Jump to content

Umm........How many Blackfyre Rebellions?


KingMaekarWasHere

Recommended Posts

So why did the maester who wrote the book call him a "pretender?"

I don't know.. I took it as Yandel making a distinction between a person trying to get his claim across for the Great Council (like Laenor, Laena, Viserys, and Rhaenys had done as well), and the Blackfyre Pretenders, those who pretend to be the rightful King of Westeros..

Aenys

did not pretend he was the rightful king of westeros, he simply asked for his claim to be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know.. I took it as Yandel making a distinction between a person trying to get his claim across for the Great Council (like Laenor, Laena, Viserys, and Rhaenys had done as well), and the Blackfyre Pretenders, those who pretend to be the rightful King of Westeros..

Aenys

did not pretend he was the rightful king of westeros, he simply asked for his claim to be considered.

I guess he was a pretender in the eyes the maester or the commoners, who didn`t bother to make that distinction.

That said, did he actually believe that he was going to succeed? Bloodraven wasn`t exactly known as a friend of the Blackfyres. I don`t see the logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, did he actually believe that he was going to succeed? Bloodraven wasn`t exactly known as a friend of the Blackfyres. I don`t see the logic.

Probably not, but he could at least try. And was protected by the honor of House Targaryen, there should have been no risk.

Of course as it turned out, the honor of House Targaryen was down in the gutter serving its hate as would a copper-piece-whore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aenys is a pretender, but not a Blackfyre Pretender. There was no accompanying rebellion. I think this it what it means. The book is filled with contradictions and errors, so I wouldn't fret it.

Daemon II's rebellion involved only a joust which he lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declaration meant nothing, even if Damon II was the official heir of House Blackfyre. He didnot have the sword. Bittersteel didnot care to join him. Aenys was not the true heir because Haegon had a son but still Aenys decided to press his own claim. That is what matters. And we are not sure that whether he crowned himself before coming to Westeros like Stannis did.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

I'm a bit surprised. And suddenly started to utterly despise Bloodraven. Egg as well. For that Freyish stunt, they'd deserved to loose the throne way earlier.

How's that Egg's fault? It is never stated that he knew Bloodraven was going to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declaration meant nothing, even if Damon II was the official heir of House Blackfyre. He didnot have the sword. Bittersteel didnot care to join him. Aenys was not the true heir because Haegon had a son but still Aenys decided to press his own claim. That is what matters. And we are not sure that whether he crowned himself before coming to Westeros like Stannis did.

The entire point of placing his claim in front of the Great Council was hoping that they would choose him as King. Arriving at such a council while you have already declared yourself king, will seriously harm your chances of being chosen.

Daemon II was declared, officially naming himself a king. That he didn't have a sword doesn't mean anything for whether or not he was king. Did Daemon III have the sword? Maelys? No mention is made (and Maelys dies fight with a morning star against Selmy in he art, which, while not canon, might be a clue of sorts). Yet they are remembered in history as having named themselves king (Maelys I Blackfyre etc).

Was Maekar any less a king because he did not have the sword? No.

The sword Blackfyre was what Daemon used to try and convince people (amongst other things). That Daemon II didn't have the sword, only served to show the people in Westeros that Bittersteel did not support him. But it changed nothing to his claim, or declaration..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire point of placing his claim in front of the Great Council was hoping that they would choose him as King. Arriving at such a council while you have already declared yourself king, will seriously harm your chances of being chosen.

Daemon II was declared, officially naming himself a king. That he didn't have a sword doesn't mean anything for whether or not he was king. Did Daemon III have the sword? Maelys? No mention is made (and Maelys dies fight with a morning star against Selmy in he art, which, while not canon, might be a clue of sorts). Yet they are remembered in history as having named themselves king (Maelys I Blackfyre etc).

Was Maekar any less a king because he did not have the sword? No.

The sword Blackfyre was what Daemon used to try and convince people (amongst other things). That Daemon II didn't have the sword, only served to show the people in Westeros that Bittersteel did not support him. But it changed nothing to his claim, or declaration..

Blackfyres certainly were not a single faction. Daemon II was outplayed by Bittersteel. So was Aenys it seems to me. Bittersteel was in charge as long as he lived. But there was always opposition to his methods. Later we see that Maelys slew another Blackfyre to usurp the power.

In short, a current Blackfyre descandant might look at the past and take Aenys as a martyr and a legitimate leader of House Blackfyre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackfyres certainly were not a single faction. Daemon II was outplayed by Bittersteel. So was Aenys it seems to me. Bittersteel was in charge as long as he lived. But there was always opposition to his methods. Later we see that Maelys slew another Blackfyre to usurp the power.

In short, a current Blackfyre descandant might look at the past and take Aenys as a martyr and a legitimate leader of House Blackfyre.

Aenys put his name down as a descendant of a Targaryen. Which he is. But he isn't a Targaryen. It would have been smarter for

Bloodraven to allow him to present his claim and see whom has Blackfyre sympathys. And if he won, he would be a Targaryen, and the other Blackfyres would remain pretenders.

It was unlikely he would win anyway. Bloodraven was in the wrong here, there is no denying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He reaped the benefits and never made up for it. He didn't even punish BR in earnest.

Killing Bloodraven would have made him a kinslayer. I don't know what else he could do, except let him rot in the black dungeons, which would have use to no one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aenys put his name down as a descendant of a Targaryen. Which he is. But he isn't a Targaryen. It would have been smarter for

Bloodraven to allow him to present his claim and see whom has Blackfyre sympathys. And if he won, he would be a Targaryen, and the other Blackfyres would remain pretenders.

It was unlikely he would win anyway.

Bloodraven was in the wrong here, there is no denying it.

We should get Jojen's opinion on Bloodraven's morality... Jojen? Jojen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing Bloodraven would have made him a kinslayer. I don't know what else he could do, except let him rot in the black dungeons, which would have use to no one.

He could have let him rot in the Black Cells. He could have executed the multiple kinslayer. He could have given up the crown. He could have named a Blackfyre his heir, maybe married back into the main line. And more options beyond that.

What he did is no better than what the Freys did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could have let him rot in the Black Cells. He could have executed the multiple kinslayer. He could have given up the crown. He could have named a Blackfyre his heir, maybe married back into the main line. And more options beyond that.

What he did is no better than what the Freys did.

He could have let him rot in the Black Cells, aye. But apparently he did a good job at Castle Black, so his punishment is both useful and a real punishment, considering most highborns are giving the choice of the wall, even when they are traitors. Killing Bloodraven would make Egg a kinslayer, why does he have to be one too? And why give up the crown, name a Blackfyre as is heir or marry one? How is Egg the one to be punished? His servant made a mistake, the servant is punished. Does he have to punish himself for that, and his sons, and his wife? It's all way too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He could have let him rot in the Black Cells, aye. But apparently he did a good job at Castle Black, so his punishment is both useful and a real punishment, considering most highborns are giving the choice of the wall, even when they are traitors. Killing Bloodraven would make Egg a kinslayer, why does he have to be one too? And why give up the crown, name a Blackfyre as is heir or marry one? How is Egg the one to be punished? His servant made a mistake, the servant is punished. Does he have to punish himself for that, and his sons, and his wife? It's all way too much.

Yes, he does.

Look at a crimelord's family for comparison. They committed no crimes, but they profit from the ill-gotten gains, inheriting them and the like. Should they keep it or should it be returned to the actual owners or used to pay for compensations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he does.

Look at a crimelord's family for comparison. They committed no crimes, but they profit from the ill-gotten gains, inheriting them and the like. Should they keep it or should it be returned to the actual owners or used to pay for compensations?

So Egg should return the kid's bones then? Because the realm was already Egg's, and he didn't steal it from the Blackfyres. The crime here is the betrayal, the man who betrayed is punished. Maybe Egg even got a bunch of gold to the remaining Blackfyres as a compensation, who knows. Point is that he does not have to give up his crown or marry a Blackfyre, because that would be overcompensating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Egg should return the kid's bones then? Because the realm was already Egg's, and he didn't steal it from the Blackfyres. The crime here is the betrayal, the man who betrayed is punished. Maybe Egg even got a bunch of gold to the remaining Blackfyres as a compensation, who knows. Point is that he does not have to give up his crown or marry a Blackfyre, because that would be overcompensating.

Not pardoning Bloodraven would be a start.

The rest is personal opinion. As you may have noticed, I'm adamantly opposed to abusal of truces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...