Supreme Court of Westeros, ruling 27

Thursday is court day!

Welcome to the Supreme Court of Westeros! Every week, three pressing questions from the community will be answered by the esteemed judges Stefan (from your very own Nerdstream Era) and Amin (from A Podcast of Ice and Fire). The rules are simple: we take three questions, and one of us writes a measured analysis. The other one writes a shorter opinion, either concurring or dissenting. The catch is that every week a third judge from the fandom will join us and also write a dissenting or concurring opinion. So if you think you're up to the task - write us an email to stefan_sasse@gmx.de, leave a comment in the post, ask in the APOIAF-forum or contact Amin at his tumblr. Discussion is by no means limited to the court itself, though - feel free to discuss our rulings in the commentary section and ask your own questions through the channels above.

One word on spoilers: we assume that you read all the books, including the Hedge Knight short stories, and watched the current TV episodes. We don't include the spoiler chapters from various sources in the discussion, with the notable exception of Theon I, which was supposed to be in "A Dance with Dragons" anyway.

And now, up to ruling 27 of the Supreme Court of Westeros! Our guest judge this week is Eamon R., long time fan, first time caller, but obsessive compulsive about details.

Regarding Targaryen inheritance - I know we're at a totally speculative point - but why wouldn't Viserys have had a better claim than Aegon/Jon (assuming Rhaegar is Jon's father)? Since Rhaegar was never actually crowned it seems like the son of the King works better than the grandson right? Even if the grandson is the eldest son of the eldest son.

Main Opinion: Stefan

Jon it's only relevant for this question if he is somehow not a bastard. In that case, he comes before Viserys, because he's a soon of the heir and that's how it works, but after Aegon, who it's older. In practise, however, this it's moot. Assuming that Jon learns of his heritage and assuming he wants to be king, hits blood line doesn't matter. It would be a Blackfyre scenario, in which he'd muster support because of his status as the hero (Azor Ahai in his case, holder of Blackfyre in Daemon's), not because of legalities. But I doubt that Jon will go down this path.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Amin

I would say that the line of successful would formally pass through Rhaeger, even if he never had the chance to be crowned because he died before Aerys. The sons of the first son take precedence, at least since the first Dance of the Dragons. Justice Stefan is right that it will come down to political and military support in the end, not just legal claim. But for those not insignificant number of lords that fine legal claim important, Jon’s claim is strong and would be bolstered still if turns out he is not bastard born.

Concurring opinion: Eamon R.

Succession in Westeros has never been absolute - The Princess and The Queen makes it clear that it could be a free-for-all. I agree that Viserys would have the best claim under our Western understanding of succession, but Jon or Aegon (I actually believe he is Aegon), would have the better claim. But again, that depends on if Aegon is real and (if) Rhaegar and Lyanna were "married" in accordance with Targaryen and Andal traditions. If so, Jon is not a bastard and would be behind Aegon - if real. Otherwise, Jon has the best claim - and best blood.

Final Verdict: Jon has some legitimacy, but in the unlikely event it'll come down to swords. 

Are Jaime and Cersei children of Aerys and Joanna?

Main Opinion: Stefan

Possible but unlikely. If Aerys dabbled with Joanna Lannister, then Tyrion it's the product, because he's most likely one of the heads of the dragon, which all seem to be at least partially Targaryen. Of course, both choices have indicators: Tyrion's hair color, his interest in dragons and Tywin's demeanour, for example. Or the very Targaryen incest and the madness of Cersei. But the narrative points to Tyrion. In case of the twins, the result would be a cheap WTF and that's it, while for Tyrion, it'd fit in his character arc. So, no, they are not.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Amin

I agree that the likely answer is no. The (tenuous) idea about Cersei specifically relates to her reaction to the burning fire at the Tower of the Hand, along with the ruling practices and the incest pointed out by Justice Stefan. Jaime’s parentage was questioned in a manner by Genna, but that line was noting who inherited Tywin’s mental and strategic abilities, rather than questioning Jaime’s actual parentage. Still, I must mention the offbeat theory that Cersei may be Aerys’ daugther, while Jaime is Tywin’s son. It is biologically possible and may explain why Tywin wasn’t suspicious about the timing of the pregnancy if one of the twins were Aerys’ child. Tyrion is the far more likely candidate though, and the Court will be dealing with the details of his parentage again later this year.

Concurring Opinion: Eamon R.

Yes, they obviously are their children. As Justice Stefan said, all the evidence points towards Tyrion being the possible result of Aerys' lust for Joanna. Also, there is no evidence that the Lannisters or Targaryens made the trip to King's Landing or Casterley Rock in the time period covering the conception of Jaime and Cersei. The books only point to Tyrion as a possibility.

Final Verdict: Lannister, born and bred.

Why do the Others take so long to reach the Wall?

Main Opinion: Stefan

That’s one of the big mysteries of the series. It’s impossible to give an answer to it based on any evidence, because so far, there is none. Martin deliberately kept the inner workings of the Others from us. There is one easy explanation: the Others are nocturnal, and moving an army at night only slows you down. But still, that doesn’t seem to fit. For me, it seems like there are other forces at work. The Others took 8000 years for this assault (give or take). Perhaps there are some really mighty obstacles like the Wall left in the North that need to be removed in painstakingly slow labor? Perhaps there is a greater rationale at work? I have no clue. I guess it’s simply not the time to know. But the fact that they should be there by now is one that I guess is intended by Martin. They don’t show, but they should. That makes them more creepy.

Concurring Opinion: Amin

I agree that we cannot know for sure until more information is revealed to us. It doesn’t seem to be hurting their cause, as the War of the Five Kings, the battles in the North, and the strife at the wall have all weakened humanity’s defenses with little to no loss to the Others. If they can wait thousands of years, what is another year or two to them?

Concurring Opinion: Eamon R.

There is no good answer for this question other than it fits the narrative of the story. If they came every, say 200 years, no one would think they were real. They would not occupy the same status as the beasts and monsters from Old Nan's stories. Simply put, this is the book we are reading and the Others are coming now.

Final Verdict: Only Martin knows.