Jump to content

The Lyanna + Rhaegar = Jon Thread (Part VI)


Werthead

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying that R+L=J isn't so, just that said baby, legitimate or not, would not be king unless Viserys dies. So, why are there kings guard at the ToJ? By the time that Ned gets there, Viserys is the legitimate king. right?

That's what we are all trying to figure out, there isn't any explanation that completely makes sense. "We are kingsguard. Kingsguard do not flee." Is not an adequate explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Sack of Kings landing = Arys killed, Viserys is now king

3. Sack of Kings landing = Aerys killed, Aegon killed, Visery is now king.

So, never in the course of the actual written evidence in any of the books does baby Ageon become king.

Because, baby Aegon died the same day when his grand-dad did.

That is why Visery became the king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
I'm not saying that R+L=J isn't so, just that said baby, legitimate or not, would not be king unless Viserys dies. So, why are there kings guard at the ToJ? By the time that Ned gets there, Viserys is the legitimate king. right?

No, absolutely not.

The succession simply doesn't work that way; the sons of the first son come before the son of the second son. Big Walder and Little Walder spoke of this exact point when their uncle Stevron Frey died. This is consistently the case throughout Westeros, with the exception of the Iron Isles, and even there it's not uniformly disregarded...some people advance the argument even though they make their own laws.

The placement of daughters in the succession also varies..in Dorne they come first if they are older, and the Iron Throne's precedent is for uncles to come before nieces. But Viserys would not have come before baby Aegon or a legitimate child of R+L under any normal application of succession law. Dany even thought how her nephew would have been Aegon VI had he lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to disagree with you Other-In-Law (great name by the way)

Viserys is not the 'son of the second son'. He is the second son of the King. The King is alive when his first son dies, therefore his second son would become the heir. As soon as Rhaegar predeceases the King, the next son of the King becomes the heir not the son of the dead heir.

Isn't that how it works in the real world, or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that how it works in the real world

No,

or am I missing something?

Yes. Take the example of the British royal family. If Charles were to die tomorrow, the heir to the throne would be his son William, not his younger brother Andrew. William (and his younger brother Henry) are ahead of Andrew in the succession no matter which order the Queen and Charles die in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to disagree with you Other-In-Law (great name by the way)

Viserys is not the 'son of the second son'. He is the second son of the King. The King is alive when his first son dies, therefore his second son would become the heir. As soon as Rhaegar predeceases the King, the next son of the King becomes the heir not the son of the dead heir.

Isn't that how it works in the real world, or am I missing something?

There's a small, but informative discussion about this here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=28581

In short, the first son of the first son of the king comes before the second son of the king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
Viserys is not the 'son of the second son'. He is the second son of the King.

Absolutely right; I typed too fast and messed that up. The point still stands, though. The sons of the first son come before the second son.

The King is alive when his first son dies, therefore his second son would become the heir.

No. His grandson by his first son becomes his heir.

As soon as Rhaegar predeceases the King, the next son of the King becomes the heir not the son of the dead heir.

Isn't that how it works in the real world, or am I missing something?

In some cases. There's all sorts of different systems of succession throughout real world history. That's basically the system Sa'udi Arabia is using at the moment (though it's a de facto affair, the choice is actually made by a family council, and they've been picking the next senior son of ibn Sa'ud for several kings now..eventually they'll run out and have to go the next generation somehow). The Ottomans had something similar (again, many different variations of this stuff).

But Westeros isn't modeled after the Sa'udis or Ottomans, it's patterned after Western Europe, and more Merry Olde England than any thing else. And primogeniture has certainly been the rule there for ages...we have examples of English Kings being succeeded by grandsons instead of living second sons in the 14th Century (Richard II over John of Guant) and the 18th (George III over William Duke of Cumberland.

And for 'in series' rules, once again, look at the Freys. Ser Ryman became heir to the Twins on his father's death, not his uncle Emmon. There's no room for debate, that's just how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, one of you timeline followers back me up on this:

1. Battle at the Trident = Rhaegar killed

2. Arys still alive when Rhaegar killed = Succession passes to Viserys

After Rhaegar is killed, Aerys is still king and Aegon is his heir.

3. Sack of Kings landing = Arys killed, Viserys is now king

After the sack of King's Landing, in which Aerys, Aegon, and Rhaenys are (presumably) killed, either, in this order, a legitimate child born to Rhaegar and Lyanna, or Viserys is the rightful king. Once Daenerys is born she becomes either the third or second in line for the throne. The important point here is that a legitimate male child of Lyanna and Rhaegar (i.e. Jon, perhaps?) is before Viserys in line of succession.

4. John Connington takes Viserys to Free Cities and Robert usurps throne = Viserys still legitimate king

Not too important a point, but Jon Connington does NOT take Viserys and Daenerys to the Free Cities (Braavos to be exact,) but rather it is Aerys's master-at-arms, Ser Willem Darry, who smuggles the children away from Dragonstone and to freedom. At this point, nothing in the line of succession has changed; either there exists a legitimate child of Lyanna and Rhaegar who is the rightful heir, or, if such a child does not exist, Viserys is the heir.

So, never in the course of the actual written evidence in any of the books does baby Ageon become king. Why would any offspring of R+L bump Viserys in the line of succession?
Have you read Martin's The Hedge Knight? The rules of Targaryen succession are laid out for all to see in the events of that story, and it is again shown in the background events in the sequel The Sworn Sword. Rhaegar's legitimate sons take precedence over Viserys. There really is no doubt about it.

I'm not saying that R+L=J isn't so, just that said baby, legitimate or not, would not be king unless Viserys dies. So, why are there kings guard at the ToJ? By the time that Ned gets there, Viserys is the legitimate king. right?
The presence of all three remaining loyal members of the Kingsguard is something I've argued about for a very long time. If there is a legitimate male child of Rhaegar and Lyanna at the Tower of Joy, then it makes perfect sense that they are there. That child is the rightful king, not Viserys. If there isn't such a child, then at least one of the Kingsguard should be making their way to Viserys to guard the rightful heir. It seems that the latter is not the case, judging by the actions of the Kingsguard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, one of you timeline followers back me up on this:

1. Battle at the Trident = Rhaegar killed

2. Arys still alive when Rhaegar killed = Succession passes to Viserys

3. Sack of Kings landing = Arys killed, Viserys is now king

4. John Connington takes Viserys to Free Cities and Robert usurps throne = Viserys still legitimate king

So, never in the course of the actual written evidence in any of the books does baby Ageon become king. Why would any offspring of R+L bump Viserys in the line of succession?

I'm not saying that R+L=J isn't so, just that said baby, legitimate or not, would not be king unless Viserys dies. So, why are there kings guard at the ToJ? By the time that Ned gets there, Viserys is the legitimate king. right?

Great point and I've never really thought about it bofore. However, did your #2 actually happen? I mean, the question here seems to be: Was Viserys ever really king or even in the line of succession if Rhaegar had a surviving legitimate child/son? Also, a follow-up question would be: Even if Viserys was in the line of succession would he be "bumped" from it due to Rhaegar having a legitimate child born after his death?

Personally, I think so. I think if R+L=a legitimate child then the succession never passed to Viserys. The succession would have passed to that child. If this child was female I suppose it could be contested on those grounds but my point still stands. Also, even if the succession passed to Viserys he would be bumped by a legitimate child of Rhaegar's (the eldest son).

I found this and I thought it pertinent:

Primogeniture, term formerly applied in England, and in most continental European countries, to the right of the firstborn son to the real property of a deceased ancestor. According to the feudal system of the Middle Ages, primogeniture determined the disposition of property held as a reward for military service. Land of the father passed to the son best able to defend it—the eldest. Under primogeniture, the eldest son or his issue, or, if no lineal descendants (male or female) existed, the eldest male in the next degree of consanguinity succeeded to all the real estate of which his ancestor died intestate, to the exclusion of all female and of junior male descendants of equal degree of relationship. When female descendants alone survived, they divided the estate of the ancestor equally. Following adoption of the Statute of Wills (1540), under which the eldest son could be completely bypassed, primogeniture applied only in cases in which the deceased left no will. This rule of descent was introduced into the American colonies with the rest of the common law system, but was soon abandoned. Primogeniture was completely abolished in England in 1925 and no longer exists in most European countries.

The term primogeniture has also been applied to the right of an eldest son of a king or other hereditary ruler to succeed to the sovereign power.

(Emphasis mine)

As I said, I think if the eldest son had any issue then the succession passes to them. Since I think Rhaegar had a surviving child then we would never get to the second part of the sentence I bolded above. We would never get to "the eldest male in the next degree of consanguinity" (Viserys).

ETA: Damn! Looks like SFDanny pretty much beat me to it! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, absolutely not.

You really aren't following, and neither are most of the other posters. There is no (plausible) way that Jon could come before Viserys or Dany.

Rhaegar may have married Lyanna under Valyrian law, but his marriage could not possibly be recognized by the Sept of Baelor, which is where the Kingsguard take their oaths, and therefore the Kingsguard could not have recognized Jon as legitimate.

Even if Rhaegar left a will, he was never King, and therefore never had the authority to make Jon legitimate.

So why are the Kingsguard at the Tower of Joy? I don't know. There's no theory without a flaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
You really aren't following, and neither are most of the other posters. There is no (plausible) way that Jon could come before Viserys or Dany.

You aren't following. Go back and read what I was replying to. Cowgirl was talking about normal succession, mistakenly thinking Viserys would come before baby Aegon, even.

Rhaegar may have married Lyanna under Valyrian law, but his marriage could not possibly be recognized by the Sept of Baelor, which is where the Kingsguard take their oaths, and therefore the Kingsguard could not have recognized Jon as legitimate.
They swore an oath to obey, they don't get to pick and choose. And the Kingsguard was founded by Aegon the Conqueror who had two wives. Maegor probably had multiple wives at the same time too. Did the Faith refuse to recognise those marriages? Apparently not, since the entire Targaryen dynasty after Aegon was descended from them. So your "could not possibly be recognised" is frankly bullshit.

Even if Rhaegar left a will, he was never King, and therefore never had the authority to make Jon legitimate.
No one is even talking about Rhaegar legitimising anyone. The discussion is about an already legitimate heir born to a second marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA: Damn! Looks like SFDanny pretty much beat me to it! :)

lol, sorry.

There is at least one wrinkle in all of this. The example of Aerion Brightflame's daughter. The Great Council passes over this child to name Aegon the king. Now, it is done, we are told, because of Aerion's obvious mental instability and that no one would want a child of his sitting on the Iron Throne, but does this precedent, as the precedent of the outcome of the Dance of the Dragons long before it, mean that female child could be set aside for her uncle? Specifically, what about Rhaenys and/or, assuming a legitimate female child of Lyanna and Rhaegar, such a royal daughter at the Tower of Joy? If Rhaenys had survived, or if, call her Jonna, Lyanna's legitimate daughter survived, does Aerion's daughter's fate have any impact on their claim to the throne versus Viserys? I think not, but as Martin has reminded us, this stuff is fought over time and time again in Western European history, and it might be up for debate in Westeros. What is clear, however, is that if Jon is the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna, he is the rightful heir - assuming his half-brother Aegon is really dead.

Of course, there is the more important precedent - exemplified by Aegon the Conqueror, Robert, and in the hopes of Renly - the winner makes the rules.

btw, does anyone know what happened to Aerion's daughter? Why do I get the feeling this bit of ancient history could be revisited in the upcoming story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
lbtw, does anyone know what happened to Aerion's daughter? Why do I get the feeling this bit of ancient history could be revisited in the upcoming story?

Actually, I think Aerion had a son, Daeron was the one with a lackwit daughter. My speculation is that he's the one they tried to marry young Olenna Redwyne to...which she "soon put a stop to". Just a guess, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They swore an oath to obey, they don't get to pick and choose.

YES THEY DO. Their oaths are sworn at the Sept of Baelor. If the Sept does not recognize the marriage, neither do they. If the Kingsguard accepted Lyanna as a second wife it would utterly destroy Martin's credibility as a writer.

And the Kingsguard was founded by Aegon the Conqueror who had two wives.

Aegon who accepted the religion of Westeros so that Targ rule would be accepted.

Did the Faith refuse to recognise those marriages?

As far as I know, they did. Do you have a family tree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO even if Aegon (VI) himself had been at the TOJ, the Kingsguard's secondary duty to the blood royal shold have mandated that one of them go to Dragonstone to be with Viseys and Rhaella (and later Dany). As it is, unless they were given a specific task (i.e. one not merely included in their general Kingsguard oath) all three of them should. (If R+L=J, which I contnue to dispute as not warranting the veneration it generally receives on this board, and if R+L=legitimate, which is a further assumption, and if the Kingsguard knew about this, which aside from making this theory work they need not have, then there is reason enough for one or two of them to remain at the TOJ even without a direct order, as with Aegon above. But then I don't hold from R+L=J.)

Essentially my contention is that without a direct order from Rhaegar (which as the blood royal he was entitled to give), R+L=J is not sufficient to explain their presence. With a direct order, R+L=J is not necessary to explain it; they were there fulfilling their promise to the dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Other-in-law
YES THEY DO. Their oaths are sworn at the Sept of Baelor.

Orly? Jaime Lannister swore his at Harrenhal. He also mentioned some brothers who were given their white cloaks on a battlefield, which they didn't survive.

If the Sept does not recognize the marriage, neither do they.

Any textual support for this alledged veto the Faith have over KG orders?

If the Kingsguard accepted Lyanna as a second wife it would utterly destroy Martin's credibility as a writer.

Credibility with you maybe. But then it's not like you have all that much credibility yourself.

Aegon who accepted the religion of Westeros so that Targ rule would be accepted.

Who was married twice. You can pretend that you don't see that part, but it's still there. If those marriages weren't legal, none of the kings descended from them were legitimate either. Any evidence that the Faith refused to recognise those kings because of their descent from bastards born of polygamy? No, of course not.

Not to mention the whole Faith prohibition of incest, which never stopped any KG from accepting their kings as legitimate.

As far as I know, they did. Do you have a family tree?
There's text family tree in the aGoT appendix, which traces the main line of descent, all from the polygamous unions with Rhaenys and Visenya. If those marriages were unrecognised, all subsequent kings should have been excluded from the succession. Are you actually claiming that the Faith never recognised any of them? :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think Aerion had a son, Daeron was the one with a lackwit daughter. My speculation is that he's the one they tried to marry young Olenna Redwyne to...which she "soon put a stop to". Just a guess, though.

"That was the year of the Great Council," he said. "The lords passed over Prince Aerion's infant son and Prince Daeron's daughter and gave the crown to Aegon." (ACoK 79 US Hardback)
You're right, I stand corrected. As modified by your excellent memory, my questions still stands. Does the precedent of Daeron's daughter have any impact on a female claimant to the Iron Throne versus an uncle? And what the hell ever happened to both Aerion's son and Daeron's daughter? Did either of them have kids?

btw, I like your guess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES THEY DO. Their oaths are sworn at the Sept of Baelor. If the Sept does not recognize the marriage, neither do they. If the Kingsguard accepted Lyanna as a second wife it would utterly destroy Martin's credibility as a writer.

Nonsense, the Faith accepted Targaryen customs and never refused to recognized Targaryen polygamous weddings, as far as we can tell. Just who do you think performed those polygamous ceremonies down through the 300 years of Targaryen rule? Now, you can speculate that they would have done so with Lyanna's child, but there is no known precedent that says they would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES THEY [get to pick and choose]. Their oaths are sworn at the Sept of Baelor. If the Sept does not recognize the marriage, neither do they. If the Kingsguard accepted Lyanna as a second wife it would utterly destroy Martin's credibility as a writer.

The point below aside, the Kingsguard is no instrument of the Faith, but first and foremost an instrument of the royal family and the king. That's the order of their priorities.

If the king ordered them to beget children, it would be a conflict of their oaths. If he ordered them to recognize some second marriage of his, their oaths would be okay with that.... even if it may (!) indirectly (!) be a conflict to what the Faith thinks is okay.

On a side note, do we know for certain that there never was for example a northman - who didn't believe in the Seven, but in the Old Gods - in the Kingsguard?

Aegon [who founded the Kingsguard and had two wives] accepted the religion of Westeros so that Targ rule would be accepted.

There were two playing that game:

Yes, Aegon accepted the Seven in order to smooth his conquest, but on the other hand the High Septon accepted Aegon, too.

Somewhere in AFfC is told how the High Septon at the time of Aegon's conquest locked himself up in some room and "prayed". Afterwards he counseled the lord of Oldtown (where the High Septon had his seat at the time) to open his gates to Aegon. So, "acceptance" there. Well, Aegon had two wives... and was "accepted" by the Faith.

As a side note, Targaryens in general were believed to be "above" the common lords and ladys, more gods than men.

And to possibly render this whole line of argumentation moot: what if, by the time Lyanna's child was born, Elia was already dead? Then Lyanna would be Rhaegar's only wife - although Rhaegar is long dead by then *smirks*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's text family tree in the aGoT appendix, which traces the main line of descent, all from the polygamous unions with Rhaenys and Visenya. If those marriages were unrecognised, all subsequent kings should have been excluded from the succession. Are you actually claiming that the Faith never recognised any of them? :lol:

You still aren't following. The critical issue is how Maegor I came to be king. This is the only instance of an heir from Visenya's line superceding an heir from Rhaenys's line. And what happened to Visenya's line? Did it die out or was it just ignored?

Maegor I is the only point you have, but you seam to think that the entire dynasty proves your point, which makes me think that you aren't capable of understanding mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...