Small questions v.10006

[Manderlay]

HUGH & GREGOR: How come Hugh didn't forfeit his armor & horse to Gregor? Selmy says the boy might still owe the smith, which Ned says he'll take care of so as to send it to Hugh's mom in the Vale, but wasn't the armor the property of Gregor? Gregor doesn't strike me as the chivalrous type that would return the forfeit without ransom.

Yes Gregor isn't chivalrous, but even if he takes the horse and armor, who is going to ransom it?, even if he can sell them, he not foolish enough to deny a knight of the KG who sits on the council and the Hand of the king if they want to send the body back to vale to his mother with his arms and armor especially since he was the one who got Hugh killed. More like Gregor was interested in just the killing part.

[Lost Melnibonean]

So Gregor would just back down from something he had a right to just because KG and the Hand told him to? Doesn't seem to fit his character, does it. I would expect him to say bugger you both. I won the armor and horse are forfeit. The Hound told Sansa that Hugh's gorget was not fastened properly and the Mountain killed him for it. That's not a guy who backs down.

[mindchap]

So Gregor would just back down from something he had a right to just because KG and the Hand told him to? Doesn't seem to fit his character, does it. I would expect him to say bugger you both. I won the armor and horse are forfeit. The Hound told Sansa that Hugh's gorget was not fastened properly and the Mountain killed him for it. That's not a guy who backs down.

You gotta remember Tywin wasn't king yet so Gregor had to show at least a little restraint, not much, but a little.

[Lost Melnibonean]

He wasn't very restrained later that day when he chopped off his horse's head or when he was raiding the Riverlands and planning to ambush the Hand of the King.

[mindchap]

He wasn't very restrained later that day when he chopped off his horse's head or when he was raiding the Riverlands and planning to ambush the Hand of the King.

No but this is drifting out of small question territory.

[Manderlay]

He wasn't very restrained later that day when he chopped off his horse's head or when he was raiding the Riverlands and planning to ambush the Hand of the King.

That was different, Gregor follows only one man, Tywin Lannister, he does what he is ordered, his duel with Loras, he shows restraint when the king orders him to stop, he is a brute but also has a little sense, Gregor's character is hardly concerned with Gold, wealth, glory and such, he only lives to fight and kill people, at the time when Hugh (during tourney) died he showed restraint because it was peace time, later the circumstances change.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Well it really doesn't matter. I think it was a minor oversight by the author. Good night.

[Lissa Nymeros Martell]

Now that Arya has had her face removed can someone else wear it? No reason why anyone would want to but if they did.

[Ser Leftwich]

Do we have any definitive information on for how long Valyrian steel has been made? As in, has it been around for thousands of years or only 500+?

Oldest reference I could find was to Heartsbane (the Tarly sword) at 500+ years old.

[wight]

How was Gregor allowed to fight the Viper at Tyrions trial? He wasn't KG then was he?

[Dr. Pepper]

How was Gregor allowed to fight the Viper at Tyrions trial? He wasn't KG then was he?

No, he wasn't KG. He was just the champion the throne chose. Tyrion was the one on trial, not the king or queen or prince/ss

[wight]

So the champion only has to be a KG if the accused is of the royal family? But not when the charge is actualy regicide and the throne is doing the accusing. That seems really odd.

[mindchap]

So the champion only has to be a KG if the accused is of the royal family? But not when the charge is actualy regicide and the throne is doing the accusing. That seems really odd.

Actually not even then, it's up to the person(s) involved. I would give an example but there would be spoilers.

[Dr. Pepper]

So the champion only has to be a KG if the accused is of the royal family? But not when the charge is actualy regicide and the throne is doing the accusing. That seems really odd.

Why does it seem odd? The throne can pretty much decide what it does, within reason. Aerys didn't use a KG during his trial for Rickard and Brandon. He chose fire as his champion. The KG are there to defend the dynasty, and that doesn't necessarily include representing them in a trial for a person not directly part of the dynasty. Tyrion was on trial, not the crown.

Actually not even then, it's up to the person(s) involved. I would give an example but there would be spoilers.

What are these spoilers you speak of? You can spoiler tag them.

[mindchap]

Why does it seem odd? The throne can pretty much decide what it does, within reason. Aerys didn't use a KG during his trial for Rickard and Brandon. He chose fire as his champion. The KG are there to defend the dynasty, and that doesn't necessarily include representing them in a trial for a person not directly part of the dynasty. Tyrion was on trial, not the crown.

What are these spoilers you speak of? You can spoiler tag them.

D&E Spoiler

Baelor Breakspear only joins Dunk's cause because Maekar ordered the KG to fight. So they don't technically have to fight for the royal family.

[Dr. Pepper]

D&E Spoiler

Baelor Breakspear only joins Dunk's cause because Maekar ordered the KG to fight. So they don't technically have to fight for the royal family.

Oh, I thought you were talking about an actual spoiler, like from something that hasn't been published.

[mindchap]

Oh, I thought you were talking about an actual spoiler, like from something that hasn't been published.

No but not a lot of people on here have read the D&E tales so I hate to spoil any of it. I actually read all three with no spoilers and loved them.

[Syphon the Sanitator]

Quick question:

Has anybody got a clue whether Robert was in the line of succession of the Targs at all?

As far as I know, the line of succession would be:

• Aerys II
  
• Rhaegar
  
• Aegon 6
  
• Viserys III
  
• Daenerys
  

Had something happened to all of these, who would have been next in a normal world?

Let's say that a second Summerhall took place or something, so no rebellion. Aerys dies of old age and there's no heir. Who then?

[The Dornishman's Wife]

Quick question:

Has anybody got a clue whether Robert was in the line of succession of the Targs at all?

As far as I know, the line of succession would be:

• Aerys II
  
• Rhaegar
  
• Aegon 6
  
• Viserys III
  
• Daenerys
  

Had something happened to all of these, who would have been next in a normal world?

Let's say that a second Summerhall took place or something, so no rebellion. Aerys dies of old age and there's no heir. Who then?

It's a bit unclear how far exactly women are pushed back in the special ad hoc Targaryen inheritance law that's been introduced after the Dance of Dragons and never been explicitely given.

Normal Andalish succession would have been

Aerys - Rhaegar - Aegon - Jon if legitimate son of R+L - Rhaenys - Viserys - Dany - Robert - Stannis - Shireen - Renly

The not explicitely given Targ law definitely pushes Rhaenys behind Viserys, possibly also Rhaenys and Dany behind the Baratheon brothers (SSM). It's being slugged out e.g. in this thread.

The Baratheon claim comes from Aerys's aunt Rhaelle marrying Roberts grandfather. After that, the last known claim is the Martell claim (from Daeron's sister Daenerys who married into House Martell and is an ancestor of the current Martell family), but as that is far in the past, there might be something in between.

[-Ghost-]

Is it normal for Jon Con to introduce Aegon to the GC as the first born son of Rhaegar? Why not just say son of Rhaegar? Seems kinda weird to say it like that when its thought that he only had 1 son.