Fates of Targaryen queens and mothers

[Lord Varys]

Actually, some people considered Rhaena to be Aenys' heir prior to Aegon's birth, not Maegor.

Daemon was also not widely accepted as Viserys' Heir Presumptive - he himself thought he was 'Prince of Dragonstone', but he wasn't. And Viserys I named Rhaenyra his heir to make that clear to everyone.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

@Rhaenys_Targaryen: I never said you said that Daeron I was not old enough for a betrothal and I know there is no set rule that the heir apparent must be betrothed by the age of 14. I am saying Aegon III had an even stronger motive for securing the succession, meaning it would make sense if he betrothed his heir as soon as possible especially if he was sickly, and that makes me wonder why Aegon III didn't do so. Where did it say Daeron I was negotiating a betrothal?

First print, page 265, a sidebar towards the end of the chapter The Quarrelsome Daughters: Myr, Lys, and Tyrosh :)

[belladeuil]

@Lord Varys: I forgot about Rhaena. She was Aenys I's heir presumptive by Andal law until Aegon's birth. Prince Daemon was Viserys I's heir presumptive by Andal law until Viserys I had Rhaenyra. The purpose was to differentiate between heir apparent and heir presumptive.

@Rhaenys_Targaryen: Thanks!

[Lord Varys]

Andal law was not clear on that matter. Actually, TWoIaF should have actually debunked the term 'Andal law' altogether. During Aegon's, Aenys', and Maegor's reign the laws and customs in all of the Seven Kingdoms still varied. They were only unified by Jaehaerys I. Which could explain why some people thought Rhaena (and later Alysanne) should come before Maegor, and some other felt they should come after Maegor.

The only known Andal kingdom with a Queen Regnant was the Reach, which seems to suggests that the 'a daughter comes before an uncle' rule originated there (or was only there applied to kings).

As I think about it: If Jaehaerys I and Alysanne forced the Lords of the Realm to accept this rule as a guide line in all their domains, and if the lords were not actually all that happy about that (the Starks effectively exclude women from rule even to this day) this could explain why Jaehaerys preferred Baelon over Rhaenys - he may have felt that a Queen Regnant may cause unrest and rebellion among his subjects.

[Aemond's Eye]

She was seeing traitors everywhere.

She was seeing traitors everywhere - and there were traitors all around. Not to mention this came after the way her father had been treated after his death so that her half-brother could be declared king, and what had happened to her sons. Rhaenyra would have been pretty damaged/traumatised by the time she took the throne.

[SeanF]

She was seeing traitors everywhere - and there were traitors all around. Not to mention this came after the way her father had been treated after his death so that her half-brother could be declared king, and what had happened to her sons. Rhaenyra would have been pretty damaged/traumatised by the time she took the throne.

Oh, I feel sympathetic towards her. But, she was still a disaster in Kings Landing.

[Trickrs]

She was seeing traitors everywhere - and there were traitors all around. Not to mention this came after the way her father had been treated after his death so that her half-brother could be declared king, and what had happened to her sons. Rhaenyra would have been pretty damaged/traumatised by the time she took the throne.

She starting to break down in the first betrayal is proof she wasn't able to be queen regnant.

[Aemond's Eye]

She starting to break down in the first betrayal is proof she wasn't able to be queen regnant.

First betrayal? The first betrayal was how King Viserys' death was coveted up and her brother crowned. She then lost two sons - three if you take into account that Viserys was captured - and before that she'd endured giving birth to a stillborn daughter. It's not as if she was told one lie then lost her mind.

[Trickrs]

First betrayal? The first betrayal was how King Viserys' death was coveted up and her brother crowned. She then lost two sons - three if you take into account that Viserys was captured - and before that she'd endured giving birth to a stillborn daughter. It's not as if she was told one lie then lost her mind.

I was referring to Aegon's crowning, she started breaking down there, enough to cause a miscarriage.

[SeanF]

She starting to break down in the first betrayal is proof she wasn't able to be queen regnant.

Everyone has a breaking point. She had been worn down by being branded a whore for years by the Greens; losing her child as they launched their coup; having her son treacherously murdered at Storms End; and the stress of coping with plots and assassination attempts.

[Aemond's Eye]

I was referring to Aegon's crowning, she started breaking down there, enough to cause a miscarriage.

Yes. Most pregnant women definitely wouldn't have reacted badly to the news of how Viserys' body was treated and her crown stolen. Having a stillborn shows she wasn't fit to rule.

[belladeuil]

@Lord Varys: Andal law is clear 'on the matter'. Brother comes before sister and daughter comes before uncle. It is in A Song of Ice and Fire. Just because Andal laws on succession exist doesn't mean it was followed thorough history. Also, the Starks, who never had a female ruler, was steady to support Rhaenyra, the first queen regnant.

@It'sAlwaysWinterInScotland: "Having a stillborn shows she wasn't fit to rule." That is utter nonsense.

[Aemond's Eye]

@Lord Varys: Andal law is clear 'on the matter'. Brother comes before sister and daughter comes before uncle. It is in A Song of Ice and Fire. Just because Andal laws on succession exist doesn't mean it was followed thorough history. Also, the Starks, who never had a female ruler, was steady to support Rhaenyra, the first queen regnant.

@It'sAlwaysWinterInScotland: "Having a stillborn shows she wasn't fit to rule." That is utter nonsense.

It was sarcasm in response to Rhaenyra having a miscarriage being the first sign she wasn't able to be Queen.

[Jaak]

Rhaenyra´s interpretation of the event might be unreasonable... but still, she was in pain and under influence of opium:

Instead, screams echoed through the halls and stairwells of Sea Dragon Tower, down from the queen's apartments where Rhaenyra Targaryen strained and shuddered in her third day of labor. The child had not been due for another turn of the moon, but the tidings from King's Landing had driven the princess into a black fury, and her rage seemed to bring on the birth, as if the babe inside her were angry too, and fighting to get out. The princess shrieked curses all through her labor, calling down the wroth of the gods upon her half brothers and their mother the queen, and detailing the torments she would inflict upon them before she would let them die. She cursed the child inside her too. "Get out," she screamed, clawing at her swollen belly as her maester and her midwife tried to restrain her. "Monster, monster, get out, get out, GET OUT!"

When the babe at last came forth, she proved indeed a monster: a stillborn girl, twisted and malformed, with a hole in her chest where her heart should have been and a stubby, scaled tail. The dead girl had been named Visenya, Princess Rhaenyra announced the next day, when milk of the poppy had blunted the edge of her pain. "She was my only daughter, and they killed her. They stole my crown and murdered my daughter, and they shall answer for it."

Labour brought about by shock might have killed Visenya by, say, suffocating her in being stuck in birth canal for three days, but it could not have made a hole in her chest, and it certainly could not have grown her a scaled tail. If Visenya was a monster with a hole in her chest, she was certainly not viable, and Rhaenyra should eventually have given stillbirth anyway - theft of her crown had nothing to do with her daughter´s death.

[Lord Varys]

belladeuil,

only in the Reach did a daughter ever come before an uncle on the royal level. Neither the Vale, the Riverlands, the West, nor the Stormlands ever had a Queen Regnant as far as we know. Thus the Andals did not have a tradition that sets a daughter before an uncle when a throne is concerned.

It may different with mere lordships - because the father likes a child of his own blood to inherit rather than his brother, nephew, or cousin.

If you have read TWoIaF then you know why the Starks supported Rhaenys/Laenor on the Great Council in 101 - because they were pissed how Jaehaerys and Alysanne treated them.

You also know - or can deduce - why Lord Cregan declared for Rhaenyra instead of Aegon II - Jacaerys Velaryon flew to White Harbor and Winterfell and personally treated with and honored Lord Cregan, whereas the Greens made no such overture. Nothing suggests that the Starks were closer to Rhaenyra than to Alicent/Aegon, nor have we any reason to believe that they joined the Blacks because they felt Rhaenyra was 'the rightful queen'.

The Blacks offered the better terms (or terms at all), and a lot of Northmen wanted to fight and die gloriously in battle.

[Jaak]

You also know - or can deduce - why Lord Cregan declared for Rhaenyra instead of Aegon II - Jacaerys Velaryon flew to White Harbor and Winterfell and personally treated with and honored Lord Cregan, whereas the Greens made no such overture. Nothing suggests that the Starks were closer to Rhaenyra than to Alicent/Aegon, nor have we any reason to believe that they joined the Blacks because they felt Rhaenyra was 'the rightful queen'.

The Blacks offered the better terms (or terms at all), and a lot of Northmen wanted to fight and die gloriously in battle.

Why was Jacaerys sent to North in the first place?

[Colonel Green]

Why was Jacaerys sent to North in the first place?

To negotiate their support, which was exactly what he did.

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

Why was Jacaerys sent to North in the first place?

So his dragon could go lay some eggs in the crypts of Winterfell

[Jaak]

To negotiate their support, which was exactly what he did.

Yes - on grounds that the support was hoped for beforehand.

For what reason did Blacks hope for support of Starks?

For example, in the event Tullies were split - old Lord for Greens, his sons defying him for Blacks - and stayed out of the war till the end, when old lord died and his sons went on to crush Baratheons.

If Jacaerys had flown to Riverrun rather than (or before) Winterfell, would Tullies have declared for Blacks just because Blacks asked, the way you allege Starks did?

[Lord Varys]

Actually, in TPatQ the Black Council to not send envoys/letters into the North because it is not worth it, as they may only come when the war is over (which actually was the case with Cregan).

We don't know really what caused Jace to fly to Sisterton, White Harbor, and Winterfell. Perhaps the Black Council changed it's mind after Rhaenyra agreed to send her sons on dragonback, perhaps Jace decided on the way to continue his journey from the Vale into the North.

Even if the Starks or the Manderlys had been dead-set Greens, they would not have dared to arrest/murder an envoy. Not even Borros Baratheon dared to do that, and the Starks would have considered such a thing to be dishonorable.

But this was not the case. The Lords Jace visited had not yet decided for a side (North, Sistermen) or were very likely to support Rhaenyra anyway (Valemen). He was not trying to recruit the Lannisters or Hightowers.