LionoftheWest

Members
  • Content count

    3,613
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About LionoftheWest

  • Rank
    Bannerman of Casterly Rock

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,163 profile views
  1. They probably just didn't care about what old granny said about seeing into the future. Not all people in Westeros are going to base their lives around some prophecy that their old granny claims to be true.
  2. No, the Blacks thought Daemon would have the throne because they thought that by getting Blackfyre Aegon IV was designating Daemon as the heir. And note that I don't support the Blackfyre cause. I support King Daeron, but I dare to hope that there's more depth in regards to the conflicts in Westeros than in the Smurfs. But I am having a dawning feeling that maybe I am wrong. Maybe GRRM is really down on Manichean kind of view when it comes to the complexity of his conflicts.
  3. The thing is that wanting the oldest king also demands that you know who the oldest king is. And it also demands that you need to be able to find him. And fact remains that Daemon was Aegon's oldest recognized and known bastard son of Aegon IV. Some escort or prostitute could well come up with a boy bearing Valyrian features and tried to sell him in as a son of Aegon. But without paternity checks you can't know and that's why Daemon remains the oldest known son of Aegon IV and other sons are simply impossible to know for relatively certain if they are Aegon's sons. As such you have what you get. Claiming that there was a need to track down and use 21th century paternity tests in Westeros in the 190s is ludicrous. And to that comes that you've spend many threads promoting the election of the heir by the king. If Daemon was elected as the heir of Aegon IV then it don't matter if Daemon was the youngest son or even a non-relative of the king. He would still be the heir. Thus his position as the oldest recognized bastard of the king is really just a nice thing to have for Daemon's Blacks.
  4. And I think that Aegon simply only acknowledge the children of his mistresses + Daemon Blackfyre for we hear precious little of other children and there's no reason to think that Aegon was a particular responsible father who cared to take responsibility for most of his children. Can I prove it? No. But I don't see anything but conjecture in that there was some bastard son of Aegon IV to challenge Daemon when it came to recognition and pedigree. Also Trystane and Gaemon are pretty bad examples. They only came to limited power due to an absence of acknowledged Targaryens around, we see how little support they managed to gather to themselves and how quickly they fell as soon as Aegon II rolled back into town. These kind of lowborn "maybe or maybe not" Targaryen bastards really never gathered anything resembling support among the Westerosi nobility.
  5. The problem with bringing up some baseborn son of Aegon would be to prove that he is Aegon's son. We have the king's word that Daemon is his but for all those baseborn, it will be word of the mother, and more than likely the nobility of Westeros will not take such words very seriously.
  6. Kevan must still wait for Tytos to die and the Lannisters will thus need to survive the Reynes under Tytos. That's really not certain at all.
  7. I'd assume that the Kingsguard protects whoever the king tells them to protect. Normally its the royal family but supposedly it can be extended also to others.
  8. To say the least I think that events would unfold differently. To start with if Tywin died then the Lannisters would have lost their commander and its really not impossible that they would have either broken or failed to pursue the Reynes. In either case it would have given the Reynes the chance to gather more support and more Houses would be hesistent to join the Lannisters seeing how the Lannister heir was cut down by the Reynes. Not really. Tytos would still be lord and given Tytos earlier actions would probably have sought to come to terms with the Reynes rather than fight them, further undermining the Lannisters. Odds are thus that either the Westerlands would be ravaged by a full blown civil war or Castamere would have been besieged and then the siege lifted at Tytos command and pardons given to the Reynes. Leaving the Reynes free to cause more havoc and undermine the evidently weakling Lannisters who have just lost their best hope for the future. And if it comes to civil war it could really go either way and it could end up with the Reynes destroying the Lannisters. The Lannisters may or may not have joined the crown, but without a Lannister hostage in King's Landing the Lannisters may also have joined the rebels for all we know. But in regards to Robert I am fairly sure that he would still have struck out into the Reach. My theory is that given how divided the Reach has been historically and their historical support of the Blackfyres, Robert was trying to cash in on that and gather Reach lords to him as a new macho hero come to lead them to victory against a non-martial king, kind of like Daemon Blackfyre back in the day. To sitt still and be beiseged don't at all sound like Robert. Depends on which Targaryen king imposes terms. If its Aerys then its a full-blown massacre of all rebels and perhaps also including Rhaegar's friends. While if its King Rhaegar then it would more likely be like after the Blackfyre Rebellion with harsh but reasonable punishments.
  9. Daemon wasn't older than Daeron, in fact Daemon was on age with Daeron's sons. Daemon was born in 170 AC and Daeron was born in 153 AC. So age was never a thing, it was that Daemon was a bastard that was legitimized and had alot of popular support, while Daeron II took efforts that made him many enemies who saw their position deteriorate regardless of that Daeron II also tried to be fair and just to his bannermen.
  10. Since I'm not a fan of forced conversion I think that's taking it to far as well, even if its much more palatable than genocide. Personally I don't care much for the money aspect of this or that solution. I'm not a fan of slavers, Dothraki or Ironmen so slavery is not of interest to me, nor is ethnical cleansing with whatever fancy pretext that is attached. What I think would be better is something that I've outlined above, efforts a integrating the Ironmen with the rest of Westeros over time.
  11. Except I don't think that's the case. If it was so then reasonably Blackfyre would have the laws of succession on his side rather than having to totally bend over and be willfully blind to lots of things to make his claim work, against the rather simple claim of Daeron II who have the law of succession on his side. Now of course given that the king is aboslute Daemon can claim that recieving Blackfyre was indeed becoming heir of the king, by whatever way the king decides to do it. But that's about it.
  12. Nothing special really. Hopefully the two of you will have a good time though. And you just might get a reputation for being impatient.
  13. I have no idea. I'm starting to think that maybe and somehow, after her experience with the Walk of Shame, it might be Cersei, but I don't really think the Lannisters will end up on top of the story. Most likely GRRM will let the Targaryens return to the throne.
  14. I believe that you are wrong in regards to what it would mean if the Lannisters kept the throne. I think the situation is more about how chaotic succession becomes in a time of crisis when you need *your* person on the throne since another guy's candidate will chop your head off, and how division leads to fail. In fact I think that tgere's a theme for this in the books. if there's a new Dance of the Dragons between Targaryen candidates it will mirror the infighting between Stannis and Renly. In both the cases of Baratheon and Targaryen they could have swept all before them but blinded by their personal ambitions for the throne, they turned on each other and allowed what should have been their common enemy to capitalize on their infighting and defeat them in the end. Not to mention the possibility of a civil war within House Lannister between Tyrion and Cersei which could be, but I hope not, the thing to really cause House Lannister to fall rather than outside force.
  15. The way I see is that they kind of turn on many a king. I've got the following list. Edmyn rebels against Harren the Black House Tully first fights for Maegor and then turn against him. Lord Grover wants to fight for Aegon II, his son and grandson essentially conducts a coup against their own lord to manipulate events so that they will join the Blacks. Perhaps they are right in joining the Blacks but their methods don't speak of upstanding honor. Held true in regards to the Blackfyres - I'll give them that. Hoster turned on the Targaryens for good marriages for his daughters. Turned against House Baratheon, which they were instrumental in seating on the Iron Throne in the first place, after little more than decade despite the fact that there were two other Baratheons to pick between beyond the Baratheon they were pissed with. As I see it the Tullys have only managed to hold faith against the Blackfyres and in every other conflict they are involved which isn't more or less "the whole realm against a minor region" mentioned there's some treason going on. And sure, for many of them you can make an argument. But I can't recall a single House that has as much shenanings and faithless dealings going on when Westeros goes into conflict. And explainations can only be used so long before they grow hollow and you start to see a pattern emerging.