Jump to content

Rhaenerya I Targaryen vs. Aegon II Targaryen


Recommended Posts

So, this is kind of random, and mostly from memory of reading some of the companion stories such as The Princess and the Queen and The World of Ice and Fire, but I was wondering how historically, King Aegon II Targaryen is considered the winner of the Dance of Dragons. Here are my reasons that I think it would make much more sense for Rhaenyra Targaryen to be considered the winner : 

1. I believe after Rhaenyra died, Aegon II declared she would be considered a princess and never a queen in the histories. However, Aegon II died like 6 months after her and was then replaced by her son, Aegon III. Her bloodline, and not Aegon II's bloodline would continue for the remained of Targaryen Kings right on down to Daenerys Targaryen. 

2. Although Aegon II outlived Rhaenyra, her army (Riverlords) defeated the last armies (Stormlords) of Aegon II. Not only that, but her Northern army took over for a bit after Aegon II's death. 

3. Aegon III, Viserys II, and 3 of her grandsons all served as Kings. None of them overturned the Aegon II's ruling. Not one of them was like, hey my grandmother actually won this war. Her army won and her bloodline continued.

There is a common saying many of you have probably heard, "History is written by the winners." Well, Queen Rhaenyra I Targaryen's army won the war. Queen Rhaenyra's sons and grandsons and not Aegon II's sons and grandson became kings after her. Even if you had to say that since Aegon II outlived her, he has to be considered a King, then I cannot understand how none of her sons or grandsons at least declared her to be written as a Queen in the histories. Hell she is the great grandmother of the Blackfyre line, even they should consider her in their official histories. Anyone have any thoughts on this topic? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly I don't believe that Aegon II was been consindered as the winner and I think that this quite clear by the ending of TPATQ.

Quote

The account of how of the Second Aegon fell and was succeeded by the Third is a tale for another time, however. The war for the throne would go on, but the rivalry that began at a court ball when a princess dressed in black and a queen in green has come to its red end, and with that concludes this portion of our history.

Second I don't believe that this belongs here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

So, this is kind of random, and mostly from memory of reading some of the companion stories such as The Princess and the Queen and The World of Ice and Fire, but I was wondering how historically, King Aegon II Targaryen is considered the winner of the Dance of Dragons. Here are my reasons that I think it would make much more sense for Rhaenyra Targaryen to be considered the winner : 

1. I believe after Rhaenyra died, Aegon II declared she would be considered a princess and never a queen in the histories. However, Aegon II died like 6 months after her and was then replaced by her son, Aegon III. Her bloodline, and not Aegon II's bloodline would continue for the remained of Targaryen Kings right on down to Daenerys Targaryen. 

2. Although Aegon II outlived Rhaenyra, her army (Riverlords) defeated the last armies (Stormlords) of Aegon II. Not only that, but her Northern army took over for a bit after Aegon II's death. 

3. Aegon III, Viserys II, and 3 of her grandsons all served as Kings. None of them overturned the Aegon II's ruling. Not one of them was like, hey my grandmother actually won this war. Her army won and her bloodline continued.

There is a common saying many of you have probably heard, "History is written by the winners." Well, Queen Rhaenyra I Targaryen's army won the war. Queen Rhaenyra's sons and grandsons and not Aegon II's sons and grandson became kings after her. Even if you had to say that since Aegon II outlived her, he has to be considered a King, then I cannot understand how none of her sons or grandsons at least declared her to be written as a Queen in the histories. Hell she is the great grandmother of the Blackfyre line, even they should consider her in their official histories. Anyone have any thoughts on this topic? 

From the start there may never have been any need or wish for any monarch to press the issue. Since the Rhaenyra's children inherited regardless of going through Rhaenyra or Aegon II there was no need to push things in either direction because either would do. Also note that after the war and the rather chaotic, or so it would seem, regency before Aegon III then the top priority would have been the mending of wounds adn reunification of the realm. Note that all powerful Greens like Lannister, Hightower, Baratheon and Peake remained in power and so for someone to press issues from the Dance would have risked opening up old wounds. with powerful Houses set against each other. And we also know that at least the Lannisters sought to reconcile with Aegon III after the war and I wouldn't be suprised if Baratheon, Hightowers and others did so as well. And as for need, Aegon III and his descendents are as much kings if they claim the throne from Aegon II as from Rhaenyra.

And following Aegon III when the realm has stabilized the only king who I can see would take a major interests in this kind of thing was Daeron the Good who had an intellectual interest, but he got the whole Blackfyre affair in his lap and so probably didn't want to spend time and energy on the aftermath of a war some seventy years ago, when there was the aftermath of a war just a few years ago that needed his attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jasonothegreat

He was never really considered the Winner, The Starks, Arryns and Greyjoys were still fighting For Rhaenyra's Claim. All of your logic is sound which is why She is Considered the Winner. The Reason why Aegon II was assassinated was because he refused to surrender and was threatening to kill Aegon III. So yes, Rhaenyra did win. Although I know she isn't always depicted as the Hero and there are quite a few from my understanding who Saw Aegon II's claim stronger and Rhaenyra a Usurper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 6/13/2016 at 11:40 AM, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

So, this is kind of random, and mostly from memory of reading some of the companion stories such as The Princess and the Queen and The World of Ice and Fire, but I was wondering how historically, King Aegon II Targaryen is considered the winner of the Dance of Dragons. Here are my reasons that I think it would make much more sense for Rhaenyra Targaryen to be considered the winner : 

1. I believe after Rhaenyra died, Aegon II declared she would be considered a princess and never a queen in the histories. However, Aegon II died like 6 months after her and was then replaced by her son, Aegon III. Her bloodline, and not Aegon II's bloodline would continue for the remained of Targaryen Kings right on down to Daenerys Targaryen. 

2. Although Aegon II outlived Rhaenyra, her army (Riverlords) defeated the last armies (Stormlords) of Aegon II. Not only that, but her Northern army took over for a bit after Aegon II's death. 

3. Aegon III, Viserys II, and 3 of her grandsons all served as Kings. None of them overturned the Aegon II's ruling. Not one of them was like, hey my grandmother actually won this war. Her army won and her bloodline continued.

There is a common saying many of you have probably heard, "History is written by the winners." Well, Queen Rhaenyra I Targaryen's army won the war. Queen Rhaenyra's sons and grandsons and not Aegon II's sons and grandson became kings after her. Even if you had to say that since Aegon II outlived her, he has to be considered a King, then I cannot understand how none of her sons or grandsons at least declared her to be written as a Queen in the histories. Hell she is the great grandmother of the Blackfyre line, even they should consider her in their official histories. Anyone have any thoughts on this topic? 

Someone pointed out to me, that aegon III was rhaenyra AND daemon's son. Daemon was next in line for the throne once aegon II's son's died. Since he was considered dead when aegon II died, his sons were up next. Just thought this was worth pointing out.

As for why none of rhaenyras descendants tried to give her the queen title, I would say they didn't out of fear of history repeating itself. That was a terrible bit of history, the targaryens suffered greatly. Best to just keep the peace. It might start more problems to change the histories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, brightflame princess said:

Someone pointed out to me, that aegon III was rhaenyra AND daemon's son. Daemon was next in line for the throne once aegon II's son's died. Since he was considered dead when aegon II died, his sons were up next. Just thought this was worth pointing out.

That doesn't matter because from the point of Aegon II and the Greens the entire brood of Rhaenyra and Daemon must have lost all their claims because of the war. Nobody in the Lannister regime right now would consider Shireen the legitimate heir of Tommen/Myrcella.

And we know from Ran that Alicent and Aegon II actually intended to execute Aegon the Younger after Aegon II was restored to the throne. But Aegon II was in need of Velaryon support and thus had to bow Corlys Velaryon's demand that Aegon the Younger were not harmed but instead be betrothed to Princess Jaehaera and the two be proclaimed joined heirs.

Alicent did not like that at all but apparently the Greens were too weak at this point to not accept this. Unfortunately this never found its way into TWoIaF for space reasons.

8 hours ago, brightflame princess said:

As for why none of rhaenyras descendants tried to give her the queen title, I would say they didn't out of fear of history repeating itself. That was a terrible bit of history, the targaryens suffered greatly. Best to just keep the peace. It might start more problems to change the histories.

It is problematic from a dynastic point of view, though. Whenever kings like Aegon III, Viserys II, Daeron I, Baelor I, Aegon IV, and his successors cite their royal forebears then Rhaenyra and Daemon aren't the rightful rulers of Westeros. That must actually irk/irritate all of them, especially considering that none of them is actually descended from Aegon II or Alicent.

If Jaehaera had lived and been the mother of (at least some of) the children of Aegon III then the whole situation would make more sense. But in this case it is very odd indeed. Proclaiming your mother or grandmother the rightful queen posthumously isn't the same as changing the succession to Dornish succession of something like that. Not to mention that the problem wouldn't even have arisen under the reign of Aegon III because both Aegon III and Viserys II's eldest children were male.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't matter because from the point of Aegon II and the Greens the entire brood of Rhaenyra and Daemon must have lost all their claims because of the war. Nobody in the Lannister regime right now would consider Shireen the legitimate heir of Tommen/Myrcella.

And we know from Ran that Alicent and Aegon II actually intended to execute Aegon the Younger after Aegon II was restored to the throne. But Aegon II was in need of Velaryon support and thus had to bow Corlys Velaryon's demand that Aegon the Younger were not harmed but instead be betrothed to Princess Jaehaera and the two be proclaimed joined heirs.

Alicent did not like that at all but apparently the Greens were too weak at this point to not accept this. Unfortunately this never found its way into TWoIaF for space reasons.

It is problematic from a dynastic point of view, though. Whenever kings like Aegon III, Viserys II, Daeron I, Baelor I, Aegon IV, and his successors cite their royal forebears then Rhaenyra and Daemon aren't the rightful rulers of Westeros. That must actually irk/irritate all of them, especially considering that none of them is actually descended from Aegon II or Alicent.

If Jaehaera had lived and been the mother of (at least some of) the children of Aegon III then the whole situation would make more sense. But in this case it is very odd indeed. Proclaiming your mother or grandmother the rightful queen posthumously isn't the same as changing the succession to Dornish succession of something like that. Not to mention that the problem wouldn't even have arisen under the reign of Aegon III because both Aegon III and Viserys II's eldest children were male.

It's interesting because the greens went against the kings words, like the lannisters did. Rhaenyra may have gone against the laws of succession, but queen alicent defied the king himself. That's treason. And it's written plain as day throughout the histories.. yet no one mentions this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, brightflame princess said:

It's interesting because the greens went against the kings words, like the lannisters did. Rhaenyra may have gone against the laws of succession, but queen alicent defied the king himself. That's treason. And it's written plain as day throughout the histories.. yet no one mentions this. 

Rhaenyra did not go against the laws of succession because Viserys I changed them - or rather, he established a precedent against the Great Council of 101 AC in favor of female succession. Some people didn't like that all that much but nobody was of the opinion that he couldn't do that or else he wouldn't have done it. Nobody was openly rebelling back in 105 AC when Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone, and neither did anyone openly protest or challenge Rhaenyra's claim throughout her father's life.

If there hadn't been a split in the royal family itself things would have gone fine.

And Alicent was punished for her treason after Aegon III took the throne. She was imprisoned for life after Aegon II had been dealt with and died off the Winter Fever in 133 AC.

People certainly realized that women had been the source of all evil in this case and Alicent was condemned for her role in the Dance, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra did not go against the laws of succession because Viserys I changed them - or rather, he established a precedent against the Great Council of 101 AC in favor of female succession. Some people didn't like that all that much but nobody was of the opinion that he couldn't do that or else he wouldn't have done it. Nobody was openly rebelling back in 105 AC when Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone, and neither did anyone openly protest or challenge Rhaenyra's claim throughout her father's life.

If there hadn't been a split in the royal family itself things would have gone fine.

And Alicent was punished for her treason after Aegon III took the throne. She was imprisoned for life after Aegon II had been dealt with and died off the Winter Fever in 133 AC.

People certainly realized that women had been the source of all evil in this case and Alicent was condemned for her role in the Dance, too.

Does that mean that Maegor established a predecent in regards to how to deal with wives that can't give the desired children when Maegor cut the head of the Harroways back in 44 AC? I mean no one rebelled over the Harroways right then and there so it must have been an accepted juridical process, right? Contrary to what many people, like Maegor and Aerys II thinks, the kings of Westeros are not absolute and can't damn well do anything they like. Aerys can't murder a bunch of people and call it trial by combat and Viserys can't change succession laws on a whim.

Fact is that Rhaenyra and Viserys did go against the succession rule and that he was in the habit of cutting off the heads of people who said things he didn't like don't open for an actual discussion at that time. Ask those Velaryons who brought up the issue of paternity for Rhaenyra's children. What realistic oppertunity was there for anyone to actually speak up again Viserys and not get his head chopped off?

The idea that Alicent was the source of all things bad in the Dance is hilarious. To my knowledge Alicent never successfully warged a single person and forced them to do evil deeds. She's responsible for her actions and others are responsible for their actions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Well, to be honest, I feel like the Blacks were in the right to a point but the issue is clear, Alice was very power hungry to have her child be the one that takes the IT and it's clear she was butting into Viserys I precedent just to advance the Hightowers that much is clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/15/2016 at 4:56 PM, jasonothegreat said:

He was never really considered the Winner, The Starks, Arryns and Greyjoys were still fighting For Rhaenyra's Claim. All of your logic is sound which is why She is Considered the Winner. The Reason why Aegon II was assassinated was because he refused to surrender and was threatening to kill Aegon III. So yes, Rhaenyra did win. Although I know she isn't always depicted as the Hero and there are quite a few from my understanding who Saw Aegon II's claim stronger and Rhaenyra a Usurper

 

Yes but I see it like this, Rhaenrya was a woman so of course many would find offense to saying well she won in the end because her sons had lived. She was considered ruthless because of Daemons actions not really hers. Aegon's claim argument was based on the Great Council of 101 decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Contrary to what many people, like Maegor and Aerys II thinks, the kings of Westeros are not absolute and can't damn well do anything they like. Aerys can't murder a bunch of people and call it trial by combat and Viserys can't change succession laws on a whim.

I think both of them proved that they can do just that. Nobody told Aerys II that fire is no proper champion for House Targaryen in a trial-by-combat and subsequently Lord Rickard Stark faced fire and lost his trial-by-combat. Nobody even rebelled over that issue as far as I know.

King Joffrey also had people who laid a grievance in front of the Iron Throne fight to the death to decide the conflict. That sounds to me that Aerys' rather eccentric precedent stuck and was, in variation, continued by his successors.

There are no succession laws to be changed. Viserys I just named his successor, Princess Rhaenyra, then with the approval of his entire court and the entire Realm. The only people silently objecting to that were Prince Daemon and the Velaryons who later came to support that whole thing.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Fact is that Rhaenyra and Viserys did go against the succession rule and that he was in the habit of cutting off the heads of people who said things he didn't like don't open for an actual discussion at that time. Ask those Velaryons who brought up the issue of paternity for Rhaenyra's children. What realistic oppertunity was there for anyone to actually speak up again Viserys and not get his head chopped off?

Well, that suggests that Viserys I's rule was absolute in that manner, right? I mean, if you can chop of the heads of the most powerful people in your kingdom with impunity then this means you are in charge and everybody accepts that. And it is treason to accuse a royal princess of adultery or to question the legitimate birth of the king's grandsons.

But Rhaenyra herself had nothing to do with becoming Princess of Dragonstone, actually. It was Ser Otto Hightower who pushed her father to name her his heir apparent and that he did. So he had no right or reason to complain later on.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The idea that Alicent was the source of all things bad in the Dance is hilarious. To my knowledge Alicent never successfully warged a single person and forced them to do evil deeds. She's responsible for her actions and others are responsible for their actions.

Otto and Alicent Hightower are the main architects of the Dance because they actually pitched their branch of the royal family against Rhaenyra's instead of actually being a family and stick together. Otto is even worse because as Hand of the King he had a duty to the Realm not his family and his own ambition. He should kept the Realm together not set the stage for a civil war.

In the end he and Alicent reaped what they sowed.

2 hours ago, King Jon Targaryen I said:

Well, to be honest, I feel like the Blacks were in the right to a point but the issue is clear, Alice was very power hungry to have her child be the one that takes the IT and it's clear she was butting into Viserys I precedent just to advance the Hightowers that much is clear. 

Otto was actually worse than Alicent. He was the really ambitious guy. Rhaenyra and Alicent got along well in the beginning but the kind of ambition the father put in his daughter seems to have poisoned all that.

2 hours ago, King Jon Targaryen I said:

Yes but I see it like this, Rhaenrya was a woman so of course many would find offense to saying well she won in the end because her sons had lived. She was considered ruthless because of Daemons actions not really hers. Aegon's claim argument was based on the Great Council of 101 decision. 

That is actually wrong. The precedent of the Great Council had nothing to do with Aegon's claim. Aegon's claim is based on the general guideline that sons come before daughters. But Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne with the Lords of the Realm swearing and oath of obeisance to her and doing her homage at the foot of the Iron Throne. This was done to get rid of Prince Daemon as heir presumptive who had too many enemies at court and was not considered to be a worthy successor of the king even by Viserys I himself. The man loved his brother but had no intention of allowing him to claim the Iron Throne.

But once Rhaenyra was actually made Princess of Dragonstone unmaking her became both impractical and potentially dangerous. The Lords of the Realm had sworn an oath to her and might stick to that even if Viserys changed the succession again.

The smarter thing would have been to wait until such time as Viserys I had a son and keep Rhaenyra as a sort of placeholder until such time. But that was prevented by the interpretation of the votes of the Great Council which had unduly strengthened Daemon's position. The claim of females and the entire female had been weakened making Daemon and not Rhaenyra the king's heir presumptive - until such time as Viserys I formally named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent and named her Princess of Dragonstone (a title he had previously withheld from Daemon).

Once Aegon and his siblings were born there might have been a chance to go back but it would have been impractical and potentially dangerous for the reasons mentioned above. Not to mention that Rhaenyra was ten years older than Aegon and thus capable of actually inheriting the throne at a much earlier age should Viserys I suddenly die. Aegon could only rule in his own right sixteen years after his birth while Rhaenyra was only six years away from her sixteenth nameday in 107 AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think both of them proved that they can do just that. Nobody told Aerys II that fire is no proper champion for House Targaryen in a trial-by-combat and subsequently Lord Rickard Stark faced fire and lost his trial-by-combat. Nobody even rebelled over that issue as far as I know.

King Joffrey also had people who laid a grievance in front of the Iron Throne fight to the death to decide the conflict. That sounds to me that Aerys' rather eccentric precedent stuck and was, in variation, continued by his successors.

There are no succession laws to be changed. Viserys I just named his successor, Princess Rhaenyra, then with the approval of his entire court and the entire Realm. The only people silently objecting to that were Prince Daemon and the Velaryons who later came to support that whole thing.

Well, that suggests that Viserys I's rule was absolute in that manner, right? I mean, if you can chop of the heads of the most powerful people in your kingdom with impunity then this means you are in charge and everybody accepts that. And it is treason to accuse a royal princess of adultery or to question the legitimate birth of the king's grandsons.

But Rhaenyra herself had nothing to do with becoming Princess of Dragonstone, actually. It was Ser Otto Hightower who pushed her father to name her his heir apparent and that he did. So he had no right or reason to complain later on.

Otto and Alicent Hightower are the main architects of the Dance because they actually pitched their branch of the royal family against Rhaenyra's instead of actually being a family and stick together. Otto is even worse because as Hand of the King he had a duty to the Realm not his family and his own ambition. He should kept the Realm together not set the stage for a civil war.

In the end he and Alicent reaped what they sowed.

Otto was actually worse than Alicent. He was the really ambitious guy. Rhaenyra and Alicent got along well in the beginning but the kind of ambition the father put in his daughter seems to have poisoned all that.

That is actually wrong. The precedent of the Great Council had nothing to do with Aegon's claim. Aegon's claim is based on the general guideline that sons come before daughters. But Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne with the Lords of the Realm swearing and oath of obeisance to her and doing her homage at the foot of the Iron Throne. This was done to get rid of Prince Daemon as heir presumptive who had too many enemies at court and was not considered to be a worthy successor of the king even by Viserys I himself. The man loved his brother but had no intention of allowing him to claim the Iron Throne.

But once Rhaenyra was actually made Princess of Dragonstone unmaking her became both impractical and potentially dangerous. The Lords of the Realm had sworn an oath to her and might stick to that even if Viserys changed the succession again.

The smarter thing would have been to wait until such time as Viserys I had a son and keep Rhaenyra as a sort of placeholder until such time. But that was prevented by the interpretation of the votes of the Great Council which had unduly strengthened Daemon's position. The claim of females and the entire female had been weakened making Daemon and not Rhaenyra the king's heir presumptive - until such time as Viserys I formally named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent and named her Princess of Dragonstone (a title he had previously withheld from Daemon).

Once Aegon and his siblings were born there might have been a chance to go back but it would have been impractical and potentially dangerous for the reasons mentioned above. Not to mention that Rhaenyra was ten years older than Aegon and thus capable of actually inheriting the throne at a much earlier age should Viserys I suddenly die. Aegon could only rule in his own right sixteen years after his birth while Rhaenyra was only six years away from her sixteenth nameday in 107 AC.

 

I agree Otto Hightower was very ambitious in this regard it was natural his daughter would follow suit.

I agree with your point on Rhaenyra and Aegon II, thanks for the further clarification. Was one of the reasons Daemon married his niece was because he thought he could inherit the throne thru her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, King Jon Targaryen I said:

I agree Otto Hightower was very ambitious in this regard it was natural his daughter would follow suit.

I agree with your point on Rhaenyra and Aegon II, thanks for the further clarification. Was one of the reasons Daemon married his niece was because he thought he could inherit the throne thru her?

Daemon's first interest in Rhaenyra and his subsequent seduction of her clearly was triggered by his desire to now marry Viserys' chosen and anointed heir.

But the final marriage between Rhaenyra and Daemon in 120 AC seems to have been both motivated by love and political necessity. Rhaenyra lost both her husband and her champion and Daemon his wife. Had they not united their families neither of them would have prevailed against the Hightower faction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Daemon's first interest in Rhaenyra and his subsequent seduction of her clearly was triggered by his desire to now marry Viserys' chosen and anointed heir.

But the final marriage between Rhaenyra and Daemon in 120 AC seems to have been both motivated by love and political necessity. Rhaenyra lost both her husband and her champion and Daemon his wife. Had they not united their families neither of them would have prevailed against the Hightower faction.

 

Yeah that is very true indeed, it's likely they were in love 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jasonothegreat
On 7/8/2016 at 4:16 PM, King Jon Targaryen I said:

Yes but I see it like this, Rhaenrya was a woman so of course many would find offense to saying well she won in the end because her sons had lived. She was considered ruthless because of Daemons actions not really hers. Aegon's claim argument was based on the Great Council of 101 decision. 

But her side still won the war. Yes Rhaenyra was not the favourable claim, similar to King Joffrey Baratheon's claim. But the point stays the same her side won the war, to the people of Westeros it must have looked like the antagonists winning just like what happened  at the end of the War of Five Kings. As well personally I always thought GRRM was trying to paint Rhaenyra as the just claimant during the war, and even the winner as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jasonothegreat said:

But her side still won the war. Yes Rhaenyra was not the favourable claim, similar to King Joffrey Baratheon's claim. But the point stays the same her side won the war, to the people of Westeros it must have looked like the antagonists winning just like what happened  at the end of the War of Five Kings. As well personally I always thought GRRM was trying to paint Rhaenyra as the just claimant during the war, and even the winner as well. 

 

I agree that this was Georges intention 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2016 at 6:15 PM, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra did not go against the laws of succession because Viserys I changed them - or rather, he established a precedent against the Great Council of 101 AC in favor of female succession. Some people didn't like that all that much but nobody was of the opinion that he couldn't do that or else he wouldn't have done it. Nobody was openly rebelling back in 105 AC when Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone, and neither did anyone openly protest or challenge Rhaenyra's claim throughout her father's life.

There are always people who believe that even a king can't go against tradition, both in RL and in Westeros. If you present tradition as the basis of a person ruling a kingdom, then changing a part of this tradition is problematic.

The fact that nobody rebelled when Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone doesn't mean that everyone agreed that it was a lawful thing. Perhaps they didn't rebel out of fear, or because they thought that she would be replaced by Aegon II when he came of age, or because they were waiting for the right time to rebel.

On 9/7/2016 at 0:40 AM, Lord Varys said:

Nobody told Aerys II that fire is no proper champion for House Targaryen in a trial-by-combat and subsequently Lord Rickard Stark faced fire and lost his trial-by-combat. Nobody even rebelled over that issue as far as I know.

The Starks, the Baratheons and the Arryns rebelled over this (and other transgressions), so someone told him. In fact, Eddard's quote in AGOT ("Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?”) demonstrates that there are people in Westeros that the king's power is not absolute and that when certain boundaries are crossed there is a legitimate right to revolt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

There are always people who believe that even a king can't go against tradition, both in RL and in Westeros. If you present tradition as the basis of a person ruling a kingdom, then changing a part of this tradition is problematic.

Sure, but it is also part of tradition/proper procedure not to lie to your king and to keep the vows you have sworn to him and his heir. And traditions change. We saw that happen in Dorne as well as with the Conquest, the Rule of Six, the abolishment of the First Night, and the Targaryen incest.

Not to mention that the Targaryen succession had effectively been a mess since the death of Aenys I, so you can hardly cite a longstanding succession tradition for the Iron Throne.

People like Grover Tully and Ironrod Wylde certainly favored what they say as the good old Andal succession thing (a son comes always first) but they most likely didn't annoy their king all they with that talk (or else Wylde wouldn't have been on the Small Council). And Tully might actually have been some sort of hypocrite unless he actually refused to swear Rhaenyra a vow. But then, his son tried to win her hand once, an unlikely thing if they didn't consider her the king's heir at that point.

8 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The fact that nobody rebelled when Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone doesn't mean that everyone agreed that it was a lawful thing. Perhaps they didn't rebel out of fear, or because they thought that she would be replaced by Aegon II when he came of age, or because they were waiting for the right time to rebel.

Sure, but a king can expect and demand fealty from his subjects, especially if they keep their mouths shut, swear vows, and don't rebel openly. Otto and Alicent clearly did give no indication that they would got to war over this or else Viserys I would have reinstated Otto as Hand.

8 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The Starks, the Baratheons and the Arryns rebelled over this (and other transgressions), so someone told him. In fact, Eddard's quote in AGOT ("Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?”) demonstrates that there are people in Westeros that the king's power is not absolute and that when certain boundaries are crossed there is a legitimate right to revolt.

Well, we don't know to what degree the manner of Rickard and Brandon's death provoked the Rebellion. I'm pretty sure that Ned was both distraught and angry over the whole thing but we don't know yet how much he knew about that when the letter demanding the heads of Robert and Ned came. Presumably Aerys didn't first send a memo to everybody informing them what he had done to Rickard/Brandon and then only demanded the execution of Robert and Ned a couple of days or weeks later.

That quote about children is still very odd, by the way. What child did Aerys ever murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not to mention that the Targaryen succession had effectively been a mess since the death of Aenys I, so you can hardly cite a longstanding succession tradition for the Iron Throne.

You're completely right. George has managed to present a very interesting case with the Dance of Dragons, where every side has a lot of arguments at their favour while giving a complete logical picture of how the Seven Kingdoms came to that situation.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

People like Grover Tully and Ironrod Wylde certainly favored what they say as the good old Andal succession thing (a son comes always first) but they most likely didn't annoy their king all they with that talk (or else Wylde wouldn't have been on the Small Council). And Tully might actually have been some sort of hypocrite unless he actually refused to swear Rhaenyra a vow. But then, his son tried to win her hand once, an unlikely thing if they didn't consider her the king's heir at that point.

Sure, but a king can expect and demand fealty from his subjects, especially if they keep their mouths shut, swear vows, and don't rebel openly. Otto and Alicent clearly did give no indication that they would got to war over this or else Viserys I would have reinstated Otto as Hand.

Viserys had the lords of the realm vow fealty to Rhaenyra at 105, before Aegon II's birth. It's reasonable to say that there may be lords who honestly believe that a daughter comes before a brother, but a son comes before a daughter. And thus, they could defend their position of pledging fealty to Rhaneyra over Daemon in 105, but supporting Aegon II over Rhaenyra in 129.

And I don't believe that the greens "kept their mouths shut" at all. The fact that there were two named factions demonstrates that there was an open confrontation at court, each one trying to influence the king. There are many quotes suggesting that the matter was usually brought to Viserys ("Rhaenyra was his heir, and he did not wish to hear arguments otherwise"), and I'm convinced that the blacks periodically tried to convince Viserys to change his will.

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That quote about children is still very odd, by the way. What child did Aerys ever murder?

It certainly is. Perhaps some of Brandon Stark's companions where pages or young squires (Jeffory Mallister or Kyle Royce), or Eddard is thinking about the extermination of Houses Darklyn and Hollard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...