Szar Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Viserys doesn't factor into the succession if a legitimate heir of Rhaegar is alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalker Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='Szar' post='1702458' date='Feb 27 2009, 19.04']Viserys doesn't factor into the succession if a legitimate heir of Rhaegar is alive.[/quote] And why would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinso Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Cause that's the law. The second brother comes to power only if there are no more heirs of the eldest brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalker Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='Rinso' post='1702645' date='Feb 27 2009, 21.13']Cause that's the law. The second brother comes to power only if there are no more heirs of the eldest brother.[/quote] Oh, so the law of succession would alleviate the Martell's worries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 [quote name='Stalker' post='1702675' date='Feb 27 2009, 15.32']Oh, so the law of succession would alleviate the Martell's worries?[/quote] If you mean that Aegon would come before Jon (if R+L=J) in the line of succession - yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Szar Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 There's a certain amount of playing room, to be honest -- for instance, Aegon V was chosen over Aerion the Monstrous' heir by the great council. It could still be a concern for the Martells if Rhaegar married Lyanna. But, it would require that a) Aegon didn't protest, b) no one protested on Aegon's behalf, and c) someone with vested interest tried to make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artanaro Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Shewoman Here's to answer your question about my point involving birth time lines before "Lyanna and Rhaegar" and "Ned and Catelyn." Let me start by asking you a simple question (I'm oftentimes hard to follow). Do you agree with the following assertion? If Lyanna had the exact mental and genetic makeup of Catelyn, and Rhaegar had the exact mental and genetic makeup of Ned, Lyanna and Rhaegar are more likely to conceive a child before Catelyn and Ned, if they attempt the process many months before them? *this question looks obvious, but it is important* Artanaro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Szar Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Urgh. :P Haven't we had that discussion, Artanaro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 My fault, Szar--I brought it up again. I don't think we'll discuss it in this thread, though--don't want to hijack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='Artanaro' post='1703497' date='Feb 28 2009, 15.33']If Lyanna had the exact mental and genetic makeup of Catelyn, and Rhaegar had the exact mental and genetic makeup of Ned, Lyanna and Rhaegar are more likely to conceive a child before Catelyn and Ned, if they attempt the process many months before them? *this question looks obvious, but it is important*[/quote] The answer is no. We don't have enough information to go on. Timing, environmental factors, etc. all factor into this - even given your absurd assumptions about "exact mental and genetic makeup." Martin and Catelyn have it right; sometimes pregnancy happens the first time a couple has sex, and sometimes it doesn't happen even after a hundred or two hundred times. This is something you don't seem to be able to get, and as a result you formulate a faulty theory based on crazy assumptions. Unfortunately, when people point this out to you over and over you don't want to see the obvious and instead just want to argue for argument sakes. It's a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out." It's also dishonest, it's arrogant, and, as I've said, it's absurd. To everyone else, sorry for my tone, but I've had it with this arrogant preaching from Artarnaro, and as I'm sure everyone is tired of reading me blow my top in response to his nonsense, in the future I will simply ignore his posts and respond to those who honestly want to discuss ASoI&F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalker Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='Szar' post='1702700' date='Feb 27 2009, 21.48']There's a certain amount of playing room, to be honest -- for instance, Aegon V was chosen over Aerion the Monstrous' heir by the great council. It could still be a concern for the Martells if Rhaegar married Lyanna. But, it would require that a) Aegon didn't protest, b) no one protested on Aegon's behalf, and c) someone with vested interest tried to make it happen.[/quote] That would be unlike the case with Viserys? [quote name='SFDanny' post='1703635' date='Mar 1 2009, 00.54']The answer is no. We don't have enough information to go on. Timing, environmental factors, etc. all factor into this - even given your absurd assumptions about "exact mental and genetic makeup." Martin and Catelyn have it right; sometimes pregnancy happens the first time a couple has sex, and sometimes it doesn't happen even after a hundred or two hundred times. This is something you don't seem to be able to get, and as a result you formulate a faulty theory based on crazy assumptions. Unfortunately, when people point this out to you over and over you don't want to see the obvious and instead just want to argue for argument sakes. It's a classic case of "garbage in, garbage out." It's also dishonest, it's arrogant, and, as I've said, it's absurd. To everyone else, sorry for my tone, but I've had it with this arrogant preaching from Artarnaro, and as I'm sure everyone is tired of reading me blow my top in response to his nonsense, in the future I will simply ignore his posts and respond to those who honestly want to discuss ASoI&F.[/quote] Well, when you both presents arguments and says you won't discuss it, it looks to me like needing to get the last word. I wish you would have picked just one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacchys Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 It's not "someone with a vested interest." Someone with an army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFDanny Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='Stalker' post='1704083' date='Mar 1 2009, 16.01']Well, when you both presents arguments and says you won't discuss it, it looks to me like needing to get the last word. I wish you would have picked just one of those.[/quote] Sorry, to disturb you. Did you have a disagreement with my point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilgafresh the Bling Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 No canon to illuminate, [i]So Spake [/i] and spoilers hesitate, Theories but recapitulate, (And with [i]Dance [/i] so painfully late) Naturally… do we speculate! --- Sorry, had a moment of poetic inspiration while reading the last page or so... :leaving: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shewoman Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 The length of time we deprecate As seems to be our mutual fate How much longer must we wait For the great day we'll celebrate? Sorry, Greycox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Szar Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 [quote name='Stalker' post='1704083' date='Mar 1 2009, 22.01']That would be unlike the case with Viserys?[/quote] Viserys is farther down the line of succession, so yes. If your goal is to raise the next person in line, "all" you have to do is prove the first person unsuitable. With Viserys -- who is at least third down the line at this point, fourth if Rhaegar and Lyanna married and Jon is legitimate -- you'd have to first prove Aegon, then Jon, then Rhaenys unsuitable. Possible, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacchys Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='Szar' post='1705124' date='Mar 2 2009, 17.10']Viserys is farther down the line of succession, so yes. If your goal is to raise the next person in line, "all" you have to do is prove the first person unsuitable. With Viserys -- who is at least third down the line at this point, fourth if Rhaegar and Lyanna married and Jon is legitimate -- you'd have to first prove Aegon, then Jon, then Rhaenys unsuitable. Possible, of course.[/quote] Given the way things went down, it's more than possible. Even if Rhaegar and Lyanna did marry (and assuming the theory of this thread is true), how does one prove it? As far as all Westeros knows, Jon is Eddard's bastard and Viserys and Danaerys are the last Targaryens. One knock against Jon being the trueborn son of R and L, I think, is that Eddard moves immediately to naming Stannis as the rightful King once he learns the truth of Cersei's children. It's not very strong, I don't think, because Eddard has spent fifteen years publicly claiming Jon as his own and supporting the Baratheon crown. But it's interesting that Jon doesn't even seem to come to mind when he's thinking of the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Because Jon isn't a Baratheon, and the Baratheons are the current, recognized, royal family. That would be like claiming a Plantagenet as the true king after the death of a Windsor monarch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seasoup Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='bacchys' post='1705533' date='Mar 2 2009, 23.57']But it's interesting that Jon doesn't even seem to come to mind when he's thinking of the Iron Throne.[/quote] Well, that could just be a literary contrivance to not give away the clue just yet, besides Jon is on the wall at that point and cannot inherit, he is just a boy, and Stannis is next in line. But here's what sticks in my mind that proves R + L = J I just reread A Game of Thrones and this time tracked everywhere Lyanna and Rhaegars name came up, because the mystery of Jon's parentage is, I think, the most important mystery ongoing. Especially if the answer is Lyanna and Rhaegar. So, I keep going back to the scene where Ned was thinking back on the time he and 6 of his men were facing three members of the Kingsguard at the tower of joy. This scene happened after Rhaegar was killed at the Trident: "I looked for you on the Trident," Ned said to them. "We were not there," Ser Gerold answered. The scene happened after the siege on Storms Landing was lifted: "I came down on Storm's End to lift the siege," Ned told them. The scene happened after the sack of King's Landing: "When King's Landing fell, Ser Jaime slew your king with a golden sword, and I wondered where you were." Well, during this uprising here is the Targaryen Lineage King Aerys - married to sister, Queen Rhaella and had the children Prince Rhaegar, Prince Viserys, and Princess Daenerys - Prince Rhaegar, married to Princess Elia and had children Princess Rhaeyns, Prince Aegon So, when King Aerys died at the sack of King's Landing, Prince Rhaegar became the King and His Legitimate son, Prince Aegon, became the heir. When now Queen Elia, Princess Rhaenys, and Prince Aegon died at the sack of King's Landing, the heir would have become any other legitimate children of Prince Rhaegar. Only after the death of any legitimate children would Prince Viserys or Princess Daenerys become heir. That is why the three members of the Kingsguard did not go with them to Dragonstone and were instead at the tower of joy, they were defending the King of the realm, Jon, as was their sworn duty. Otherwise, why be at the tower of Joy defending Lyanna while The King and all of the heirs die. Here is what I believe the timeline is: 1) Sack of King's Landing, King Aeyrs, Princess Elia, Princess Rhaenys, and Prince Aegon are killed. 2) Prince Viserys and Queen Rhaella pregnant with Princess Daenerys flee to Dragonstone. 3) Prince (now King) Rhaegar marries his already very pregnant and ready to give birth mistress, Lyanna, in order to legitimize the children since his others are dead. He has thee members of the Kingsguard with him. 4) Prince Rhaegar goes to the Trident to continue the fight, and sends Lyanna to the Tower of Joy to give birth, the remaining three Kingsguards with her because if Rhaegar dies, the baby will be King. 5) Rhaegar dies at the Trident, killed by Robert. 6) Ned & crew arrive at the tower of joy, and fight through the kingsguards. 7) Lyanna makes Ned promise to protect Jon. Lyanna dies from childbirth. 8) Ned leaves with Howland Reed and Jon, and go to Starfall to return Dawn and secure Wylas agreement to claim Jon. 9) Lady Ashara Dayne kills herself after learning that her brother is dead, and the man she loves (Ned) is marrying another. Or perhaps Howland Reed kills her when she threatens to tell the truth about Jon. The big problem I have with ANY other theory is, why are 3 members of the Kingsguard protecting Lyanna if the rightful King is fleeing? They wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piper Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 [quote name='seasoup' post='1705564' date='Mar 2 2009, 23.43']1) Sack of King's Landing, King Aeyrs, Princess Elia, Princess Rhaenys, and Prince Aegon are killed. [...] 4) Prince Rhaegar goes to the Trident to continue the fight, and sends Lyanna to the Tower of Joy to give birth, the remaining three Kingsguards with her because if Rhaegar dies, the baby will be King. 5) Rhaegar dies at the Trident, killed by Robert.[/quote] Your time line is off here; the battle of the Trident and the death of Rhaegar occurs before the Sack of King's Landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.