Blackfyre are Targaryen, Aegon can't be real or fake

[repbypop]

Blackfyre are Targaryens, so Aegon has a right to the Throne anyway, more than Robert or Stannis. I don't see why people consider Blackfyre as different than the Targaryens, other than the fact they have never ruled in their own name and they lost the rebellions, (which forced them to exile), they're Targaryen, so why Aegon should be less considered than Dany for the Throne. Dany herself has no more right than Aegon, because her family had been removed from the Throne, her claim is not more rightful than Aegon, both must fight to restore their family name. So if Ageon is real Blackfyre, he can reign as a Blackfyre because his family ancestries are the same than the Targaryens.

So for that matter Aegon can't be real or fake because his ancestry are the same than Dany, they both share the legacy of Aegon the conqueror.

[Dr. Pepper]

The issue about Aegon being fake is that he calls himself Aegon Targaryen, son of Rhaegar and Elia. If he called himself Aegon Blackfyre son of a son of a daughter of Daemon Blackfyre, then the 'fake' discussion likely wouldn't be happening.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The issue about Aegon being fake is that he calls himself Aegon Targaryen, son of Rhaegar and Elia. If he called himself Aegon Blackfyre son of a son of a daughter of Daemon Blackfyre, then the 'fake' discussion likely wouldn't be happening.

Basically this. If they were so sure the Blackfyre claim was ironclad, they wouldn't have to pass him off as Rhaegar's son.

In any case, legitimization or not, the Blackfyres were traitors and as such were almost certainly attainted and thus removed from the succession entirely.

[Arthur Lannister]

If that is the case then, does Aegon know that he is a Blackfyre?

[repbypop]

The issue about Aegon being fake is that he calls himself Aegon Targaryen, son of Rhaegar and Elia. If he called himself Aegon Blackfyre son of a son of a daughter of Daemon Blackfyre, then the 'fake' discussion likely wouldn't be happening.

True, but some people think that just because he's a blackfyre, he shouldn't have a right to the Throne.

[Ramsay B.]

"Black or red, a dragon is still a dragon." But that's not the issue like Dr.Pepper said.

[repbypop]

Basically this. If they were so sure the Blackfyre claim was ironclad, they wouldn't have to pass him off as Rhaegar's son.

In any case, legitimization or not, the Blackfyres were traitors and as such were almost certainly attainted and thus removed from the succession entirely.

They can't remove someone from the succesion, when you have royal blood you can sit on the Throne.

[repbypop]

If that is the case then, does Aegon know that he is a Blackfyre?

I don't think he know

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

If that is the case then, does Aegon know that he is a Blackfyre?

No, I think he thinks he's the real deal. Which is the dick genius of it.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

They can't remove someone from the succesion, when you have royal blood you can sit on the Throne.

Tell that to Aerion's daughter or Rhaegal's twin sons who were passed over. When the Blackfyres committed treason, there's an extremely high likelihood that they were attainted, because that's what you do to traitors. When you're attainted, you lose your legal rights and your place in a succession. That is what attainder IS.

True, but some people think that just because he's a blackfyre, he shouldn't have a right to the Throne.

Yeah, because the Blackfyres forfeited their claim by committing treason.

[repbypop]

Tell that to Aerion's daughter or Rhaegal's twin sons who were passed over. When the Blackfyres committed treason, there's an extremely high likelihood that they were attainted, because that's what you do to traitors. When you're attainted, you lose your legal rights and your place in a succession. That is what attainder IS.

Yeah, because the Blackfyres forfeited their claim by committing treason.

Robert was a traitor but he sat on the Throne. If Aegon win against the other lords, he has a right to claim the Throne, not from a legal perspective, but from his ancestry like Robert did, and nobody can remove that. I didn't say he could go to westeros and ask the high septon to put him on the Throne without a fight.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Robert was a traitor but he sat on the Throne. If Aegon win against the other lords, he has a right to claim the Throne, not from a legal perspective, but from his ancestry like Robert did, and nobody can remove that. I didn't say he could go to westeros and ask the high septon to put him on the Throne without a fight.

Robert also WON. The Blackfyres LOST. Aegon can claim the throne if he wins it, but that's true no matter what. The point is, your statement that someone can't be removed from succession is demonstratively incorrect, because it's been done.

[repbypop]

Robert also WON. The Blackfyres LOST. Aegon can claim the throne if he wins it, but that's true no matter what. The point is, your statement that someone can't be removed from succession is demonstratively incorrect, because it's been done.

Of course with a army, i never said he could have win it by pleading his claim in front of his ennemies. But the succession from a legitimity perspective can't be remove, legally yes (because men create laws for their own benefit ), but not from a history point of view. The Targs have been removed from the Throne legally by Robert and the family was exiled decade ago, but doesn't means Dany can't claim the Throne, history and ancestry can't be erased like that. That what i was trying to said, the law itself can't rule on everything, history, customs and traditions are very important too. The law can't erased the fact that Aegon and Dany have a right to the Throne.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Of course with a army, i never said he could have win it by pleading his claim in front of his ennemies. But the succession from a legitimity perspective can't be remove, legally yes (because men create laws for their own benefit ), but not from a history point of view. The Targs have been removed from the Throne legally by Robert and the family was exiled decade ago, but doesn't means Dany can't claim the Throne, history and ancestry can't be erased like that. That what i was trying to said, the law itself can't rule on everything, history, customs and traditions are very important too. The law can't erased the fact that Aegon and Dany have a right to the Throne.

But that claim is based on them being able to win, not just on their names. And again, that's in theory true for anyone with a big enough army who's able to subjugate the other houses. The Targaryen name, however, has currency where the Blackfyre name just doesn't, hence, they're passing off this kid as a Targaryen. If the Blackfyres' claim was as legitimate as you seem to think, why not just present him as such?

[nQthing]

Who's to stay the blackfyres committed treason? Maybe aegon ment daemon to succeed the throne. What if daeron pulled a gladiator on daemon and didn't accept his fathers dying wish and just took the throne for himself. Maybe the targs are the ones guilty of treason

[VaramyrSixchins]

I think it's safe to say it doesn't matter to The Golden Company, at least... :)

[Dire-Lion]

The Blackfyres committed treason, if not the first time, then definitely the second, or the third time. Once they lost the first rebellion they lost all rights to the IT.

[Honest Bill]

Although the Blackfyres might technically have a good claim. In practice, their name has pretty much been dragged through the mud in the seven kingdoms for about the last 100 years. The amount of Targaryen propaganda that was directed against the Blackfyres would have been pretty hard to dismiss. They are remembered as rebels and traitors throughout the whole realm. Not only that, they were summarily beaten and disgraced and their supporters forced to bend the knee or forced in to exile. Targaryens still sat on the throne in most people's current lifetime, and their supporters are still around and haven't been suppressed for the best part of a century.

It only makes sense that they would want to present him as a Targaryen instead, if indeed he were actually a descendant of Daemon's line.

[DireMaker]

Wasn't daemon Blackfyre legitimised on his father's deathbed, (when he legitimized all his bastards) and this is what caused the rebellion? And the fact that the claim was, in fact pure and legal is the reason there was nearly a second? Forgive if i'm wrong, but the right of conquest is the only "right" there is in Westeros, as we see with almost every POV. Ned himself is a beleiver in the right of conquest... as was Aegon the conqueror. So yeah, Aegon is legit, wether he is Illyrio's son, Elias', or mine, don't matter, he has a big, badass army, and lands recently taken, along with powerful friends in key places. He should make a go for it.

[Urien the Ragged]

Blackfyre are Targaryens, so Aegon has a right to the Throne anyway, more than Robert or Stannis. I don't see why people consider Blackfyre as different than the Targaryens, other than the fact they have never ruled in their own name and they lost the rebellions, (which forced them to exile), they're Targaryen, so why Aegon should be less considered than Dany for the Throne. Dany herself has no more right than Aegon, because her family had been removed from the Throne, her claim is not more rightful than Aegon, both must fight to restore their family name. So if Ageon is real Blackfyre, he can reign as a Blackfyre because his family ancestries are the same than the Targaryens.

So for that matter Aegon can't be real or fake because his ancestry are the same than Dany, they both share the legacy of Aegon the conqueror.

I wrote literally the same post as this and it never got published