Jump to content

Rhaenerya I Targaryen vs. Aegon II Targaryen


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

And I don't agree. The way I see it is that crowning Aegon II and keeping Daemon, and his friends, away from power is the only way for Otto to come out of this mess alive. I have no doubt that Rhaenyra took the decision herself, but neither do I doubt that Daemon had influenced her to be more harsh on Otto than she would have otherwise been, as his ties to Lord Hightower were strong enough to make said Lord Hightower go to war at Otto's urging.

That's fine, I see no precedent or anything that suggests it lawful for for the dead king's small council determining who is best fit to be heir. Otto got exactly what he deserved for his treasonous actions, nothing in the text suggests he would've been executed had Rhaenyra been crowned. The 'mess' you speak of was created by the green council, I find your logic faulty..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

That's fine, I see no precedent or anything that suggests it lawful for for the dead king's small council determining who is best fit to be heir. Otto got exactly what he deserved for his treasonous actions, nothing in the text suggests he would've been executed had Rhaenyra been crowned. The 'mess' you speak of was created by the green council, I find your logic faulty..

As discussed upthread with Lord Varys, I don't think Rhaenyra (or Daemon) had anything to lose, had she peacefully ascended the Iron Throne, by allowing Ser Otto, Alicent, and her children to live.  Indeed, there must have been every chance that at some point, Rhaenyra's descendants would have intermarried with Alicent's descendants, given Targaryen custom.

OTOH, if Aegon II ascends the Iron Throne, he has everything to lose by allowing Rhaenyra and her children to live.  Rhaenyra has been Crown Princess for years, and her children by Daemon are descended from royalty on both the mother's and father's side.  Aegon II must always fear that  either they will conspire to take the Iron Throne, or that people will conspire in their names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

It could be that the viewpoints were such that people abstained from executing women at that time, or at least prominent highborn women, but fact is that Tyland was not executed despite the fact that they couldn't get info from him and as I recall neither were the Grand Maester or Septon Eustasce executed right away, despite their parts in supporting the king.

It is not clear whether they couldn't get any information from Ser Tyland. It is much more likely they did not like what they were hearing (that the money of the treasury was split up) and hoped additional torture would bring forth 'the truth'.

Grand Maester Orwyle was apparently playing both sides but his story has been omitted from both TPatQ and TWoIaF. There is a reason why he wasn't executed alongside Otto and Ironrod, although he must have died eventually considering that he was replaced by Gerardys at one point, and eventually succeeded by Munkun.

The idea that Septon Eustace was a traitor beyond mercy or pardon is a mistake on your part. There are traitors you don't want to pardon - like Otto, Ironrod, Gormon Peake, etc. - and people who are not guilty as much as others. Eustace obviously begged for Rhaenyra's forgiveness and was then forgiven or else he would have lost his head when she took the city.

Quote

Also unless there's a really great difference between Cersei and Rhaenyra in terms of Cersei being more sensible, then Eddard has pretty much done as Otto did. Both had conspired to put someone else on the throne with the difference that Eddard allowed Cersei to take the initiative while while Otto took the initiative before Rhaenyra could act. As such I see no big difference between their crimes, save that Otto was more successful than Eddard which of course could have been a reason.

They are neither the same characters nor the same situations. Cersei was surrounded by enemies and pretenders. It was wise not to provoke the Starks further considering that Renly and Stannis would most likely also stand up against Joffrey. Ned was also not responsible for the deaths of three of Cersei's children at the point she captured him. Had this been the case Cersei would have killed Ned with her own hands.

Otto is the man directly responsible for the deaths of Luke and Jace as well as for the alleged death of Viserys. Rhaenyra has nothing to win by not executing this guy, unlike Cersei. His nephew had already taken up arms against Rhaenyra. Cersei on the other hand had a decent chance to keep the Starks out of the war by not executing Eddard Stark.

Quote

As it stands however I am convinced that Otto died right away because he was an enemy of Daemon and Rhaenyra wanted to kill one of her husband's enemies.

Well, considering that you have no textual evidence to back this up or confirm it you could just as well claim that Rhaenyra was always wearing red shoes. That assertion is backed up by the same amount of evidence (i.e. nothing). Your personal opinion of the characters has no effect on how characters or events are described.

Quote

And I don't agree. The way I see it is that crowning Aegon II and keeping Daemon, and his friends, away from power is the only way for Otto to come out of this mess alive. I have no doubt that Rhaenyra took the decision herself, but neither do I doubt that Daemon had influenced her to be more harsh on Otto than she would have otherwise been, as his ties to Lord Hightower were strong enough to make said Lord Hightower go to war at Otto's urging.

You have no basis for that, either. There is no textual evidence for Rhaenyra's conversations with her consort. If you are just convinced for no good reason you should not make a statement and expecting that people take it seriously.

One has to keep in mind that Rhaenyra mistreating/executing Otto and Alicent for no good reason would most likely lead to a rebellion against her reign had she ascended the Iron Throne peacefully at first. There is no reason to believe that she or Daemon would have been as stupid as that. And as the Greens themselves never speak about their suspicions that Rhaenyra or Daemon might poison them you don't even have any reason to assume they feared something like that. They claimed they would be executed if Rhaenyra ascended the throne - and in the end at least Alicent was not after Rhaenyra had to conquer her own throne.

You cannot argue against the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Cersei's nature is not a forgiving one.  But, she had enough sense to realise that executing Ned Stark could have damaging repercussions (as was the case).  Also, none of her children or retainers had died as a result of any of Ned's actions.  Ned had attempted to get her to go into exile.  She reciprocated by offering him the chance to take the Black.

By contrast. when Rhaenyra captured Ser Otto, she was already at war with the Greens, and two of her children had been killed by them.

Not, Cersei is most surely not a forgiving person. Yet also note that Otto had never taken personal arms against Rhaenyra and was as much, or little, responsible for the deaths of her children as Alicent, or any other on the Green council was. Yet he was singled out to die while Alicent and Tyland were not.

1 hour ago, OuttaOldtown said:

That's fine, I see no precedent or anything that suggests it lawful for for the dead king's small council determining who is best fit to be heir. Otto got exactly what he deserved for his treasonous actions, nothing in the text suggests he would've been executed had Rhaenyra been crowned. The 'mess' you speak of was created by the green council, I find your logic faulty..

I agree. The small council has no legal authority to determine anyone at a will-nilly point to crown instead of the king's heir, who were his sons, and only after them did Rhaenyra come.

Given the fact that Rhaenyra has chosen to marry Daemon, given Daemon's earlier behavior in life and his enemity with Otto Hightower, hints rather strongly that Daemon wouldn't allow Otto to just walk away as he was not bored with Otto at that point.

Also my logic is only faulty if we apply amnesia. The conflict didn't start with Viserys' death but started back when Viserys rose to the throne, and grew to an avalanche from there to culminate at the point when Viserys died, and as such the mess created a long time ago by that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the Blacks, as represenatives of the pre-ordained plan for the succession, would be bound in some way to be merciful if they ascended to the throne without a direct confrontation. As noted by several of you guys, the Blacks can afford to have a younger branch of the family running around, while the Greens can't. And you've got Daemon's speech on tactics implying a cool head during the intial phase of the war to accompany Rhaenyra's words to Alicent that she would spare her because of the love Viserys I bore her; Daemon seems to have matured enough to see the big picture, and Rhaenyra has the training to think about long term political stability (which would not be served by killing a long time Hand like Ser Otto), and seemingly nominal respect for Viserys's wishes in regards to the future to leave the Greens alive, provided they don't challenge her for her throne.

In effect, the diplomatic and political goals of the Blacks are the expected, peaceful, status quo evolution. They have every reason to want a peaceful transition to power, especially since any break they could make from Viserys's plan, even something as simple as locking up Ser Otto on a whim, could be seen as provocation justifying a Green Rebellion.

Now, as to why the Black's victory in the Dance seems to have had no impact on Rhaenyra being historically erased as a Queen in spite of her line being the continuing one, I'm thinking geography made it a political reality the Black survivors had to accept. The Crown Lands were disputed during the war, but the closest Kingdoms all exist in a world where the patriarchal order is far stronger than other kingdoms: The Reach is Andal, as are the Westelands, while the Baratheons in the Stormlands rule through a tradition that involved a male conqueror subduing the last "humbled" Storm Queen. The Kingdoms more likely to accept female rulers are all away from the Crownlands or not Kingdoms: the Stark have a pragmatic history of female warriors but are way the hell up there, the Arryns are seperated by the Storm lands, and the Riverlands aren't a real Kingdom, merely a large and vulnerable vassal state.

And since the North pulls away as soon as the Hour of the Wolf ends, the political reality of allowing Aegon II's spiteful decree to stand is allowed because the neighboring kingdoms have a vested interest in seeing male primogeniture enforced, and since they also include wealthy Green lords and ladies, over time the propaganda war is won by the kind of rich chauvinists who pay for minstrels and such.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11.8.2016 at 6:21 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Not, Cersei is most surely not a forgiving person. Yet also note that Otto had never taken personal arms against Rhaenyra and was as much, or little, responsible for the deaths of her children as Alicent, or any other on the Green council was. Yet he was singled out to die while Alicent and Tyland were not.

Come on, Tyland was singled out and spared because of his (alleged) knowledge about the treasury. Otto and Ironrod were executed - and all the other members of the Green Council would have been executed with them if Rhaenyra had captured them (Strong and Cole). Orwyle was spared because he most likely was the Black agent on the Green Council and played both sides to a degree, putting him in a much better position. But what we know from Ran is that he was imprisoned and it seems he was also eventually executed, possibly by Aegon II.

As Hand Otto in everything that had transpired since the death of Viserys I. And he was crucial both in the deaths of Lucerys (because he and Alicent sent Aemond to Storm's End) as well as in those of Jacaerys and Viserys because Otto also arranged the attack of the Triarchy.

He was a traitor and deserved to be executed. Historians remember him as one of the worst Hands in the history of the Seven Kingdoms.

On 11.8.2016 at 6:21 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Given the fact that Rhaenyra has chosen to marry Daemon, given Daemon's earlier behavior in life and his enemity with Otto Hightower, hints rather strongly that Daemon wouldn't allow Otto to just walk away as he was not bored with Otto at that point.

Can you perhaps refer to any quotes from George where Daemon's hatred for Otto is specifically mentioned? I remember that Otto plotted against Daemon at a number of occasions, arranging for him to be dismissed as Master of Coin and Master of Laws, culminating in Otto actually convincing the king to turn against his brother - then his heir-presumptive - to name his daughter as heir in his stead.

But we have no hints that Daemon ever plotted against Otto in the same manner. Not to mention that such a landless household knight as Ser Otto Hightower was hardly Prince Daemon's equal. The man might have married his daughter to the king but after King Viserys had dismissed him as Hand he was nothing again. If Daemon had wanted to kill him he could easily have done after Otto had returned back to Oldtown. I mean, there is a lot of speculation that Prince Daemon might have been behind the murders of both Laenor Velaryon and Harwin/Lyonel Strong.

If he could do that he certainly should have been able to take out some household knight in the service of the Lord of Oldtown.

On 11.8.2016 at 6:21 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Also my logic is only faulty if we apply amnesia. The conflict didn't start with Viserys' death but started back when Viserys rose to the throne, and grew to an avalanche from there to culminate at the point when Viserys died, and as such the mess created a long time ago by that point.

You are wrong there. The Dance only began in 129 AC because the Greens staged their coup. Back in 103 AC the political landscape was completely different. Only after the Velaryon children and the Strongs died and Rhaenyra married Daemon did the factions evolve we are meeting in the Dance. And that took place around/after 120 AC, not before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Wow, lot's of interesting aspects here. I've been on holidays on August, so I hope that you don't mind if I give my two cents about some old discussed issues.

Involvement of the Stormlands:

On 2/8/2016 at 7:54 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Lots of things wouldn't happen if it was real history. Like The Stormlanders sitting out the war when their lord is known to be belligerant

Tyrion tolds us in ADWD that Rhaenyra and Syrax fought at the Stormlands during the war, killing Ser Byron Swann in the process. The fact that Rhaenyra herself fought Swann seems to indicate that there was some actual intense fighting in the Stormlands, even if those events are not recorded in tPatQ.

King's will vs. Tradition:

On 17/7/2016 at 0:51 AM, Lrd Commander Midnight said:

Kings can do as they like. They make the rules and they decide the what's true and false

This is false for most of the kings in real history. The feudal oaths of fealty include obligations in both directions.

Even in the rare cases of absolute monarchies, the kings will always have to rely on the will of its subjects (or at least the most influential or powerful ones) to stay on the throne.

On 2/8/2016 at 0:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Can you define the limits of the powers and rights of a king in Westeros? And also define what a tyrant is in Westeros? The only time the word is mentioned according to my memory is in 'The Sons of the Dragon' when the High Septon declares Aenys I a pretender and a tyrant.

Nobody calls Maegor the Cruel, Aegon the Unworthy or Aerys the Mad a tyrant, though. Nor was Viserys I ever considered a bad king or a tyrant during his lifetime.

Naming your own heir also isn't considered something that is above or beyond the king's powers or rights. This is implicitly proven by the fact that people considered it likely and perfectly legal that Aegon IV and Aerys II might disinherit their their eldest son and choose another heir among their descendants.

Yandel calls Maegor a tyrant repeatedly ("Even today, some give thanks that his tyranny was a short one";  "Maegor’s tyrannical reign could no longer be borne, and the realm rose up to end it."). Surprisingly, another Targaryen king called a tyrant is Aegon V, whose opponents describe him as a "bloody-handed tyrant intent on depriving us of our gods-given rights and liberties."

In fact, the Egg section of AWOIAF seems to confirm that Westeros is not an absolute monarchy: "It was well-known that the resistance against him taxed Aegon’s patience—especially as the compromises a king must make to rule well often left his greatest hopes receding farther and farther into the future. As one defiance followed another, His Grace found himself forced to bow to the recalcitrant lords more often than he wished.

So, IMHO, will we don't have enough information to "define the limits of the powers and rights of a king in Westeros", textual evidence support that they are limited indeed.

As per the specific matter of whether naming a heir is beyond the king's rights, I think those are muddy waters as well. Your examples or Aegon IV and Aerys II can be interpreted the other way: Aegon IV hated Daeron II, and Aerys believed Rhaegar planned to overthrow him, and yet, they didn't dare to alter the order of succession.

The princess of Dragonstone as the heir apparent:

On 8/8/2016 at 11:39 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Prince of Dragonstone was always the title of the Heir Apparent or the chosen heir of the King of Westeros. This was long established tradition in 105 AC when Rhaenyra was made Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. Trying to cast doubt on that is no good. It is the same as declaring that Charles being the Prince of Wales has nothing to do with him being the Heir Apparent to the British throne.

It don't think it can have been "a long established tradition" in 105. The young prince Aegon (Aenys' heir) was born in 26 AC, but he wasn't named "Prince of Dragonstone" until 42 AC, the year his father died and he lost the title. During the reign of Maegor there wasn't a heir, so the title would be empty. And then Jaehaerys comes to power at 14, and of course childless.

My point being that at 105 AC, the tradition of the Princess of Dragonstone being the future heir couldn't have been established for more than 40 years at best. I agree with you that the Prince of Dragonstone was seen by everyone as the heir apparent, as the bestowing of the title to Prince Baelon in 92 AC and Prince Viserys in 101 AC demonstrate, but the tradition was a recent one (for comparison, the Prince of Wales has been the heir to the English throne since the 13th century)

Daemon's character:

On 10/8/2016 at 4:27 PM, Lord Varys said:

Young Prince Daemon was another kind of man but it really seems having first daughters and then sons really cooled him down. The man we meet in TPatQ is neither as hotheaded nor as cruel as the man we are introduced to in TRP. In that sense Otto is definitely misconstruing Daemon's character and spreading the fear from a man who no longer exists.


I agree with this, but Otto could have not know that Daemon had changed. He knew him from the time they were rivals in the court, and could not have known how parenthood and living in Driftmark and Dragonstone had changed him.

Otto certainly wanted to construct Daemon as a fearful man, but from what he knew of him he had valid reasons to be worried. It wasn't unreasonable to think that Daemon would want revenge from his banishment or the son that Mysaria lost, and would blame Otto for it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Wow, lot's of interesting aspects here. I've been on holidays on August, so I hope that you don't mind if I give my two cents about some old discussed issues.

I should be on vacation next week or so, too. Remind me not to visit the board while I'm supposed to have fun another way ;-).

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Involvement of the Stormlands:

Tyrion tolds us in ADWD that Rhaenyra and Syrax fought at the Stormlands during the war, killing Ser Byron Swann in the process. The fact that Rhaenyra herself fought Swann seems to indicate that there was some actual intense fighting in the Stormlands, even if those events are not recorded in tPatQ.

 

That is one interpretation and one I'd like to be true as well. But it could be that Ser Byron was just some courtier/guy who happened to be at court who swore fealty to Rhaenyra and then had the very bad idea to try to slay Syrax while she lay chained in the yard of the Red Keep.

Considering that this would have been a much more boring scenario I definitely prefer yours.

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

King's will vs. Tradition:

This is false for most of the kings in real history. The feudal oaths of fealty include obligations in both directions.

Even in the rare cases of absolute monarchies, the kings will always have to rely on the will of its subjects (or at least the most influential or powerful ones) to stay on the throne.

That certainly is true but the succession usually isn't something the subjects are permitted an opinion. Especially not in a medieval setting. The succession is settled between the members of the royal family or the descendants of the king and things usually get confused when there is no clear heir at hand.

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Yandel calls Maegor a tyrant repeatedly ("Even today, some give thanks that his tyranny was a short one";  "Maegor’s tyrannical reign could no longer be borne, and the realm rose up to end it."). Surprisingly, another Targaryen king called a tyrant is Aegon V, whose opponents describe him as a "bloody-handed tyrant intent on depriving us of our gods-given rights and liberties."

But both kings are counted among the legitimate monarchs of Westeros by the historians. But I guess we actually should see this as George refusing to add the appropriate level of complexity. A king like Maegar most definitely would have been condemned and eradicated from history after his downfall. Considering that the entire Realm rose against him in the end there is little reason to assume that anybody would have been interested to remember his reign or defend his achievements.

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

In fact, the Egg section of AWOIAF seems to confirm that Westeros is not an absolute monarchy: "It was well-known that the resistance against him taxed Aegon’s patience—especially as the compromises a king must make to rule well often left his greatest hopes receding farther and farther into the future. As one defiance followed another, His Grace found himself forced to bow to the recalcitrant lords more often than he wished.

So, IMHO, will we don't have enough information to "define the limits of the powers and rights of a king in Westeros", textual evidence support that they are limited indeed.

This has nothing to do with the succession, though (although there are limits to this as well, but that's the nature of noble and royal blood - if you enter into morganatic marriage you cannot expect to rise to the throne). Aegon V seems to have taken away rights and liberties the lords enjoyed. Considering his agenda this would mostly have been connected to relationship between lords/landed knights and their smallfolk, not so much the relationship between the lords and their king (although he may also have done something in that department).

But this is not necessarily evidence that the king's powers were limited. Such limits would demand that there was a legal institution limiting the king's powers - yet we don't know of any such institution. Westeros has no parliament and the Faith is under the thumb of the Crown since Maegor/Jaehaerys I.

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

As per the specific matter of whether naming a heir is beyond the king's rights, I think those are muddy waters as well. Your examples or Aegon IV and Aerys II can be interpreted the other way: Aegon IV hated Daeron II, and Aerys believed Rhaegar planned to overthrow him, and yet, they didn't dare to alter the order of succession.

I'm pretty sure Aegon IV would have named Daemon Blackfyre his heir had the boy been older at the time of Aegon's death. But Aerys II did sort of change the succession when he named Viserys his heir rather than Aegon.

But that is beside the point. The fact that Aegon IV thought he could name one of his bastards his heir strongly suggests that the concept of a king naming an heir was neither unheard of nor considered to be impossible after the Dance.

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The princess of Dragonstone as the heir apparent:

It don't think it can have been "a long established tradition" in 105. The young prince Aegon (Aenys' heir) was born in 26 AC, but he wasn't named "Prince of Dragonstone" until 42 AC, the year his father died and he lost the title. During the reign of Maegor there wasn't a heir, so the title would be empty. And then Jaehaerys comes to power at 14, and of course childless.

Actually, it seems that it was tradition since the reign of Aegon I that the Heir Apparent was the Prince of Dragonstone. I asked Ran once whether Aenys being the Prince of Dragonstone when his father died was a mistake since 'The Sons of the Dragon' had Maegor as Prince of Dragonstone but that is apparently not the case. So the story apparently changed to Aenys being Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone. My best guess is that the final version of events is that Aenys I gave not only Blackfyre but also Dragonstone to his half-brother Maegor when he rewarded him for crushing the rebellion in the Vale. After Maegor's exile Aenys I then took Dragonstone from Maegor and gave it to his son and heir, Prince Aegon.

Maegor named Princess Aerea his heir after he disinherited Jaehaerys. However, we don't know whether he named her Princess of Dragonstone (but it is possible). We also have no idea whether Maegor had an heir presumptive earlier in his reign. Considering that Prince Viserys was his squire prior to his death he might have named him Prince of Dragonstone, too.

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

My point being that at 105 AC, the tradition of the Princess of Dragonstone being the future heir couldn't have been established for more than 40 years at best. I agree with you that the Prince of Dragonstone was seen by everyone as the heir apparent, as the bestowing of the title to Prince Baelon in 92 AC and Prince Viserys in 101 AC demonstrate, but the tradition was a recent one (for comparison, the Prince of Wales has been the heir to the English throne since the 13th century).

Sure, it was as 'long-standing' as a Targaryen tradition in 105 AC could have been. But it was a pretty strong tradition considering that Daemon styled himself Prince of Dragonstone while he fancied himself Viserys I's heir and Viserys I then denied him that title (presumably because it was a title that came with being Heir Apparent and in Viserys' mind Daemon wasn't even his heir presumptive in 103-105 AC).

34 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Daemon's character:


I agree with this, but Otto could have not know that Daemon had changed. He knew him from the time they were rivals in the court, and could not have known how parenthood and living in Driftmark and Dragonstone had changed him.

I don't think that's very likely considering that Daemon and Otto would have interacted during Otto's second term as Hand.

And even if Otto had reason to fear Daemon that doesn't give him the right to steal Rhaenyra's throne. Just as Littlefinger not liking Stannis is no justification for him trying to withhold the throne from Stannis if the man is truly Robert's rightful heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...