Rhaenerya I Targaryen vs. Aegon II Targaryen

[illrede]

On 8/5/2016 at 6:59 AM, SeanF said:

If you immediately resort to violence, without even attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution to a dispute, then, IMHO, you put yourself in the wrong.  The Greens put themselves in the wrong.

On the substance of the dispute, Rhaenyra had been Princess of Dragonstone for years.  Making her Princess of Dragonstone wasn't some last-minute eccentricity on the part of Viserys.  She was entitled to inherit.

That could also be explained by an assessment of the Black party by the Greens; go big, ugly, fast or go the way of those that "slandered" Rhaenyra previously. She did have Daemon. Any entertained dispute was ending in blood.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-08-05 at 0:59 PM, SeanF said:

If you immediately resort to violence, without even attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution to a dispute, then, IMHO, you put yourself in the wrong.  The Greens put themselves in the wrong.

On the substance of the dispute, Rhaenyra had been Princess of Dragonstone for years.  Making her Princess of Dragonstone wasn't some last-minute eccentricity on the part of Viserys.  She was entitled to inherit.

They did attempt a peaceful negotiation, but they just ensure that they could negotiate from a position of not-suicide rather than wait for the Blacks to just sweep in, take their heads and laught every day for the rest of their lives.

Also Rhaenyra holding Dragonstone has little importance as far as I can tell. Daemon Blackfyreh held the sword Blackfyre for what 12-16 years without anyone challenging him about it, but that didn't make him the rightful king as far as I am know.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

They did attempt a peaceful negotiation, but they just ensure that they could negotiate from a position of not-suicide rather than wait for the Blacks to just sweep in, take their heads and laught every day for the rest of their lives.

Technically the Greens had no right to even open or offer negotiations. Aegon II was a false king and a usurper, and thus had no more 'right' to treat like an equal with his half-sister as a thief who has taken your house and property from you to discuss terms under which conditions he might consider returning some of your stuff to you.

Quote

Also Rhaenyra holding Dragonstone has little importance as far as I can tell. Daemon Blackfyreh held the sword Blackfyre for what 12-16 years without anyone challenging him about it, but that didn't make him the rightful king as far as I am know.

That is a false comparison. 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.

Blackfyre has nothing to do with throne historically. It was the sword of the kings, yes, but it was never given to the successor or chosen heir of the king. People made a fuzz when Aegon IV gave the sword to Daemon but it is pretty clear that the sword never was seen as 'the kingdom' prior to that. And it certainly wasn't seen as 'the kingdom' thereafter considering that the Blackfyres continued to suck.

[OuttaOldtown]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Technically the Greens had no right to even open or offer negotiations. Aegon II was a false king and a usurper, and thus had no more 'right' to treat like an equal with his half-sister as a thief who taken your house and property from you to discuss terms with you under which conditions he might consider returning some of your stuff to you.

That is a false comparison. 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.

Blackfyre has nothing to do with throne historically. It was the sword of the kings, yes, but it was never given to the successor or chosen heir of the king. People made a fuzz when Aegon IV gave the sword to Daemon but it is pretty clear that the sword never was the kingdom prior to that.

I don't see how it's even debatable, Viserys declared that Rhaenyra was his heir. The small council (minus Lord Beesbury) had absolutely no authority to crown Aegon II, and the manner which it was done only proves how unlawful it was..

[SeanF]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 3:29 PM, illrede said:

That could also be explained by an assessment of the Black party by the Greens; go big, ugly, fast or go the way of those that "slandered" Rhaenyra previously. She did have Daemon. Any entertained dispute was ending in blood.

Once the Greens decided to seize the Iron Throne, they had to get their retaliation in first.  But, they were still the aggressors in this case.

So far as we know, Rhaenyra had no plans to murder Alicent Hightower's children, had she peacefully ascended the Iron Throne, so the Greens can't justly claim self-defence.

[SeanF]

16 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

They did attempt a peaceful negotiation, but they just ensure that they could negotiate from a position of not-suicide rather than wait for the Blacks to just sweep in, take their heads and laught every day for the rest of their lives.

Also Rhaenyra holding Dragonstone has little importance as far as I can tell. Daemon Blackfyreh held the sword Blackfyre for what 12-16 years without anyone challenging him about it, but that didn't make him the rightful king as far as I am know.

They attempted to negotiate from a position of wrong-doing.  What authority did Ser Criston Cole have to crown Aegon II?

[Lion of the West]

40 minutes ago, SeanF said:

They attempted to negotiate from a position of wrong-doing.  What authority did Ser Criston Cole have to crown Aegon II?

No, they tried a peaceful resolution from a position of relative strength. Criston Cole had tradition and law on his side. What authority did Aerys II have to roast the Starks and Viserys I to name Rhaenyra heir? Royal whim. I take law and tradition about arbirary whims every time.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

No, they tried a peaceful resolution from a position of relative strength. Criston Cole had tradition and law on his side. What authority did Aerys II have to roast the Starks and Viserys I to name Rhaenyra heir? Royal whim. I take law and tradition about arbirary whims every time.

No, they tried a peaceful resolution from a position of relative strength. Criston Cole had tradition and law on his side. What authority did Aerys II have to roast the Starks and Viserys I to name Rhaenyra heir? Royal whim. I take law and tradition about arbirary whims every time.

They had already murdered Lord Beesbury, and placed other people in prison, prior to attempting negotiations.  Therefore, they had placed themselves in the wrong.

And there is no law or tradition (that I am aware of) that entitles either the Hand, the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, or the Small Council to bestow a crown on the candidate of his or their choice.

Viserys, as King, had the right to appoint his successor, a choice which was accepted by his lords who gave oaths of allegiance.  In Westeros, there is no Act of Succession which stipulates who is to sit the Iron Throne, and which can only be repealed or altered by Parliament.  The King is the supreme legislative authority. 

[Lion of the West]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

They had already murdered Lord Beesbury, and placed other people in prison, prior to attempting negotiations.  Therefore, they had placed themselves in the wrong.

And there is no law or tradition (that I am aware of) that entitles either the Hand, the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard, or the Small Council to bestow a crown on the candidate of his or their choice.

Viserys, as King, had the right to appoint his successor, a choice which was accepted by his lords who gave oaths of allegiance.  In Westeros, there is no Act of Succession which stipulates who is to sit the Iron Throne, and which can only be repealed or altered by Parliament.  The King is the supreme legislative authority. 

Killing Lord Beesbury was unnecessary but rounding up the Blacks at court was not, least they stage a coup or act as the fifth column the Gold Cloaks in fact were. So they had done a thing wrong but were in no way in the wrong because of it.

There's no tradition giving the Hand, Lord Commander or the small council to crown a king at will, I agree. But there are law and customs, as mentioned by Eddard Stark and Robb Stark and as mentioned by Myrcella Baratheon and the maesters in the world book, that sons inherits after their father. thus Aegon, Aemond and Daerion were all before Rhaenyra.

Viserys had no right to set his sons aside in favor of his daughter and the oath you refeer to was never about a daughter before a son, it was about a daughter before an uncle, to which I tend to agree. The king is the highest judicial instant, I agree, but his will is not the end of the discussion of what is right and wrong. He is not the Sun King.

[Lord Varys]

13 hours ago, OuttaOldtown said:

I don't see how it's even debatable, Viserys declared that Rhaenyra was his heir. The small council (minus Lord Beesbury) had absolutely no authority to crown Aegon II, and the manner which it was done only proves how unlawful it was..

Yap. That is why half the Realm rose against those traitors and eventually deposed them all.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Once the Greens decided to seize the Iron Throne, they had to get their retaliation in first.  But, they were still the aggressors in this case.

So far as we know, Rhaenyra had no plans to murder Alicent Hightower's children, had she peacefully ascended the Iron Throne, so the Greens can't justly claim self-defence.

Even if Rhaenyra had been inclined to put Otto and Alicent and her half-siblings down she would have been in the right of doing so considering that they were obviously plotting against her (with the possible exception of Prince Daeron).

It is a shame that we didn't get more information on Rhaenyra-Alicent/Helaena interaction after the Blacks had taken the city. I'm still irritated that both women actually were treated this kindly.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

No, they tried a peaceful resolution from a position of relative strength. Criston Cole had tradition and law on his side. What authority did Aerys II have to roast the Starks and Viserys I to name Rhaenyra heir? Royal whim. I take law and tradition about arbirary whims every time.

Come on, now, you don't know what proof Aerys II had that Lord Rickard and Brandon Stark were traitors. We don't even know yet what Aerys thought Rickard and Brandon had done. But Brandon definitely deserved to die considering that he threatened the life of the Crown Prince (although I'm not sure Aerys accused him of that thing). We know that attacking a prince of blood comes with severe repercussions, and actually threatening his life might even be a worse crime.

Criston Cole cut the throat of some old man who deserved a trial(-by-combat), too, right? You cannot come to defense of poor Ser Criston and then support the whims and unlawful arrests of the likes of Otto, Cole, and Aegon II.

Not to mention that you cannot cite any objective facts supporting your view that a king cannot name a daughter his heir even if he has trueborn sons. The books never mentions binding laws to that effect, and tradition is just a guideline - that is why it is called tradition and not universally binding law.

43 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Viserys had no right to set his sons aside in favor of his daughter and the oath you refeer to was never about a daughter before a son, it was about a daughter before an uncle, to which I tend to agree. The king is the highest judicial instant, I agree, but his will is not the end of the discussion of what is right and wrong. He is not the Sun King.

Viserys I never set his sons aside in favor of his daughter and neither was the issue about a daughter before an uncle. Viserys I declared his daughter his Heir Apparent and named her Princess of Dragonstone and had the Lords of the Realm swear on oath of obeisance to her to defend her rights should the time come.

The quote from TRP goes like that:

Quote

Disregarding the precedents set by King Jaehaerys in 92 and the Great Council in 101, King Viserys I declared his daughter Rhaenyra to be his rightful heir, and named her Princess of Dragonstone. In a lavish ceremony at King’s Landing, hundreds of lords did obeisance to Rhaenyra as she sat at her father’s feet at the base of the Iron Throne, swearing to honor and defend her right of succession.

This was not a conditional heir presumptive arrangement. Viserys I didn't name Rhaenyra his heir until such a time as a son is born to him. He named her his Heir Apparent unconditionally and forever.

If it had been conditionally as you think it was then Rhaenyra would only have been heir presumptive (as Elizabeth II was until her father died - she was never made the Princess of Wales) and Viserys I himself would have named Prince Aegon his Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone as his firstborn son upon his birth.

Viserys I certainly could have changed the succession again after Aegon's birth - and he did threaten to do this when Rhaenyra refused to marry Laenor - but he never did, meaning that as things stood Rhaenyra Targaryen was the acknowledged and rightful Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne of Westeros by the time her father died.

Nobody in Westeros actually contests that. Even the Greens were aware of that, and Aegon's defenders had to resort to lies about his character (that he never wanted to be king) to justify the coup and his subsequent usurpation.

Perhaps a number of people thought King Viserys I shouldn't have named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent or changed the succession in favor of Prince Aegon but nobody ever said that Viserys I naming Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent was unlawful. It is just you who claims such a thing.

Oh, and by the way since you are mentioning the Sun King:

I think if there was a thing in which an Absolutist monarch could not rule upon then it would have been his own succession, paradoxically as it may sound. Simply because the ideology of the divine right of kings and stuff was inseparably tied to the special quality of royal blood. A king in Westeros or in the middle ages could much more easily name a more distant relative/descendant than his firstborn son his heir than a king living in 17th or 18th century France.

At this point in time a royal child might even lose its claim when his royal father or mother didn't marry into a royal house of the same standing. The mother of a king has to be at least princess of equal rank. The idea that the child of somebody like Elizabeth Woodville or Anne Boleyn could ever have become king during the Absolutist era is pretty far-fetched.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

Killing Lord Beesbury was unnecessary but rounding up the Blacks at court was not, least they stage a coup or act as the fifth column the Gold Cloaks in fact were. So they had done a thing wrong but were in no way in the wrong because of it.

There's no tradition giving the Hand, Lord Commander or the small council to crown a king at will, I agree. But there are law and customs, as mentioned by Eddard Stark and Robb Stark and as mentioned by Myrcella Baratheon and the maesters in the world book, that sons inherits after their father. thus Aegon, Aemond and Daerion were all before Rhaenyra.

Viserys had no right to set his sons aside in favor of his daughter and the oath you refeer to was never about a daughter before a son, it was about a daughter before an uncle, to which I tend to agree. The king is the highest judicial instant, I agree, but his will is not the end of the discussion of what is right and wrong. He is not the Sun King.

Killing Lord Beesbury was unnecessary but rounding up the Blacks at court was not, least they stage a coup or act as the fifth column the Gold Cloaks in fact were. So they had done a thing wrong but were in no way in the wrong because of it.

There's no tradition giving the Hand, Lord Commander or the small council to crown a king at will, I agree. But there are law and customs, as mentioned by Eddard Stark and Robb Stark and as mentioned by Myrcella Baratheon and the maesters in the world book, that sons inherits after their father. thus Aegon, Aemond and Daerion were all before Rhaenyra.

Viserys had no right to set his sons aside in favor of his daughter and the oath you refeer to was never about a daughter before a son, it was about a daughter before an uncle, to which I tend to agree. The king is the highest judicial instant, I agree, but his will is not the end of the discussion of what is right and wrong. He is not the Sun King.

If  Viserys had capriciously set aside Aegon, Aemond, or Daerion in place of Rhaenyra, there would be some merit in that argument.   But, Rhaenyra had already been designated as successor, had received oaths of fealty, and remained his successor, following his marriage to Alicent Hightower. 

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If  Viserys had capriciously set aside Aegon, Aemond, or Daerion in place of Rhaenyra, there would be some merit in that argument.   But, Rhaenyra had already been designated as successor, had received oaths of fealty, and remained his successor, following his marriage to Alicent Hightower. 

Exactly. We see a similar thing happening in Dorne when Nymeria's heir becomes her eldest daughter by Mors Martell and not her son by Davos Dayne. If Mors Martell's firstborn child would have been a son then he would have inherited Dorne, and possibly the succession customs in Dorne would have never changed. The same might have happened had Nymeria predeceased Prince Mors, by the way.

Rhaenyra's case is no different. The king named his eldest child his heir and stuck with it even after he had a bunch of sons from another wife.

[OuttaOldtown]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

If  Viserys had capriciously set aside Aegon, Aemond, or Daerion in place of Rhaenyra, there would be some merit in that argument.   But, Rhaenyra had already been designated as successor, had received oaths of fealty, and remained his successor, following his marriage to Alicent Hightower. 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Even if Rhaenyra had been inclined to put Otto and Alicent and her half-siblings down she would have been in the right of doing so considering that they were obviously plotting against her (with the possible exception of Prince Daeron).

It is a shame that we didn't get more information on Rhaenyra-Alicent/Helaena interaction after the Blacks had taken the city. I'm still irritated that both women actually were treated this kindly.

Come on, now, you don't know what proof Aerys II had that Lord Rickard and Brandon Stark were traitors. We don't even know yet what Aerys thought Rickard and Brandon had done. But Brandon definitely deserved to die considering that he threatened the life of the Crown Prince (although I'm not sure Aerys accused him of that thing). We know that attacking a prince of blood comes with severe repercussions, and actually threatening his life might even be a worse crime.

Criston Cole cut the throat of some old man who deserved a trial(-by-combat), too, right? You cannot come to defense of poor Ser Criston and then support the whims and unlawful arrests of the likes of Otto, Cole, and Aegon II.

Not to mention that you cannot cite any objective facts supporting your view that a king cannot name a daughter his heir even if he has trueborn sons. The books never mentions binding laws to that effect, and tradition is just a guideline - that is why it is called tradition and not universally binding law.

Viserys I never set his sons aside in favor of his daughter and neither was the issue about a daughter before an uncle. Viserys I declared his daughter his Heir Apparent and named her Princess of Dragonstone and had the Lords of the Realm swear on oath of obeisance to her to defend her rights should the time come.

The quote from TRP goes like that:

This was not a conditional heir presumptive arrangement. Viserys I didn't name Rhaenyra his heir until such a time as a son is born to him. He named her his Heir Apparent unconditionally and forever.

If it had been conditionally as you think it was then Rhaenyra would only have been heir presumptive (as Elizabeth II was until her father died - she was never made the Princess of Wales) and Viserys I himself would have named Prince Aegon his Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone as his firstborn son upon his birth.

Viserys I certainly could have changed the succession again after Aegon's birth - and he did threaten to do this when Rhaenyra refused to marry Laenor - but he never did, meaning that as things stood Rhaenyra Targaryen was the acknowledged and rightful Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne of Westeros by the time her father died.

Nobody in Westeros actually contests that. Even the Greens were aware of that, and Aegon's defenders had to resort to lies about his character (that he never wanted to be king) to justify the coup and his subsequent usurpation.

Perhaps a number of people thought King Viserys I shouldn't have named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent or changed the succession in favor of Prince Aegon but nobody ever said that Viserys I naming Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent was unlawful. It is just you who claims such a thing.

Oh, and by the way since you are mentioning the Sun King:

I think if there was a thing in which an Absolutist monarch could not rule upon then it would have been his own succession, paradoxically as it may sound. Simply because the ideology of the divine right of kings and stuff was inseparably tied to the special quality of royal blood. A king in Westeros or in the middle ages could much more easily name a more distant relative/descendant than his firstborn son his heir than a king living in 17th or 18th century France.

At this point in time a royal child might even lose its claim when his royal father or mother didn't marry into a royal house of the same standing. The mother of a king has to be at least princess of equal rank. The idea that the child of somebody like Elizabeth Woodville or Anne Boleyn could ever have become king during the Absolutist era is pretty far-fetched.

Just look at the initial response of Aegon II:

Prince Aegon was with a paramour when he was found. At first, the prince refused to be a part of his mother’s plans. “My sister is the heir, not me,” he said. “What sort of brother steals his sister’s birthright?” Only when Ser Criston convinced him that the princess must surely execute him and his brothers should she don the crown did Aegon waver. “Whilst any trueborn Targaryen yet lives, no Strong can ever hope to sit the Iron Throne,” Cole said. “Rhaenyra has no choice but to take your heads if she wishes her bastards to rule after her.” It was this, and only this, that persuaded Aegon to accept the crown that the small council was offering him,

Aegon knew it was not the wish of his father, in the council meeting Tyland tries to rationalize that 24-years have passed, in other words the King had more than enough time to reconsider naming a male heir. And Cole demonizes Rhaenyra despite the fact that in their council meeting it was far more about fear of Daemon and the suspected bastard children. 

Ser Tyland pointed out that many of the lords who had sworn to defend the succession of Princess Rhaenyra were long dead. “It has been twenty-four years,” he said. “I myself swore no such oath. I was a child at the time.” Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92, then discoursed at length about Aegon the Conquerer and his sisters, and the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter.

Ser Otto reminded them that Rhaenyra’s husband was none other than Prince Daemon, and “we all know that one’s nature. Make no mistake, should Rhaenyra ever sit the Iron Throne, it will be Daemon who rules us, a king consort as cruel and unforgiving as Maegor ever was. My own head will be the first cut off, I do not doubt, but your queen, my daughter, will soon follow.”

Queen Alicent echoed him. “Nor will they spare my children,” she declared. “Aegon and his brothers are the king’s trueborn sons, with a better claim to the throne than her brood of bastards. Daemon will find some pretext to put them all to death. Even Helaena and her little ones. One of these Strongs put out Aemond’s eye, never forget. He was a boy, aye, but the boy is the father to the man, and bastards are monstrous by nature.”

Ser Criston Cole spoke up. Should the princess reign, he reminded them, Jacaerys Velaryon would rule after her. “Seven save this realm if we seat a bastard on the Iron Throne.” He spoke of Rhaenyra’s wanton ways and the infamy of her husband. “They will turn the Red Keep into a brothel. No man’s daughter will be safe, nor any man’s wife. Even the boys … we know what Laenor was.”

Seems to me the Council and Alicent used fear to sway Aegon to do their bidding..

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Even if Rhaenyra had been inclined to put Otto and Alicent and her half-siblings down she would have been in the right of doing so considering that they were obviously plotting against her (with the possible exception of Prince Daeron).

It is a shame that we didn't get more information on Rhaenyra-Alicent/Helaena interaction after the Blacks had taken the city. I'm still irritated that both women actually were treated this kindly.

 

I don't think Helaena deserved punishment.  Alicent, certainly.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

 

Just look at the initial response of Aegon II:

Prince Aegon was with a paramour when he was found. At first, the prince refused to be a part of his mother’s plans. “My sister is the heir, not me,” he said. “What sort of brother steals his sister’s birthright?” Only when Ser Criston convinced him that the princess must surely execute him and his brothers should she don the crown did Aegon waver. “Whilst any trueborn Targaryen yet lives, no Strong can ever hope to sit the Iron Throne,” Cole said. “Rhaenyra has no choice but to take your heads if she wishes her bastards to rule after her.” It was this, and only this, that persuaded Aegon to accept the crown that the small council was offering him,

Aegon knew it was not the wish of his father, in the council meeting Tyland tries to rationalize that 24-years have passed, in other words the King had more then enough time to reconsider naming a male heir. And Cole demonizes Rhaenyra despite the fact that in their council meeting it was far more about fear of Daemon and the suspected bastard children. 

Ser Tyland pointed out that many of the lords who had sworn to defend the succession of Princess Rhaenyra were long dead. “It has been twenty-four years,” he said. “I myself swore no such oath. I was a child at the time.” Ironrod, the master of laws, cited the Great Council of 101 and the Old King’s choice of Baelon rather than Rhaenys in 92, then discoursed at length about Aegon the Conquerer and his sisters, and the hallowed Andal tradition wherein the rights of a trueborn son always came before the rights of a mere daughter.

Ser Otto reminded them that Rhaenyra’s husband was none other than Prince Daemon, and “we all know that one’s nature. Make no mistake, should Rhaenyra ever sit the Iron Throne, it will be Daemon who rules us, a king consort as cruel and unforgiving as Maegor ever was. My own head will be the first cut off, I do not doubt, but your queen, my daughter, will soon follow.”

Queen Alicent echoed him. “Nor will they spare my children,” she declared. “Aegon and his brothers are the king’s trueborn sons, with a better claim to the throne than her brood of bastards. Daemon will find some pretext to put them all to death. Even Helaena and her little ones. One of these Strongs put out Aemond’s eye, never forget. He was a boy, aye, but the boy is the father to the man, and bastards are monstrous by nature.”

Ser Criston Cole spoke up. Should the princess reign, he reminded them, Jacaerys Velaryon would rule after her. “Seven save this realm if we seat a bastard on the Iron Throne.” He spoke of Rhaenyra’s wanton ways and the infamy of her husband. “They will turn the Red Keep into a brothel. No man’s daughter will be safe, nor any man’s wife. Even the boys … we know what Laenor was.”

Seems to me the Council and Alicent used fear to sway Aegon to do their bidding..

So, their principal argument was - in effect - Rhaenyra was a whore, a monster, and a tyrant who would kill them all.

Alicent, Ser Otto, and Ser Criston had all been vilifying Rhaenyra for years.  They would certainly have lost any influence, once Rhaenyra came to power, although her treatment of Alicent suggests she would have stopped short of killing them.  There's no reason to believe that Aegon and his siblings were in any danger.

[OuttaOldtown]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

So, their principal argument was - in effect - Rhaenyra was a whore, a monster, and a tyrant who would kill them all.

Alicent, Ser Otto, and Ser Criston had all been vilifying Rhaenyra for years.  They would certainly have lost any influence, once Rhaenyra came to power, although her treatment of Alicent suggests she would have stopped short of killing them.  There's no reason to believe that Aegon and his siblings were in any danger.

Absolutely no reason, even after all they did to usurp her she still held the right people accountable:

Her first act as queen was to declare Ser Otto Hightower and Queen Alicent traitors and rebels. “As for my half brothers, and my sweet sister Helaena,” she announced, “they have been led astray by the counsel of evil men. Let them come to Dragonstone, bend the knee, and ask my forgiveness, and I shall gladly spare their lives and take them back into my heart, for they are of my own blood, and no man or woman is as accursed as the kinslayer.”

Word of Rhaenyra’s coronation reached the Red Keep the next day, to the great displeasure of Aegon II. “My half sister and my uncle are guilty of high treason,” the young king declared. “I want them attainted, I want them arrested, and I want them dead.”

Aegon quickly changed his tune once crowned, had they never crowned him it seems there'd be no reason for Rhaenyra to do anything to Otto or Alicent other than remove them from their positions of power and influence..

[Lion of the West]

5 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

Absolutely no reason, even after all they did to usurp her she still held the right people accountable:

Her first act as queen was to declare Ser Otto Hightower and Queen Alicent traitors and rebels. “As for my half brothers, and my sweet sister Helaena,” she announced, “they have been led astray by the counsel of evil men. Let them come to Dragonstone, bend the knee, and ask my forgiveness, and I shall gladly spare their lives and take them back into my heart, for they are of my own blood, and no man or woman is as accursed as the kinslayer.”

Word of Rhaenyra’s coronation reached the Red Keep the next day, to the great displeasure of Aegon II. “My half sister and my uncle are guilty of high treason,” the young king declared. “I want them attainted, I want them arrested, and I want them dead.”

Aegon quickly changed his tune once crowned, had they never crowned him it seems there'd be no reason for Rhaenyra to do anything to Otto or Alicent other than remove them from their positions of power and influence..

What makes you think that Daemon would let them off that easily?

[OuttaOldtown]

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

What makes you think that Daemon would let them off that easily?

Did he object? What makes you think that prior to the greens treasonous actions that he'd do anything to them? Why do you trust Otto's highly skewed opinion of Daemon? 

[Lord Varys]

@OuttaOldtown

The problem with your quotes about Aegon's initial reaction is that we know from Ran the TPatQ quotes are incomplete in this matter. The story of Aegon's initial reluctance is perpetrated by Septon Eustace, the very same man who, according to Ran, also is the source of Rhaenyra bleeding while sitting the Iron Throne (and interpreting this as a divine sign of her bad luck/being rejected by it).

The first time we see Aegon II in all his royal glory is during the episode in which outright refuses the notion of offering anything to Rhaenyra, making his hatred of his half-sister plain for all at court to see. The idea that the very same man would originally have been reluctant to usurp the throne of his sister is very unlikely. Especially considering that we know from other sources that Aegon and Rhaenyra didn't even get along well when she was sixteen and he was six years old.

The common interpretation is that Eustace, knowing that the Greens actually staged a coup and unlawfully seized the throne, spun a tale to make Aegon II look less guilty than he actually was by having the people around him (Criston) persuade him to take the throne.

I'd not rule it out completely that Aegon was reluctant to take the throne at first assuming his mother and grandfather never actually prepared him for his new role or actively included him into their plans (which seems not unlikely considering that they did not wake him to attend the council session). We know that Aegon was a promiscuous fellow, after all, and perhaps Otto and Alicent feared he would talk about his future as king to his mistresses and other people he hung out with, making it far to risky that Viserys I or Rhaenyra's people might learn too soon about their treason.

Aegon's unpreparedness as well as Rhaenyra's dragons would have been more than enough reason to give him pause for a short while. He certainly would have wanted to be king but he might have had doubts whether the Greens could prevail in the end. That might have been the true reason as to why he needed to be convinced to take the throne. If he needed convincing at all.

The idea that he hesitated out of respect for his half-sister or the wishes of his dead father makes no sense, though.

55 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don't think Helaena deserved punishment.  Alicent, certainly.

Well, I think Helaena certainly was punished enough by the whole Blood and Cheese incident. But if we consider the so-called fears of the Greens then it turns out that both Daemon and Rhaenyra showed a lot of mercy to both Alicent and Helaena when they were in their hands. Neither of them was executed despite the fact that both were traitors. Helaena was perhaps more innocent but she still did not object to their plans and participated in Aegon's coronation, accepting her role as Queen Consort thereafter. That also qualifies as treason and might have been punishable by death.

Unlike Aegon II - who murdered his own half-sister - Rhaenyra never sentenced a woman to death as far as we know, keeping the moral/chivalrous high ground of treating women as non-combatants.

54 minutes ago, SeanF said:

So, their principal argument was - in effect - Rhaenyra was a whore, a monster, and a tyrant who would kill them all.

Alicent, Ser Otto, and Ser Criston had all been vilifying Rhaenyra for years.  They would certainly have lost any influence, once Rhaenyra came to power, although her treatment of Alicent suggests she would have stopped short of killing them.  There's no reason to believe that Aegon and his siblings were in any danger.

Exactly, the way Alicent - the person Rhaenyra would have loathed the most - was treated confirms that this was all just baseless fantasies. In addition the true irony there is that Criston chides Rhaenyra for her wanton ways, etc. and then we learn that Prince Aegon was found abed with his mistress.

40 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

Absolutely no reason, even after all they did to usurp her she still held the right people accountable:

Her first act as queen was to declare Ser Otto Hightower and Queen Alicent traitors and rebels. “As for my half brothers, and my sweet sister Helaena,” she announced, “they have been led astray by the counsel of evil men. Let them come to Dragonstone, bend the knee, and ask my forgiveness, and I shall gladly spare their lives and take them back into my heart, for they are of my own blood, and no man or woman is as accursed as the kinslayer.”

Word of Rhaenyra’s coronation reached the Red Keep the next day, to the great displeasure of Aegon II. “My half sister and my uncle are guilty of high treason,” the young king declared. “I want them attainted, I want them arrested, and I want them dead.”

Aegon quickly changed his tune once crowned, had they never crowned him it seems there'd be no reason for Rhaenyra to do anything to Otto or Alicent other than remove them from their positions of power and influence..

That pretty much confirms that it was actually Rhaenyra who first offered terms to Aegon and her other half-siblings, not the other way around. The Greens reacted then to that by sending their emissaries to Dragonstone - but it was not Aegon II's wish to offer terms at all. He wanted to kill them all and he to be effectively forced to agree to offer terms by Alicent and Otto.

36 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

What makes you think that Daemon would let them off that easily?

The fact that Daemon did not, in fact, murder either Alicent or Helaena after they were in his and Rhaenyra's power. Falling for the stories the Greens perpetrated doesn't help with that.

Even Blood and Cheese wasn't an attack against Aegon II. It was Daemon's answer to the unprovoked murder of Lucerys Velaryon, his stepson, at the hands of Prince Aemond.

You and the Greens might have had a point if the first thing Rhaenyra and Daemon had decided to do after learning of Viserys' death was to dispatch assassins to the Red Keep to kill the entire Hightower-Targaryen line. But that's not what happened. Not did something like that happen after Rhaenyra's people were in control of the city.

[OuttaOldtown]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@OuttaOldtown

The problem with your quotes about Aegon's initial reaction is that we know from Ran the TPatQ quotes are incomplete in this matter. The story of Aegon's initial reluctance is perpetrated by Septon Eustace, the very same man who, according to Ran, also is the source of Rhaenyra bleeding while sitting the Iron Throne (and interpreting this as a divine sign of her bad luck/being rejected by it).

The first time we see Aegon II in all his royal glory is during the episode in which outright refuses the notion of offering anything to Rhaenyra, making his hatred of his half-sister plain for all at court to see. The idea that the very same man would originally have been reluctant to usurp the throne of his sister is very unlikely. Especially considering that we know from other sources that Aegon and Rhaenyra didn't even get along well when she was sixteen and he was six years old.

The common interpretation is that Eustace, knowing that the Greens actually staged a coup and unlawfully seized the throne, spun a tale to make Aegon II look less guilty than he actually was by having the people around him (Criston) persuade him to take the throne.

I'd not rule it out completely that Aegon was reluctant to take the throne at first assuming his mother and grandfather never actually prepared him for his new role or actively included him into their plans (which seems not unlikely considering that they did not wake him to attend the council session). We know that Aegon was a promiscuous fellow, after all, and perhaps Otto and Alicent feared he would talk about his future as king to his mistresses and other people he hung out with, making it far to risky that Viserys I or Rhaenyra's people might learn too soon about their treason.

Aegon's unpreparedness as well as Rhaenyra's dragons would have been more than enough reason to give him pause for a short while. He certainly would have wanted to be king but he might have had doubts whether the Greens could prevail in the end. That might have been the true reason as to why he needed to be convinced to take the throne. If he needed convincing at all.

All fine points, its always a problem differentiating the truth from the lies (exaggerations) in TPatQ and any history which we don't get a true 'fly on the wall' version of what happened. Its less about whether Aegon truly reacted that way as it is a reflection of the unlawful manner which he was crowned, but I certainly can't rule out any of your points on that matter..