Rhaenerya I Targaryen vs. Aegon II Targaryen

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

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..

TRP retains some of the source discussions of the complete Gyldayn account which seems to be mostly an actual 'fake history treatise' written by an actual fake academic weighing various accounts against each other and deciding which account may actually concur with reality.

At times Yandel gives us a glimpse what we are still missing. Take Lyman Beesbury, for example. TPatQ gives us only the account of Criston Cole cutting the man's throat (we don't know on whose account that's based, possibly on Orwyle's writings which were a major source of Munkun's treatise on the Dance), TWoIaF adds Mushroom's version (Cole throwing Beesbury out the window) as well as mentioning the idea that he only died in the black cells after catching a chill.

We don't know what's 'true' yet, and we might in the very same way have different accounts from different sources presented as 'the truth' in TPatQ due to the whole editing out of Gyldayn actually mentioning and commenting on the sources he used to write his history.

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, OuttaOldtown said:

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? 

I don't trust Otto per necessity but I look at how Daemon reacts and behaves towards other people. I see how he taunted that guy from Bravoosi to fight a duel so Daemon could kill him and claim the Velaryon girl from him and Blood and Cheese being the foremost things done by him. Daemon is not to my knowledge a kind, understanding and forgiving person. Thus I see no reason why he would not seek the most final revenge on Otto that he could make if he get close and could influence a Queen Rhaenyra.

And also do note that when King's Landing does fall Otto Hightower is the first one to die. Could be a coincidence, but could also be something else.

@Lord Varys I haven't forgotten about you, Lord Varys, and when I can get a conclusion on this thread with the rest of the guys I'll go back and start to write posts directly adressing your posts, as they usually take more time than other posts.

[OuttaOldtown]

25 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I don't trust Otto per necessity but I look at how Daemon reacts and behaves towards other people. I see how he taunted that guy from Bravoosi to fight a duel so Daemon could kill him and claim the Velaryon girl from him and Blood and Cheese being the foremost things done by him. Daemon is not to my knowledge a kind, understanding and forgiving person. Thus I see no reason why he would not seek the most final revenge on Otto that he could make if he get close and could influence a Queen Rhaenyra.

And also do note that when King's Landing does fall Otto Hightower is the first one to die. Could be a coincidence, but could also be something else.

Otto's assumption that he'd be the first to be executed was based on Rhaenyra simply being crowned, of course he was a dead man when the throne had to be taken by force. He committed treason against Rhaenyra and the king he served previously. The point isn't to defend Daemon but rather look at exactly who crowned Aegon II and their reasoning. It's not a coincidence into that following the councils badmouthing how the blacks are a bunch of deviants that Aegon is found abed with his paramour. Are the blacks a bunch of holy saints? Of course not, but much of what they did was reactionary, once war broke out Daemon was ready to play as dirty as  needed to win in the end..

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

I don't trust Otto per necessity but I look at how Daemon reacts and behaves towards other people. I see how he taunted that guy from Bravoosi to fight a duel so Daemon could kill him and claim the Velaryon girl from him and Blood and Cheese being the foremost things done by him. Daemon is not to my knowledge a kind, understanding and forgiving person. Thus I see no reason why he would not seek the most final revenge on Otto that he could make if he get close and could influence a Queen Rhaenyra.

Daemon isn't a nice guy but it really seems he got a lot less angry and hotheaded in his later years. The young Daemon from the early reign of Viserys I as depicted in TRP would have jumped on his dragon and burned KL as soon as he heard of Aegon's coronation. The man we meet in TPatQ is a lot more calculating and not exactly willing to risk losing a dragon in a mad civil war.

Blood and Cheese was done on Daemon's command but it wasn't arranged directly by him. It is not even clear whether he commanded to kill a son of Aegon II or a son of Queen Alicent. TPatQ suggests that the original target may have been Aegon II but that the assassins couldn't get to him because of the Kingsguard. Aemond may have still been at Storm's End at the time and Prince Daeron was at Oldtown, leaving only Aegon's sons as male Targaryens to kill.

But in any case, Daemon just gave the command, he didn't set the details or influenced the way the deed was done. Unlike Tywin (who actually could have given Gregor and Amory rather specific commands) Daemon never spoke directly to Blood and Cheese.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

And also do note that when King's Landing does fall Otto Hightower is the first one to die. Could be a coincidence, but could also be something else.

Otto Hightower is tried and executed by Queen Rhaenyra, though. There is no hint that Prince Daemon played any role in all of that. The whole idea that Daemon was the influential power behind the throne in Rhaenyra's reign is also not very well supported. They were often apart and in the end Daemon threw power, influence, and his very life away for some bastard girl. He was no longer the ambitious man at the end of his life as he was back in his youth.

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

@Lord Varys I haven't forgotten about you, Lord Varys, and when I can get a conclusion on this thread with the rest of the guys I'll go back and start to write posts directly adressing your posts, as they usually take more time than other posts.

Take your time!

[SeanF]

16 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I don't trust Otto per necessity but I look at how Daemon reacts and behaves towards other people. I see how he taunted that guy from Bravoosi to fight a duel so Daemon could kill him and claim the Velaryon girl from him and Blood and Cheese being the foremost things done by him. Daemon is not to my knowledge a kind, understanding and forgiving person. Thus I see no reason why he would not seek the most final revenge on Otto that he could make if he get close and could influence a Queen Rhaenyra.

And also do note that when King's Landing does fall Otto Hightower is the first one to die. Could be a coincidence, but could also be something else.

@Lord Varys I haven't forgotten about you, Lord Varys, and when I can get a conclusion on this thread with the rest of the guys I'll go back and start to write posts directly adressing your posts, as they usually take more time than other posts.

Otto was executed after having waged war against Rhaenyra.  In her eyes, he was a traitor, and most monarchs would have done the same.

Had Rhaenyra ascended the Iron Throne peacefully, I've no reason to believe she would have executed him.  He was a member of the royal family, by virtue of his daughter's marriage.  But, I'm sure he would have been dismissed as Hand.

 

[Lion of the West]

16 hours ago, OuttaOldtown said:

Otto's assumption that he'd be the first to be executed was based on Rhaenyra simply being crowned, of course he was a dead man when the throne had to be taken by force. He committed treason against Rhaenyra and the king he served previously. The point isn't to defend Daemon but rather look at exactly who crowned Aegon II and their reasoning. It's not a coincidence into that following the councils badmouthing how the blacks are a bunch of deviants that Aegon is found abed with his paramour. Are the blacks a bunch of holy saints? Of course not, but much of what they did was reactionary, once war broke out Daemon was ready to play as dirty as  needed to win in the end..

No, Otto's assumption it was based on that Daemon hated him and that Daemon would wield much influence over Rhaenyra. In parts Otto was right and in part he was wrong. Otto was indeed executed along with the Ironrod, while Tyland Lannister and Alicent Hightower were put into prison where Otto had predicted that Daemon would influence Rhaenyra to take both their heads. Otto was right to half-way. Its rather curious that Alicent and Tyland Lannister were spared - and "only" tortured most greviously" -  while Otto Hightower, who one could think would have been valuable hostage, was executed.

The Greens seized the initiative yes, but that speaks little of anything that I can see save that the Blacks were slower to respond.

43 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Otto was executed after having waged war against Rhaenyra.  In her eyes, he was a traitor, and most monarchs would have done the same.

Had Rhaenyra ascended the Iron Throne peacefully, I've no reason to believe she would have executed him.  He was a member of the royal family, by virtue of his daughter's marriage.  But, I'm sure he would have been dismissed as Hand.

 

There were more "traitors" like Alicent and Tyland Lannister who were not executed. Something marked Otto out as needing execution and which triumphed his value as a hostage against the Hightowers if the fighting would go against Rhaenyra. For example Eddard was also a traitor to Joffrey, yet most expected him to stay in a dungeon and be used as a hostage, for example if the fighting would go against the Lannisters, and not have his head chopped off which was considered a great mistake.

I don't think that Rhaenyra herself would have felt any particular need to kill Otto. But I doubt Daemon would have let his enemy go away unharmed at his moment of triumph, and I think Daemon was not without influence to Rhaenyra even if certainly do not think that Rhaenyra was anyone's puppet during the Dance.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

No, Otto's assumption it was based on that Daemon hated him and that Daemon would wield much influence over Rhaenyra. In parts Otto was right and in part he was wrong. Otto was indeed executed along with the Ironrod, while Tyland Lannister and Alicent Hightower were put into prison where Otto had predicted that Daemon would influence Rhaenyra to take both their heads. Otto was right to half-way. Its rather curious that Alicent and Tyland Lannister were spared - and "only" tortured most greviously" -  while Otto Hightower, who one could think would have been valuable hostage, was executed.

The Greens seized the initiative yes, but that speaks little of anything that I can see save that the Blacks were slower to respond.

There were more "traitors" like Alicent and Tyland Lannister who were not executed. Something marked Otto out as needing execution and which triumphed his value as a hostage against the Hightowers if the fighting would go against Rhaenyra. For example Eddard was also a traitor to Joffrey, yet most expected him to stay in a dungeon and be used as a hostage, for example if the fighting would go against the Lannisters, and not have his head chopped off which was considered a great mistake.

I don't think that Rhaenyra herself would have felt any particular need to kill Otto. But I doubt Daemon would have let his enemy go away unharmed at his moment of triumph, and I think Daemon was not without influence to Rhaenyra even if certainly do not think that Rhaenyra was anyone's puppet during the Dance.

Alicent was a woman, and it would be unusual to execute a woman for treason. Even after the final victory of the Blacks, she was sentenced to life imprisonment, rather than execution (although, I don't know whether that meant a relatively humane form of house arrest, or being chained up in the Black Cells.  For that matter, after having lost everything, Alicent might have preferred death). Tyland was thought to have hidden treasure, and was tortured to reveal its whereabouts.

Otto's crimes (in Rhaenyra's eyes) were far more grievous than Ned's (in Cersei's).  He'd waged war against her, with the result that her own son, and thousands of her subjects had been killed.  It would have been an unusually merciful monarch who would have spared him (though I accept, he could have had value as a hostage). 

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

No, Otto's assumption it was based on that Daemon hated him and that Daemon would wield much influence over Rhaenyra.

We have no idea on what Otto is basing this assumption. Rhaenyra and Daemon resided on Dragonstone and there is no indication that he had any inside knowledge into the dynamics of their marriage. In fact, historical facts as relayed to us show that Prince Daemon was just one voice among Rhaenyra's advisers.

You seem to be taking Otto's word (as relayed to us by Gyldayn) as an unbiased source but you have no reason to believe that he actually told the truth. Who is to say that he truly feared wither Daemon or Rhaenyra and not rather feigned such fear to convince the other men on the council to go along with his plan to crown his grandson?

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

In parts Otto was right and in part he was wrong. Otto was indeed executed along with the Ironrod, while Tyland Lannister and Alicent Hightower were put into prison where Otto had predicted that Daemon would influence Rhaenyra to take both their heads. Otto was right to half-way. Its rather curious that Alicent and Tyland Lannister were spared - and "only" tortured most greviously" -  while Otto Hightower, who one could think would have been valuable hostage, was executed.

Otto was not right at all because he and Ironrod were only executed after they had stolen Rhaenyra's throne and waged a war that led to the deaths of three of Rhaenyra's sons (remember, they think that both Jace and Viserys died in the Narrow Sea). Considering that Rhaenyra wasn't crowned peacefully after the death of her father there is no way of finding out whether Otto's or Alicent's 'fears' were correct.

Considering the lenience she showed later on towards both Alicent and Helaena I very much doubt she would have killed either Alicent or Otto, and most certainly not her half-siblings. Especially not if they had accepted her as Queen Regnant.

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

The Greens seized the initiative yes, but that speaks little of anything that I can see save that the Blacks were slower to respond.

It shows that the Blacks had no intention to begin a conflict or dispatch assassins before they were forced to defend themselves using such methods thanks to Green aggression.

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

There were more "traitors" like Alicent and Tyland Lannister who were not executed. Something marked Otto out as needing execution and which triumphed his value as a hostage against the Hightowers if the fighting would go against Rhaenyra.

That is not true. Rhaenyra executed quite a few people aside Otto and Ironrod. It is not covered in detail but Lords Rosby and Stokeworth (who previously had been Blacks defecting to the Greens) were killed, too. Thus it is more correct to see Alicent and Helaena as exceptions, not Otto. Tyland was kept alive because of his knowledge.

10 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I don't think that Rhaenyra herself would have felt any particular need to kill Otto. But I doubt Daemon would have let his enemy go away unharmed at his moment of triumph, and I think Daemon was not without influence to Rhaenyra even if certainly do not think that Rhaenyra was anyone's puppet during the Dance.

Rhaenyra would have had a very good reason to kill Otto. He was not only a traitor to her father, he also had betrayed the oath he swore to her at the foot of the Iron Throne in 105 AC.

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Alicent was a woman, and it would be unusual to execute a woman for treason. Even after the final victory of the Blacks, she was sentenced to life imprisonment, rather than execution (although, I don't know whether that meant a relatively humane form of house arrest, or being chained up in the Black Cells.  For that matter, after having lost everything, Alicent might have preferred death). Tyland was thought to have hidden treasure, and was tortured to reveal its whereabouts.

We have no idea who and why Alicent Hightower was imprisoned. The fact that she was supports the idea that Corlys Velaryon and the other people at court who murdered Aegon II actually staged a coup of their own and forcefully removed the Queen Dowager from the equation to ensure that she doesn't mess with their plans.

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Otto's crimes (in Rhaenyra's eyes) were far more grievous than Ned's (in Cersei's).  He'd waged war against her, with the result that her own son, and thousands of her subjects had been killed.  It would have been an unusually merciful monarch who would have spared him (though I accept, he could have had value as a hostage). 

Otto and Alicent Hightower would actually make a rather poor hostages. Lord Ormund Hightower was just Otto's nephew and as far as we know the main line of House Hightower had no people at court at this time. Ormund wouldn't give a damn about the fate of his uncle or cousin from a realistic point of view just as Tywin obviously didn't give a damn about the fate of some of his cousins being captured by Robb Stark during the War of the Five Kings. In fact, he didn't even care about the fact that Robb had captured his beloved son.

It is still possible that Rhaenyra intended to use both Alicent and Helaena as hostages against her half-brothers but there is actually no hint that she intended to do that. Also keep in mind that Rhaenyra did not even put down the dragons of her half-siblings left in the Dragonpit. Granted, killing Dreamfyre would be rather difficult but Shrykos and Morghul could have been killed rather easily.

[OuttaOldtown]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

No, Otto's assumption it was based on that Daemon hated him and that Daemon would wield much influence over Rhaenyra. In parts Otto was right and in part he was wrong. Otto was indeed executed along with the Ironrod, while Tyland Lannister and Alicent Hightower were put into prison where Otto had predicted that Daemon would influence Rhaenyra to take both their heads. Otto was right to half-way. Its rather curious that Alicent and Tyland Lannister were spared - and "only" tortured most greviously" -  while Otto Hightower, who one could think would have been valuable hostage, was executed.

 

You're misunderstanding my point, I'm saying that Otto is making the claim that he'll be executed prior to crowning Aegon II, when in truth the treason was crowning him. His actions got him killed, and I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty certain Rhaenyra executed him on her own accord, Daemon had nothing to do with it..

[Lord Varys]

52 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

You're misunderstanding my point, I'm saying that Otto is making the claim that he'll be executed prior to crowning Aegon II, when in truth the treason was crowning him. His actions got him killed, and I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty certain Rhaenyra executed him on her own accord, Daemon had nothing to do with it..

We are not getting any details on the trials and executions Rhaenyra conducts after she has taken her throne, but the impression we get from the general setting is that she was completely in control of the whole thing and very much acting on her own accord. The best hint in that direction is that she spent hours on the Iron Throne accepting oaths of fealty from the people in the castle and the city before she went to sleep after she had taken the city.

We certainly can't rule out that Daemon also wanted Rhaenyra to execute Otto. But then, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that Rhaenyra herself had to be persuaded to execute Otto at this point. The idea that she wanted to show mercy to him makes little sense.

If we take the whole thing backwards we can reasonably assume on the basis of the Small Council talk from TPatQ that Otto and Alicent had every intention to murder or execute Rhaenyra, Daemon, and their sons to remove any threat to their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

As it happens we don't have any sources telling us how Rhaenyra and Daemon talk about what they would do to Otto and Alicent and their brood once Queen Rhaenyra I sits the Iron Throne. That makes it exceedingly unlikely that there were any such plans.

We don't even have any reason to believe that Rhaenyra and Daemon spoke as badly about Alicent and her children as they spoke about Rhaenyra, Daemon, and Laenor.

The worst Otto had to expect was to be immediately dismissed as Hand to live out his retired life at Oldtown. Alicent most likely would have been forced to accompany him. Rhaenyra's half-siblings on the other hand most likely would have been allowed to stay at court, and if they had behaved might even have been offered to marry into Rhaenyra's family at one point. Had Princess Visenya lived she could easily have been married either to Prince Jaehaerys or Prince Maelor.

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

If we take the whole thing backwards we can reasonably assume on the basis of the Small Council talk from TPatQ that Otto and Alicent had every intention to murder or execute Rhaenyra, Daemon, and their sons to remove any threat to their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

.

Very likely.  I don't think there's much chance that Aegon II's backers would have allowed a branch of the Targaryen family whose claim to the Iron Throne was better than his to live in peace.  I can imagine that at some point, they would have met "accidents"/been attainted and vanished in prison.  Thinking this through also helped me better to understand Princess Arianne's predicament in AFFC.  If she were disinherited in favour of Quentyn ( and she has every reason to believe that she will be, on the evidence) she has to wonder if she has any future at all.

[Lord Varys]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Very likely.  I don't think there's much chance that Aegon II's backers would have allowed a branch of the Targaryen family whose claim to the Iron Throne was better than his to live in peace.  I can imagine that at some point, they would have met "accidents"/been attainted and vanished in prison.  Thinking this through also helped me better to understand Princess Arianne's predicament in AFFC.  If she were disinherited in favour of Quentyn ( and she has every reason to believe that she will be, on the evidence) she has to wonder if she has any future at all.

In Arianne's case she may have feared something along those lines. Quentyn become Prince of Dorne would have been a new precedent as far as we know (although I'd not be surprised if some dominating/powerful younger brothers had pushed aside meek elder sisters in the past centuries occasionally) and thus he could only sit safe on his throne when Arianne was effectively neutralized.

Although we see how functional the Martell family is in comparison to other dysfunctional families in Westeros that Arianne never considers murdering either her father or her brother to secure her rights.

Insofar as the Hightower traitors are concerned it is pretty obvious that even their talk of peace and the terms they offered Rhaenyra after her coronation were just attempts to win more time. Otto was writing letters to Dalton Greyjoy and the Triarchy at this time, and especially the letters to the latter political entity must have been sent very early in the war (considering that they would have been delivered by ship, and Blackwater Bay was very early on blocked by the Velaryon fleet). Not to mention that the Triarchy was a alliance of three city states, meaning that Otto's offer/plea for help would have been carefully considered and debated by the rulers of the Triarchy before they decided to commit themselves to such an advantage.

In addition to Rhaenyra's own claim we also have to keep in mind that Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor (and Daemon's daughters by Laena who were betrothed to Jace and Luke) also carried with them the elder Velaryon claim to the Iron Throne. Rhaenyra did not only pose a threat to Greens because she was the eldest child and chosen heir of Viserys I but also because in her own line (and the line of Daemon-Laena) the elder branch of Prince Aemon was finally united with the younger branch of Prince Baelon.

The ascension of Aegon II would have been another slap in the face of Corlys and Rhaenys regardless whether Rhaenyra was named Viserys' heir or not. And that's why the Hightower-Targaryens would have never sat securely on the Iron Throne while Rhaenyra and her children as well as the Targaryen-Velaryons still lived.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In Arianne's case she may have feared something along those lines. Quentyn become Prince of Dorne would have been a new precedent as far as we know (although I'd not be surprised if some dominating/powerful younger brothers had pushed aside meek elder sisters in the past centuries occasionally) and thus he could only sit safe on his throne when Arianne was effectively neutralized.

Although we see how functional the Martell family is in comparison to other dysfunctional families in Westeros that Arianne never considers murdering either her father or her brother to secure her rights.

Insofar as the Hightower traitors are concerned it is pretty obvious that even their talk of peace and the terms they offered Rhaenyra after her coronation were just attempts to win more time. Otto was writing letters to Dalton Greyjoy and the Triarchy at this time, and especially the letters to the latter political entity must have been sent very early in the war (considering that they would have been delivered by ship, and Blackwater Bay was very early on blocked by the Velaryon fleet). Not to mention that the Triarchy was a alliance of three city states, meaning that Otto's offer/plea for help would have been carefully considered and debated by the rulers of the Triarchy before they decided to commit themselves to such an advantage.

In addition to Rhaenyra's own claim we also have to keep in mind that Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor (and Daemon's daughters by Laena who were betrothed to Jace and Luke) also carried with them the elder Velaryon claim to the Iron Throne. Rhaenyra did not only pose a threat to Greens because she was the eldest child and chosen heir of Viserys I but also because in her own line (and the line of Daemon-Laena) the elder branch of Prince Aemon was finally united with the younger branch of Prince Baelon.

The ascension of Aegon II would have been another slap in the face of Corlys and Rhaenys regardless whether Rhaenyra was named Viserys' heir or not. And that's why the Hightower-Targaryens would have never sat securely on the Iron Throne while Rhaenyra and her children as well as the Targaryen-Velaryons still lived.

Real European history is littered with examples of people with good claims to the Throne (often better than the current claimant) who were killed off (if unlucky) or confined to monasteries and convents (if they were more fortunate).  I doubt if Westeros would be any different.

[OuttaOldtown]

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We are not getting any details on the trials and executions Rhaenyra conducts after she has taken her throne, but the impression we get from the general setting is that she was completely in control of the whole thing and very much acting on her own accord. The best hint in that direction is that she spent hours on the Iron Throne accepting oaths of fealty from the people in the castle and the city before she went to sleep after she had taken the city.

We certainly can't rule out that Daemon also wanted Rhaenyra to execute Otto. But then, we have no reason whatsoever to assume that Rhaenyra herself had to be persuaded to execute Otto at this point. The idea that she wanted to show mercy to him makes little sense.

If we take the whole thing backwards we can reasonably assume on the basis of the Small Council talk from TPatQ that Otto and Alicent had every intention to murder or execute Rhaenyra, Daemon, and their sons to remove any threat to their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

As it happens we don't have any sources telling us how Rhaenyra and Daemon talk about what they would do to Otto and Alicent and their brood once Queen Rhaenyra I sits the Iron Throne. That makes it exceedingly unlikely that there were any such plans.

We don't even have any reason to believe that Rhaenyra and Daemon spoke as badly about Alicent and her children as they spoke about Rhaenyra, Daemon, and Laenor.

The worst Otto had to expect was to be immediately dismissed as Hand to live out his retired life at Oldtown. Alicent most likely would have been forced to accompany him. Rhaenyra's half-siblings on the other hand most likely would have been allowed to stay at court, and if they had behaved might even have been offered to marry into Rhaenyra's family at one point. Had Princess Visenya lived she could easily have been married either to Prince Jaehaerys or Prince Maelor.

I agree, here is Otto's opinion of Daemon:

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.”

Yet here is what Daemon advised: 

“In the Stepstones, my enemies learned to run and hide when they saw Caraxes’s wings or heard his roar … but they had no dragons of their own. It is no easy thing for a man to be a dragonslayer. But dragons can kill dragons, and have. Any maester who has ever studied the history of Valyria can tell you that. I will not throw our dragons against the usurper’s unless I have no other choice. There are other ways to use them, better ways.” Then the prince laid his own strategies before the black council. Rhaenyra must have a coronation of her own, to answer Aegon’s. Afterward they would send out ravens, calling on the lords of the Seven Kingdoms to declare their allegiance to their true queen.

“We must fight this war with words before we go to battle,” the prince declared. The lords of the Great Houses held the key to victory, Daemon insisted; their bannermen and vassals would follow where they led. Aegon the Usurper had won the allegiance of the Lannisters of Casterly Rock, and Lord Tyrell of Highgarden was a mewling boy in swaddling clothes whose mother, acting as his regent, would most like align the Reach with her overmighty bannermen, the Hightowers … but the rest of the realm’s great lords had yet to declare.

I see nothing that suggests that he is the cruel madman Otto paints him out to be, his council is really quite sound and preaches diplomacy as the first step. 

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Real European history is littered with examples of people with good claims to the Throne (often better than the current claimant) who were killed off (if unlucky) or confined to monasteries and convents (if they were more fortunate).  I doubt if Westeros would be any different.

The whole monastery thing is unfortunately not confirmed for Westeros. However, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Aegon V had given his nephew, the infamous Prince Maegor, to the Faith so that he could become High Septon in time. But we'll have to wait and see what happened to him.

George history is unfortunately a lot less complex than real history, lacking as number of male claimants who were passed over, deposed and reinstated, and the like.

4 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

I see nothing that suggests that he is the cruel madman Otto paints him out to be, his council is really quite sound and preaches diplomacy as the first step. 

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.

[OuttaOldtown]

14 minutes ago, 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.

Seems to me its about Otto's fear of losing his power and influence, I agree with your opinion that the most likely scenario had Rhaenyra been crowned is that he'd be sent back to Oldtown which may be a case of an ambitious man who fears retirement more than death.. 

[SeanF]

Moving on, while I feel a good deal of sympathy for Rhaenyra (being the victim of a smear campaign for years, facing a coup against her, having her sons killed) I have to acknowledge her grave faults as well.  Her government at Kings Landing must have been bad, to have turned the population (who were initially supportive) against her, while her treatment of Adam Verlaryon and Nettle was quite unjustified.  She died bravely, but she can't be considered a good ruler.

Her position as wife to Laenor Velaryon was especially invidious.  Her husband had no interest in pursuing normal marital relations with her, yet she was bound to provide heirs for the Iron Throne, and House Velaryon.  She could either seek an annulment, which would be hugely embarrassing for the Royal Family and House Velaryon, or reach an agreement with her husband that he would acknowledge any children she bore as his own.

I struggle to think of anything good to say about Aegon II.

 

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, OuttaOldtown said:

Seems to me its about Otto's fear of losing his power and influence, I agree with your opinion that the most likely scenario had Rhaenyra been crowned is that he'd be sent back to Oldtown which may be a case of an ambitious man who fears retirement more than death.. 

The irony of all that is that Aegon II treated his grandfather actually a lot worse than Rhaenyra might have had she peacefully ascended to the Iron Throne. Aegon II ripped the chain of the Hand off Otto's neck in front of the entire court, publicly humiliating him. We don't know what he did in-between this dismissal and his execution but nothing suggests that he played an important role at the Green court for the remainder of his life.

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Moving on, while I feel a good deal of sympathy for Rhaenyra (being the victim of a smear campaign for years, facing a coup against her, having her sons killed) I have to acknowledge her grave faults as well.  Her government at Kings Landing must have been bad, to have turned the population (who were initially supportive) against her, while her treatment of Adam Verlaryon and Nettle was quite unjustified.  She died bravely, but she can't be considered a good ruler.

She certainly didn't get the opportunity to shine but there is not good evidence that she was actually a bloodthirsty tyrant. You have to take into account that she had literally no money considering that the Greens had divided the treasury (one part to Casterly Rock, one part to Oldtown, one part to the Iron Bank, and one part for bribes and the hiring of men at KL). Rhaenyra could only claim whatever remained of the fourth part, assuming there was anything left of that at this point).

Considering that she didn't have any wealthy house on her side aside from the Velaryons (whose wealth wealth was severely affected after the attacks of the Triarchy) she had no other choice but to raise the taxes.

Public opinion is first both for Rhaenyra and then against her just as it was with the Greens prior to that. The Kingslanders are really in precarious position there - they are safe in the city from common soldiers but also at the mercy of the dragons while they are in the city. So whenever news or rumors about an impending dragon attack reach the city the public opinion changes. Nobody wants to be burned alive in his own home.

It is interesting to notice that both Alicent and Rhaenyra later on effectively lock the Kingslanders in their city because open gates would allow the enemy get inside rather easily (or make at least the defense of the city much more difficult/impossible).

I'm in agreement about Addam Velaryon and Nettles, though. However, we have to keep in mind that even those things did not originate with Rhaenyra. Her own advisers got afraid of the dragonriders after Tumbleton and demanded that she do something about them.

A huge blunder on her side seems to be her inaction during the Storming of the Dragonpit, though. That clearly was a mistake. But then, this whole affair smells to me like some sort of conspiracy against her. If you read the details of this thole thing in TPatQ then the rumors about Helaena's murder spread far too quickly and the people get far to angry for this whole thing to be not an arranged uprising (I'm speaking about the Shepherd and his movement, not Ser Perkin the Flea and the other rebels).

I'd not be surprised if indeed remnants of the Poor Fellows in league with the Citadel used the remaining Green agents in the city to their own end, tricking them into believing they intended to take over the city for Aegon II but in truth planning to kill the remaining Targaryen dragons.

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Her position as wife to Laenor Velaryon was especially invidious.  Her husband had no interest in pursuing normal marital relations with her, yet she was bound to provide heirs for the Iron Throne, and House Velaryon.  She could either seek an annulment, which would be hugely embarrassing for the Royal Family and House Velaryon, or reach an agreement with her husband that he would acknowledge any children she bore as his own.

Considering that Viserys I had effectively forced his daughter into a marriage with a gay man an annulment on those grounds was no option at all.

And it is pretty obvious that Laenor and she had such an agreement. I doubt that this agreement was actually made by Rhaenyra considering that both must have realized after the birth of Jace that this wasn't a particularly good idea. Rhaenyra should have asked Laenor to try to father a child on her after Jace hadn't any Valyrian features. The fact that it seems that he didn't do anything like that (at least not successfully) is a pretty strong sign that both were happy with the arrangement as it was.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-08-10 at 1:00 PM, SeanF said:

Alicent was a woman, and it would be unusual to execute a woman for treason. Even after the final victory of the Blacks, she was sentenced to life imprisonment, rather than execution (although, I don't know whether that meant a relatively humane form of house arrest, or being chained up in the Black Cells.  For that matter, after having lost everything, Alicent might have preferred death). Tyland was thought to have hidden treasure, and was tortured to reveal its whereabouts.

Otto's crimes (in Rhaenyra's eyes) were far more grievous than Ned's (in Cersei's).  He'd waged war against her, with the result that her own son, and thousands of her subjects had been killed.  It would have been an unusually merciful monarch who would have spared him (though I accept, he could have had value as a hostage). 

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.

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.

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.

On 2016-08-10 at 2:02 PM, OuttaOldtown said:

You're misunderstanding my point, I'm saying that Otto is making the claim that he'll be executed prior to crowning Aegon II, when in truth the treason was crowning him. His actions got him killed, and I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty certain Rhaenyra executed him on her own accord, Daemon had nothing to do with it..

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.

[SeanF]

8 minutes 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.