTWP.  That these seemed to be two interchangeable ideas.  Melisandre's believes this due to a prophecy of being born (or reborn) in salt and smoke, when the stars (or star, or red star) is bleeding.  Melisandre believes that AAR is foretold to wake a stone dragon.  Melisandre believes that the sacrifice of a child with king's blood is also necessary to wake the stone dragon.  And finally that AAR or TPTWP was the key to winning the Battle for the Dawn, to either end or stave off the Long Night.

Melisandre became obsessed with sacrificing Edric Storm.  A boy who's bloodline includes Targaryen Kings, Storm Kings, and even allegedly Gardner Kings, if the claims of House Florent can be believed.

Aemon also believes that TPTWP is slated to to fight in the Battle for the Dawn.  Aemon also looked for persons who were born amidst smoke and salt as fulfiller of this prophecy.  Aemon notes that Rhaegar believed the bleeding star had to be a comet.  While Aemon never directly comments on the portion of the prophecy about waking dragons from stone, he notably came to believe that Dany's dragons proved that she was TPTWP.  So in other words bringing dragons back seemed to also be a necessary part of tptwp prophecy.

And finally, when Jon gets wind of Melisandre's intentions of sacrificing a child with king's blood, Aemon doesnt' scoff at the notion.  Far from it.  He agrees that there is indeed a power in king's blood, and "better men than Stannis, have done worse".  

Soooo, that bring me back to Rhaegar.  We know Rhaegar believed his son was TPTWP.  We also know that Rhaegar was considered a go getter a real type A personality.  And specifically, he's been called singled minded.  So if his beliefs in the prophecies mirror Melisandre's at all, then it shouldnt' be a surprise that he also believes that his son needs dragons to return to fulfill the prophecy.  And it shouldn't come as a surprise that Rahegar may also come to the conclusion that to bring dragons back he needs a fiery sacrifice of someone (or multiple someones) with kingsblood.

That's mighty dark.  But it makes no sense to me based on what we know.  Rhaegar thought he needed more kids so his 3 kids could be the 3 heads of the dragon.  He did not want more kids so he could burn them alive.

7 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Add on the fact that Rhaegar seemed inspired by Summerhall, another event that seemed to deal with fire, death and the Targaryen's obsession with dragons, and once again this motivation really shouldn't be a surprise.

It would sure surprise me.  Sorry.  Egg attempting human blood sacrifice at Summerhall would also surprise me.    

[LynnS]

7 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

It would sure surprise me.  Sorry.  Egg attempting human blood sacrifice at Summerhall would also surprise me. 

As a slight aside,  I'm not really sure what Melisandre is doing with royal blood.  We know she leeches it and burns it in a brazier for her visions, supposedly.  We don't know what she does to create shadow assassins except that Stannis can't survive the making of more of them.  Perhaps she is using too much of his blood and she needs to burn someone else of royal blood.  I think her fire sacrifices have more to do with enhancing her own power than anything else.  Children have more life force in them.  They stink of life, we are told.

So there is perhaps something to the sacrifice of children but whatever that magic is; it doesn't seem that anybody in Westeros knew how to perform it.  I'm not sure that Summerhall wasn't just an attempt to use the hottest fire possible to hatch dragon eggs and nothing more.  

[Frey family reunion]

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

So there is perhaps something to the sacrifice of children but whatever that magic is; it doesn't seem that anybody in Westeros knew how to perform it.  I'm not sure that Summerhall wasn't just an attempt to use the hottest fire possible to hatch dragon eggs and nothing more.  

Blood sacrifices to the weirwoods were proably a thing in Westeros until about 500 years ago according to the Worldbook.  And we definitely know that bloodmagic is still practiced in the East.  

Qyburn tells Cersei that the ritual performed by Maggy was bloodmagic:

Quote

"Maegi?"

"Is that how you say it?  The woman would suck a drop of blood from your finger, and tell you what your morrows held."

"Bloodmagic is the darkest kind of sorcery.  Some say it is the most powerful as well."

We know that Marwyn studies with warlocks and shadowbinders in the far east.  He's the one that told Sam that all Valyrian magic was rooted in blood or fire.  

Finally Aemon seems to have some knowledge of the power of Kingsblood:

Quote

Aemon had demurred.  "There is power in a king's blood," the old maester had warned, "and better men than Stannis have done worse things than this."

So when Aemon said that there is power in a king's blood, what did he mean?  And how did he come to thsi conclusion?  And who are the better men than Stannis who have done worse?

So it's all well and good to take the polly anna approach to this series.  That Rhaegar was going to give birth to his children and their dragons would pop out of the ground like mushrooms and they would ride them and melt the Others and live happily ever after.

But that's not generally how GRRM's stories work.  So ask yoursel, how was Rhaegar planning on giving life to a dragon for his prince that was promised?  If Aemon believed that there was power in a king's blood, wouldn't Rhaegar have probably believed that as well?

And if Summerhall was nothing more than a fire that grew out of control, why weren't any of the survivors willing to discuss what happened there?

So if you're going to ask who knew how to perform a blood magic ritual in Westeros at the time of the Rebellion, my guess would be Marwyn, and perhaps even Aemon.

Quote

"I have been called many things, my lord," he said, "but kind is seldom one of them."

 

[LynnS]

58 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

So it's all well and good to take the polly anna approach to this series.

Pollyanna?  Yah, No.  That's a Targaryen name and I'm definately not that.  Here's where I stand right now...  I don't know a thing about Rhaegar, what really drove him.  I don't think he is as dark a character as you imagine.  He may have been obsessed with prophecy, but for all I know, his sojourns to Summerhall had something to do with the GOHH and exchanging songs for dreams to learn more. 

I don't know what happened at Harrenhall.  For all I know, the unnamed woman he fell in love with was Ashera Dayne and not Lyanna and the crown of roses had nothing to do with love at first sight.  But has an entirely different meaning altogether. 

I don't know what happened at the ToJ or what Ned's dream means or if Lyanna was there at all.  

I've gone through the gamut of possible explanations, changing the frame, making suppositions but there is too much missing information for me to have any confidence in a deduction at this point. 

However, it makes for interesting conversation.   

[Frey family reunion]

3 minutes ago, LynnS said:

Pollyanna?  Yah, No.  That's a Targaryen name and I'm definately not that.  Here's where I stand right now...  I don't know a thing about Rhaegar, what really drove him.  I don't think he is as dark a character as you imagine.  He may have been obsessed with prophecy, but for all I know, his sojourns to Summerhall had something to do with the GOHH and exchanging songs for dreams to learn more. 

I don't know what happened at Harrenhall.  For all I know, the unnamed woman he fell in love with was Ashera Dayne and not Lyanna and the crown of roses had nothing to do with love at first sight.  But has an entirely different meaning altogether. 

I don't know what happened at the ToJ or what Ned's dream means or if Lyanna was there at all.  

I've gone through the gamut of possible explanations, changing the frame, making suppositions but there is too much missing information for me to have any confidence in a deduction at this point. 

However, it makes for interesting conversation.   

The pollyanna remark wasn't really direct towards you.

[Mister Smikes]

1 minute ago, Frey family reunion said:

The pollyanna remark wasn't really direct towards you.

Against me, I guess?  If so, i have all kinds of dark theories.  Some of which include human sacrifice.  But I don't buy the theory that Rhaegar and/or Aegon V were planning to burn people alive.   I don't think GRRM is a complete moral nihilist.  I think he thinks human sacrifice is for villains.  And I don't get the sense that that's how he sees Rhaegar and Aegon V.

[LynnS]

2 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

The pollyanna remark wasn't really direct towards you.

No offense taken.   

[Mister Smikes]

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Blood sacrifices to the weirwoods were proably a thing in Westeros until about 500 years ago according to the Worldbook.  And we definitely know that bloodmagic is still practiced in the East.  

Sure.  And for the record, I don't find the Jojenpaste theory implausible at all ... nor that Bran may not be otherwise headed down a dark path.

Quote

Qyburn tells Cersei that the ritual performed by Maggy was bloodmagic:

Sure.

Quote

We know that Marwyn studies with warlocks and shadowbinders in the far east.  He's the one that told Sam that all Valyrian magic was rooted in blood or fire.

And Mirri studied under Marwyn.  And Dany learned her lessons from Mirri.  And Dany woke dragons from stone by the blood sacrifice of a king (Drogo) and of Mirri, and arguably Rhaego as well.

Quote

Finally Aemon seems to have some knowledge of the power of Kingsblood:

So when Aemon said that there is power in a king's blood, what did he mean? 

Probably the same thing other people mean.  That blood magic works, and that king's blood is effective for certain ritual such as (for instance) waking dragons out of stone.

Quote

And how did he come to thsi conclusion? 

I guess he's a maester and it is his job to know things.  It does not imply he approves of human sacrifice or blood magic.

Quote

And who are the better men than Stannis who have done worse?

I guess, pretty much any political actor who has treated human lives as expendable in pursuit of his political goals.

Quote

So it's all well and good to take the polly anna approach to this series.  That Rhaegar was going to give birth to his children and their dragons would pop out of the ground like mushrooms and they would ride them and melt the Others and live happily ever after.

Well, no, it probably won't be that simple.

Quote

But that's not generally how GRRM's stories work.  So ask yoursel, how was Rhaegar planning on giving life to a dragon for his prince that was promised? 

I'm not sure Rhaegar necessarily thought that was his job to do.  He may have expected Dragons, and White Walkers and Ice Spiders, and Shadows and Wights and Kraken, and all sorts of things to return to devastate the world whether he could stop them or not.

Quote

If Aemon believed that there was power in a king's blood, wouldn't Rhaegar have probably believed that as well?

Well yes, sure.  But if you were to find out today that human sacrifice black magic rituals actually "worked", would you start kidnapping babies for your Satanic rituals tomorrow?

Quote

And if Summerhall was nothing more than a fire that grew out of control, why weren't any of the survivors willing to discuss what happened there?

I guess we'll find out when GRRM tells us.  Anyhow nobody believes that Summerhall "was nothing more than a fire that grew out of control".   I merely doubted that Egg deliberately and knowingly participated in ritual murder.

Quote

So if you're going to ask who knew how to perform a blood magic ritual in Westeros at the time of the Rebellion, my guess would be Marwyn, and perhaps even Aemon.

Well, Marwyn has just got his paws on Aemon's pickled kingsblood corpse, Mance's kingsblood baby, Aemon's books of lore, and some kind of weird horn.  I guess we're about to find out how he intends to use them.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

Anyhow nobody believes that Summerhall "was nothing more than a fire that grew out of control". 

Oh I do.  I'm OK with being the only one.

Quote

A Feast for Crows - Cersei VIII

Lord Hallyne of the Guild of Alchemists presented himself, to ask that his pyromancers be allowed to hatch any dragon's eggs that might turn up upon Dragonstone, now that the isle was safely back in royal hands. "If any such eggs remained, Stannis would have sold them to pay for his rebellion," the queen told him. She refrained from saying that the plan was mad. Ever since the last Targaryen dragon had died, all such attempts had ended in death, disaster, or disgrace.

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion V

"Oh, do."

"The substance flows through my veins, and lives in the heart of every pyromancer. We respect its power. But the common soldier, hmmmm, the crew of one of the queen's spitfires, say, in the unthinking frenzy of battle . . . any little mistake can bring catastrophe. That cannot be said too often. My father often told King Aerys as much, as his father told old King Jaehaerys."

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion I

Tyrion shifted uncomfortably in his saddle. He was pleased that Cersei had not been idle, but wildfire was treacherous stuff, and ten thousand jars were enough to turn all of King's Landing into cinders. "Where has my sister found the coin to pay for all of this?" It was no secret that King Robert had left the crown vastly in debt, and alchemists were seldom mistaken for altruists.

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Davos III

He grimaced. Burning pitch was one thing, wildfire quite another. Evil stuff, and well-nigh unquenchable. Smother it under a cloak and the cloak took fire; slap at a fleck of it with your palm and your hand was aflame. "Piss on wildfire and your cock burns off," old seamen liked to say. Still, Ser Imry had warned them to expect a taste of the alchemists' vile substance. Fortunately, there were few true pyromancers left. They will soon run out, Ser Imry had assured them.

 

[Mister Smikes]

3 hours ago, LynnS said:

Oh I do.  I'm OK with being the only one.

Ok, but to clarify, I am not objecting to the "fire that grew out of control" part, but to the "nothing more" part.  It it were "nothing more" there would be no mystery; and there is obviously a mystery.

[LynnS]

1 hour ago, Mister Smikes said:

Ok, but to clarify, I am not objecting to the "fire that grew out of control" part, but to the "nothing more" part.  It it were "nothing more" there would be no mystery; and there is obviously a mystery.

OK, fair enough.  There might be more to the sorcery behind pyromancy than meets the eye.  My impression of them through Tyrion's POV is that they are dangerous bumblers, and I'm not sure that wasn't also the case at Summerhall.   But since an offer is made to Cersei by a pyromancer, to hatch a dragon egg, if she had one; it may be that they have some arcane knowledge about doing just that.  At least their predecessors may have had some knowledge about it.   It brings up questions about the origins of their guild and what sorcery was involved in the construction of Dragonstone.  It also brings up the question of blood sacrifice, although there doesn't seem to be any indication that the Summerhall tragedy intended to sacrifice anyone.   Although it ended that way. 

I wonder if the last dragons hatched were a result of pyromancy. 

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion V

"A most, hmmm, loving gesture, my lord. Perhaps instead some few of us might call upon the king at the Red Keep. A small demonstration of our powers, as it were, to distract His Grace from his many cares for an evening. Wildfire is but one of the dread secrets of our ancient order. Many and wondrous are the things we might show you."

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion V

The substance was the pyromancers' own term for wildfire. They called each other wisdom as well, which Tyrion found almost as annoying as their custom of hinting at the vast secret stores of knowledge that they wanted him to think they possessed. Once theirs had been a powerful guild, but in recent centuries the maesters of the Citadel had supplanted the alchemists almost everywhere. Now only a few of the older order remained, and they no longer even pretended to transmute metals . . .

 

[Mister Smikes]

2 hours ago, LynnS said:

OK, fair enough.  There might be more to the sorcery behind pyromancy than meets the eye.  My impression of them through Tyrion's POV is that they are dangerous bumblers, and I'm not sure that wasn't also the case at Summerhall.   But since an offer is made to Cersei by a pyromancer, to hatch a dragon egg, if she had one; it may be that they have some arcane knowledge about doing just that.  At least their predecessors may have had some knowledge about it.   It brings up questions about the origins of their guild and what sorcery was involved in the construction of Dragonstone.  It also brings up the question of blood sacrifice, although there doesn't seem to be any indication that the Summerhall tragedy intended to sacrifice anyone.   Although it ended that way. 

I wonder if the last dragons hatched were a result of pyromancy. 

 Yes a pyromancy angle seems fairly plausible.  But pyromancy and blood magic are not, I think, necessarily the same thing, though there may be some overlap.

Does Ser Bonifer have some connection to the Summerhall tragedy?  "Ser Bonifer himself had been a promising knight in his youth, but something had happened to him, a defeat or a disgrace or a near brush with death, and afterward he had decided that jousting was an empty vanity and put away his lance for good and all."

[Mister Smikes]

On 5/27/2021 at 9:45 AM, ATaleofSalt&Onions said:

We have a few examples of women inheriting, that doesn't mean there's a consistent and universal standard for succession. When the author has explicitly said that there isn't, I think we should take him at his word.

Not to dispute, but I'm wondering what the exact words were.  Can someone provide?

Quote

There wasn't any sort of clear principle of "King chooses whoever he wants and that's that," or really any sort of clear principle at all. There was a custom that the king recognized their eldest son as their heir.

Primogeniture (or "male preference primogeniture") is I think a starting point for analysis.  In English History this was not something that existed by decree or by statute, or top-down authority.  It was a widespread custom according to which ordinary people lived their lives, and which (in English History) was incorporated into the Common Law.  It was a custom and institution in much the same way that marriage was a custom and institution.  GRRM modeled Westeros on England to some extent, and I see little evidence that Westeros was much different in this regard.  Note that under this system, a daughter does take before an uncle.

So a king being followed by his eldest son (etc.) is something that would make sense to ordinary people.  And the perceptions of ordinary people matter in ways that are hard to measure.   So a good way to avoid succession disputes (or win them when they occur) is to have the last king succeeded by his eldest son (etc.).

I don't think male-preference primogeniture is the end of the analysis though.  One factor was that kings were not just in it for themselves.  They were expected to rule for the benefit of their subjects; otherwise they were bad kings and not good kings.  This might have limited the perception that a king had the right to dispose (for instance by Will) of his inherited position as he chose, as might ordinarily have been the case for mere personal property.  

I'm no expert on English history, but my impression, from the little I know, is that kings did occasionally try to choose their heirs, contrary to the rules of primogeniture.  This did not result in the wishes of the dead king being followed, but it did result in wars of succession.

Another factor is that kings were also expected to be military leaders.   The ancients did not necessarily assume that women as military leaders were impossible, but they certainly would have been skeptical that a woman was likely to be an effective military leader merely because she happened to sit in the line of succession.  This tended to result in women being completely passed over for "kingship" in antiquity, even when there were no sons at all.  This results in what is called agnatic, "male line" primogeniture".

How this played out when the Seven Kingdoms were separate kingdoms, we have no idea.  Nor am I sure if the Targaryens had different customs from the Andals, seeing that whether or not an individual had a dragon was a great equalizer which might tend to dwarf distinctions based on sex when it comes to warfare.

But in FIRE AND BLOOD, we initially see Queen Alysanne argue in favor of (male-preference?) primogeniture, in which a first son's daughter takes before a second son.  Jahaerys overrules her for unspecified reasons, leading to one of their quarrels.  Then we have the first counsel called by Jahaerys I to choose his heir.   Note that by calling this council, Jahaerys is recognizing the need to get the consent of his vassals and subjects so that his heir is perceived as legitimate.  He realizes it is not just up to him (as English history, for example, tends to show). 

"In the eyes of many, the Great Council of 101 AC thereby established an iron precedent on matters of succession; regardless of seniority, the Iron Throne of Westeros could not pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants."

It is the above system that is evidently being referred to when, in the main books, it is said that Maester Aemon, when he first went to the Citadel at age 9 or 10, was 9th or 10th in the line of succession.

Quote

Viserys I was the only person who went against this and it resulted in civil war. In cases where there wasn't an eldest son available, controversy arose. Kings had more leeway here, but these disputes were often settled through councils. In any case, the end result was usually that the senior male-line heir was recognized, with a couple exceptions like Egg becoming king over Maegor. That the king's power here was not absolute isn't something that I think would really be disputed, it's just a matter of where the line is. If Viserys had named Mushroom his heir, do you think virtually anyone would have seen that as valid? I don't mean your whole thing about "it's a law but it's not enforced" I mean do you think most people would have actually viewed that as a legally valid decree that anyone was bound to obey or else become a traitor?

A king is granted enormous prerogatives while alive, but nobody fears the wrath of a dead king.  Nor does there seem to be any compelling moral reason why erstwhile subjects should respect the wishes of a dead king who tries to rule from beyond the grave.  But some posters here are caught up on the idea that Aerys declaring Viserys to be his heir automatically and absolutely trumps the line of succession and all other considerations.  Custom and precedent are just people's opinions, but the wishes of the corpse of a madman are somehow objective fact?  I find it a bit mysterious.  If Aerys had forced the 3 kingsguards to take an oath of allegiance to Viserys, I could understand that they might feel bound by their oath.  But I am aware of no suggestion that Aerys ever had the opportunity to do this.

Rhaegar was popular; Aerys was unpopular.  Rhaegar was (as far as we can tell) sane; Aerys was mad.  Aegon precedes Viserys in the customary and established "line of succession".  All these factors favor Aegon (if he lives).  The only factor favoring Viserys is that he is 7 years older.  And even this is a mixed blessing, as the older he gets the more it becomes clear he is as mad as his father, if not worse.

[LynnS]

9 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

 Yes a pyromancy angle seems fairly plausible.  But pyromancy and blood magic are not, I think, necessarily the same thing, though there may be some overlap.

Does Ser Bonifer have some connection to the Summerhall tragedy?  "Ser Bonifer himself had been a promising knight in his youth, but something had happened to him, a defeat or a disgrace or a near brush with death, and afterward he had decided that jousting was an empty vanity and put away his lance for good and all."

I'm intrigued by the discussion but I'm ranging off topic.  If you don't mind, I'm going to take the last few comments over to Heresy rather than derail the thread.. 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Mister Smikes said:

A king is granted enormous prerogatives while alive, but nobody fears the wrath of a dead king.  Nor does there seem to be any compelling moral reason why erstwhile subjects should respect the wishes of a dead king who tries to rule from beyond the grave.  But some posters here are caught up on the idea that Aerys declaring Viserys to be his heir automatically and absolutely trumps the line of succession and all other considerations.  Custom and precedent are just people's opinions, but the wishes of the corpse of a madman are somehow objective fact?  I find it a bit mysterious.  If Aerys had forced the 3 kingsguards to take an oath of allegiance to Viserys, I could understand that they might feel bound by their oath.  But I am aware of no suggestion that Aerys ever had the opportunity to do this.

Rhaegar was popular; Aerys was unpopular.  Rhaegar was (as far as we can tell) sane; Aerys was mad.  Aegon precedes Viserys in the customary and established "line of succession".  All these factors favor Aegon (if he lives).  The only factor favoring Viserys is that he is 7 years older.  And even this is a mixed blessing, as the older he gets the more it becomes clear he is as mad as his father, if not worse.

The problem with this approach simply is that the Kingsguard in question present themselves as die-hard followers of the Mad King in the fever dream, indicating that they would not want to oppose any ruling of the succession King Aerys II had made previously. In addition there is the simple fact that the KG are sworn to obey, meaning it would be a breach of tradition and protocol if they presumed to lecture or contradict on decisions he had already made. The reason why Criston Cole is vilified is that he had sworn an oath to obey his king and to uphold Rhaenyra's succession and then broke both vows when he crowned Aegon II.

What's nonsense is the idea that Kingsguard are allowed a say in the matter of the royal succession. Nobody asked for their opinion on this question, ever. At best we could say that the Lord Commander as a member of the Small Council would have some say in this matter if the council discussed the issue - but nobody is following their lead in this, e.g. the Dance where Criston Cole is actually more a willing lackey/enforcer of Alicent and Otto Hightower's coup rather than the architect of the entire thing.

The great lords and princes of the Realm are the people who put succession issues to the test, e.g. the War of the Five Kings where the KG play no role at all and instead various great lords and the brothers of King Robert. Eddard Stark does not include Barristan Selmy in his plans because he assumes the vows he swore to King Robert would cause him to view Prince Joffrey as the rightful king.

In light of all that it is just not a very good idea to assume or suggest without good reason that Aerys' sworn men would not recognize Aerys' chosen heir. The idea that they would want to create another Targaryen pretender against both Robert Baratheon and Viserys III is pretty much without basis. And this is supported by the fact that Jon Connington and Varys/Illyrio also didn't turn their Aegon into another rival pretender working against Viserys III and Robert. Instead their plan involved that the two Targaryen factions in exile could work together - and for that we actually do have textual evidence.