Aerys or Aegon who died first?

[J. Stargaryen]

For prophetic purposes, I agree with you, but otherwise I don't think that Aegon could be considered to have been King. He won't be remembered as Aegon VI by anyone.

I think he might, sort of. That is, I could see YG being crowned as Aegon VI.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Hence "for prophetic purposes, if not political ones," which is what I specified. :P

Well yes I know, I was just emphasising the point.

u think its fair game to consier aegon king lol OMG.seriously he was the next in line but he was no king doesnt even matter, u think anyone speaks of aegon as king no they called him the prince get a grip.

yea ur rite anyone who consiers aegon 2 b king is seriously stupid like OMG lol

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I think he might, sort of. That is, I could see YG being crowned as Aegon VI.

Well that's because he would be the sixth Aegon to be crowned King. My point is that the real Aegon will never be considered Aegon VI.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

u think its fair game to consier aegon king lol OMG.seriously he was the next in line but he was no king doesnt even matter, u think anyone speaks of aegon as king no they called him the prince get a grip.

I have a feeling this is wasted effort on my part based on your post, but ...

... I'm not denying that no one crowned Aegon or actually declared him king. The point is that prophetically speaking, whatever higher power is in "control" of that stuff wouldn't necessarily differentiate. A coronation and a declaration are political events. In the window of time between Aerys dying and Aegon dying, in terms of how said intangible higher power would see things, whatever that power ultimately ends up being, Aegon was the king. Prophetically if not politically, which is the distinction I've made.

Look at Mance and his son. "Two kings to wake the dragon." The father first and then the son, so both die kings. Does anyone really expect them to actually declare Mance's son the new king before they burn him, "to be safe"? Or is it likelier that they're going to burn them both in efficient succession, because the intangible passing of authority is implicit?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well that's because he would be the sixth Aegon to be crowned King. My point is that the real Aegon will never be considered Aegon VI.

But I think part of that is just because of how short a time passed between the deaths. It was chaotic, and outsiders (not us because we know, thanks to Jaime, how it played out) can't ever really know for sure who died first. And even if it's accepted that Aerys did, the, what, few minutes Aegon outlived him aren't critical enough to justify calling Aegon the king. Unlike Edward V, who was killed in the Tower of London long enough after Edward IV died so that he was considered a king in his own right and not just a prince. But in terms of the Prophecy and what it "accepts," those few minutes make all the difference.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

But I think part of that is just because of how short a time passed between the deaths. It was chaotic, and outsiders (not us because we know, thanks to Jaime, how it played out) can't ever really know for sure who died first. And even if it's accepted that Aerys did, the, what, few minutes Aegon outlived him aren't critical enough to justify calling Aegon the king. Unlike Edward V, who was killed in the Tower of London long enough after Edward IV died so that he was considered a king in his own right and not just a prince. But in terms of the Prophecy and what it "accepts," those few minutes make all the difference.

Yes there was not enough time for anyone to declare him King Aegon VI, so he officially died as Prince Aegon and will remain that way.

[yolkboy]

I have a feeling this is wasted effort on my part based on your post, but ...

... I'm not denying that no one crowned Aegon or actually declared him king. The point is that prophetically speaking, whatever higher power is in "control" of that stuff wouldn't necessarily differentiate. A coronation and a declaration are political events. In the window of time between Aerys dying and Aegon dying, in terms of how said intangible higher power would see things, whatever that power ultimately ends up being, Aegon was the king. Prophetically if not politically, which is the distinction I've made.

Look at Mance and his son. "Two kings to wake the dragon." The father first and then the son, so both die kings. Does anyone really expect them to actually declare Mance's son the new king before they burn him, "to be safe"? Or is it likelier that they're going to burn them both in efficient succession, because the intangible passing of authority is implicit?

I totally agree with the prophetic angle. Whoever made the prophesy might not ahdere to the same definitions of what constitutes a King, as the law does. Also if Mance dies, prophetically speaking, his son might be considered a King, if the person making the prophesy didnt understand the wildlings lineage rules. We see Stannis' men confused on the issue over and over and over again in adwd with Val the 'princess'. It's not hard to imagine an anchient Asshai'i prophet making the same mistake.

[raegal_targaryen]

so in what sort of prophecy sense are u talking about really please do tell apple....

[J. Stargaryen]

Well that's because he would be the sixth Aegon to be crowned King. My point is that the real Aegon will never be considered Aegon VI.

Yes, but you said: "He [Aegon] won't be remembered as Aegon VI by anyone." My point is that if YG is crowned as king, that will mean the real Aegon will be remembered as Aegon VI. Even though it wasn't him.

[RumHam]

But I think part of that is just because of how short a time passed between the deaths. It was chaotic, and outsiders (not us because we know, thanks to Jaime, how it played out) can't ever really know for sure who died first. And even if it's accepted that Aerys did, the, what, few minutes Aegon outlived him aren't critical enough to justify calling Aegon the king. Unlike Edward V, who was killed in the Tower of London long enough after Edward IV died so that he was considered a king in his own right and not just a prince. But in terms of the Prophecy and what it "accepts," those few minutes make all the difference.

Makes me think of the great spring sickness. We know that Daeron, and his grandsons Valarr and Matarys died. You would assume that since neither Valarr or Matarys ever reigned as kings, that their grandfather outlived them. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Daeron actually died first, but the circumstances didn't allow for coronation of his grandsons, who may have already been ill.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

so in what sort of prophecy sense are u talking about really please do tell apple....

I've already explained this. The interpretation is based on the "two kings to wake the dragon" angle that comes up in ADWD. However that fits into the grand scheme, I don't know. It is, however, tied in some way to a prophecy that Melisandre and her followers think they're fulfilling. In my interpretation, Aerys dying before Aegon constitutes, again, PROPHETICALLY, two kings dying. Followed by Jon's birth. Two kings to wake the dragon -> Aerys and Aegon are the kings and Jon is the dragon.

I didn't include any "u," "omg," "lol" or run-on sentences but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm talking about anyway.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Yes, but you said: "He [Aegon] won't be remembered as Aegon VI by anyone." My point is that if YG is crowned as king, that will mean the real Aegon will be remembered as Aegon VI. Even though it wasn't him.

Well from a reader's perspective, we know it's not the real Aegon who will be remembered as Aegon VI, but you are correct otherwise, unless people find out that he is fake. If he is found to be fake, they may not record him at all (though they ought to, if they have recorded Joffrey and Tommen and he takes the throne at some point).

[FranklynFowler]

Interesting stuff... Shall we call him "Aegon the Unlucky aka the 5 minute king"

[Faydra]

I suppose Aerys died first, given Jaime's POV about Lorch and Clegane scaling the walls at the same time he kills the king.

Interesting stuff... Shall we call him "Aegon the Unlucky aka the 5 minute king"

I feel bad for laughing at this.

[mambru]

This is more of a question than a theory, but I was wondering if anyone knew who died first out of King Aerys II and his 2 grandchildren Rhaenys and Aegon. The reason behind this theory (assuming the baby was really Aegon and not a fake) is if Aerys died first wouldn't that make Aegon a Targ king for the portion of time between their two deaths. also if Rhaenys was the last to die as could be classed as a queen?

I'm...kind of confused. Why would it matter which of them died first? IIRC, Rhaegar was the Crown Prince, being the son of the King. Then Rhaegar was killed at the Trident, while his father was still alive....so Rhaegar was never the King, therefore Rhaegar's son never became the Crown Prince and direct heir to Aerys. I think that what usually happens when a king's elder son dies is that the king's younger son becomes the heir to the throne, not the king's grandson. So when Aerys died, Viserys would have been his heir, and would have been regardless of whether baby Aegon died before Aerys or after Aerys.

[FranklynFowler]

I'm...kind of confused. Why would it matter which of them died first? IIRC, Rhaegar was the Crown Prince, being the son of the King. Then Rhaegar was killed at the Trident, while his father was still alive....so Rhaegar was never the King, therefore Rhaegar's son never became the Crown Prince and direct heir to Aerys. I think that what usually happens when a king's elder son dies is that the king's younger son becomes the heir to the throne, not the king's grandson. So when Aerys died, Viserys would have been his heir, and would have been regardless of whether baby Aegon died before Aerys or after Aerys.

Sorry to say but you're wrong there. The eldest son and his family come before the second son regardless of who dies first.

I'll put it in to real life context. if you're familiar with the british royal family you'll get this.

Let's say charles doesn't outlive his mother (the queen) they're not gonna say to will and kate sorry guys but your uncle andrew (who no one's ever heard of) is now heir to the throne.

In ASOIAF that's why second sons are able to marry if they choose or join nw or whatever they want. eg. Robar Royce and Benjen Stark

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm...kind of confused. Why would it matter which of them died first? IIRC, Rhaegar was the Crown Prince, being the son of the King. Then Rhaegar was killed at the Trident, while his father was still alive....so Rhaegar was never the King, therefore Rhaegar's son never became the Crown Prince and direct heir to Aerys. I think that what usually happens when a king's elder son dies is that the king's younger son becomes the heir to the throne, not the king's grandson. So when Aerys died, Viserys would have been his heir, and would have been regardless of whether baby Aegon died before Aerys or after Aerys.

Nope. Not how it works. The line of succession is the king, the king's oldest son, then that son's sons, and so on. Rhaegar's legitimate sons would have to be exhausted before the throne passed to Viserys. Works the same way it does in the real world. When Edward III died, his grandson became Richard II because Edward the Black Prince, Edward III's son and Richard II's father, died before his father.

Your understanding of succession is not correct.

[mambru]

Oops, sorry. Silly of me.