How could Corlys Velaryon dispute Viserys' right to rule?

[Valens]

51 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I fail to see why he was power hungry. All I can see is that feud between him and Daemon and a desperate need for Otto to keep Daemon from the throne. Daemon wasn't a kind and forgiving person and so if he got power odds are that he would take Otto down hard for the reason that he didn't like Otto. At no point do I see power being his goal but a means to keep his head on and reacting to Daemon's schemes and ebbs and flows at court.

And remember that Viserys was the one to take away Daemon's positions at court as I recall, and the one to send Daemon into exile following the "heir for a day" joke. Even if Otto suggested that Daemon be removed, it was still Viserys who took the decision and people are responsible for what they do, you can't pin it on someone else.

But yes, Daemon did get his revenge, so I suppose the Seven were not looking.

Oh come on! He persuaded the king to marry HIS OWN DAUGHTER for crying out loud. Plus, he suggested that Aegon the bastard should be made the heir, not Rhaenyra. And then he got his ass fired.

[Lion of the West]

17 minutes ago, Valens said:

Oh come on! He persuaded the king to marry HIS OWN DAUGHTER for crying out loud. Plus, he suggested that Aegon the bastard should be made the heir, not Rhaenyra. And then he got his ass fired.

No, I will not "come on". Viserys allowed himself to be perusaded, if he was persuaded and that sons comes before daughters in Westeros north of Dorne is not some novelty Otto invented. Everything save Viserys' whim says that Aegon should inherit and given how the whims of kings like Maegor, Aegon IV and Aerys II worked I'm not going to accept that the whim of a king, or queen, is the final definition on all important issues.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Valens said:

Yeah, I hate him. Power hungry bastard. And what irritates me is that he often succeeded in persuading Viserys to deprive Daemon of his functions. Ok, perhaps he wasn't that good in all of them, but Viserys should have done that by himself. It is clear he didn't want Daemon too near the king and that is quite impertinent since he was the king's brother. But Daemon got his vengeance in the end, didn't he.

I'm pretty sure young Prince Daemon sucked at being the Master of Coin and the Master of Law. The man wasn't made for this kind of work at this early age (however, he would have been later in life).

However, it is also quite clear that Otto loathed him because Daemon had fucked and discarded Alicent - who seems to have thrown herself at him to eventually become the wife of the heir presumptive of the Iron Throne. If the rumors are true the first Targaryen to fuck Alicent was the Old King, though.

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I fail to see why he was power hungry. All I can see is that feud between him and Daemon and a desperate need for Otto to keep Daemon from the throne. Daemon wasn't a kind and forgiving person and so if he got power odds are that he would take Otto down hard for the reason that he didn't like Otto. At no point do I see power being his goal but a means to keep his head on and reacting to Daemon's schemes and ebbs and flows at court.

It is pretty obvious that Otto and his family were desperately trying to get close to the throne. Alicent put herself in the chamber and bed of the Old King, later seduced Prince Daemon, and eventually began an affair with King Viserys I himself while Queen Aemma was still alive and carrying the king's son.

Once Daemon discarded as the slut she clearly was (especially if the rumors about the Old King are true - but even if not, she began an affair with a married man) Daemon and Otto/Alicent became enemies.

Quote

And remember that Viserys was the one to take away Daemon's positions at court as I recall, and the one to send Daemon into exile following the "heir for a day" joke. Even if Otto suggested that Daemon be removed, it was still Viserys who took the decision and people are responsible for what they do, you can't pin it on someone else.

The 'heir of a day' joke seems to have been told to Viserys I by Harwin Strong, not the Hightowers. At that time there were a lot of factions at court and not everything revolved around the Hightowers. But Daemon didn't went to exile over that thing. He just finally lost his status as heir presumptive to Rhaenyra. Daemon was only exiled after he had either fucked or otherwise made out with Rhaenyra years later. Prior to that Daemon just left court and began his conquest of the Stepstones.

Quote

But yes, Daemon did get his revenge, so I suppose the Seven were not looking.

Not sure what that revenge was. Rhaenyra executed Otto of his treason, not Daemon.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

No, I will not "come on". Viserys allowed himself to be perusaded, if he was persuaded and that sons comes before daughters in Westeros north of Dorne is not some novelty Otto invented. Everything save Viserys' whim says that Aegon should inherit and given how the whims of kings like Maegor, Aegon IV and Aerys II worked I'm not going to accept that the whim of a king, or queen, is the final definition on all important issues.

Things can be changed. Before the Rhoynar came sons came before daughters in Dorne, too. If the lords in Dorne could submit to the whim of Princess Nymeria then the Lords of the Seven Kingdoms could also submit to the whim of Viserys I (which all of them actually did). Nobody dared to contest Rhaenyra's right to succeed her father while Viserys I was still alive. And we can be reasonably sure that there would have been no Dance had Rhaenyra been Hand when her father died.

[Shireen Purratheon]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure what that revenge was. Rhaenyra executed Otto of his treason, not Daemon.

Was Daemon's revenge his descendants becoming indisputable legal heirs to the kingdom anyway through his claim?

[Valens]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm pretty sure young Prince Daemon sucked at being the Master of Coin and the Master of Law. The man wasn't made for this kind of work at this early age (however, he would have been later in life).

However, it is also quite clear that Otto loathed him because Daemon had fucked and discarded Alicent - who seems to have thrown herself at him to eventually become the wife of the heir presumptive of the Iron Throne. If the rumors are true the first Targaryen to fuck Alicent was the Old King, though.

It is pretty obvious that Otto and his family were desperately trying to get close to the throne. Alicent put herself in the chamber and bed of the Old King, later seduced Prince Daemon, and eventually began an affair with King Viserys I himself while Queen Aemma was still alive and carrying the king's son.

Once Daemon discarded as the slut she clearly was (especially if the rumors about the Old King are true - but even if not, she began an affair with a married man) Daemon and Otto/Alicent became enemies.

The 'heir of a day' joke seems to have been told to Viserys I by Harwin Strong, not the Hightowers. At that time there were a lot of factions at court and not everything revolved around the Hightowers. But Daemon didn't went to exile over that thing. He just finally lost his status as heir presumptive to Rhaenyra. Daemon was only exiled after he had either fucked or otherwise made out with Rhaenyra years later. Prior to that Daemon just left court and began his conquest of the Stepstones.

Not sure what that revenge was. Rhaenyra executed Otto of his treason, not Daemon.

Things can be changed. Before the Rhoynar came sons came before daughters in Dorne, too. If the lords in Dorne could submit to the whim of Princess Nymeria then the Lords of the Seven Kingdoms could also submit to the whim of Viserys I (which all of them actually did). Nobody dared to contest Rhaenyra's right to succeed her father while Viserys I was still alive. And we can be reasonably sure that there would have been no Dance had Rhaenyra been Hand when her father died.

So, Alicent was kinda like Margery Tyrell? The "royal slut" or the woman/girl who would do anything just to be close to the Targs. I bet she was. Daemon seems to have been a picky guy, since he also discarded that Royce woman, whatever her name was. He was however pleased with Laena Velaryon, since she was a delicate beauty. He only wanted the finest looking women. And I imagine his brother took Alicent because he needed a wife, both because of his needs as a man and his needs to have a queen. King without a queen is an unglamorous thing.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Shireen Purratheon said:

Was Daemon's revenge his descendants becoming indisputable legal heirs to the kingdom anyway through his claim?

Certainly a possibility.

16 minutes ago, Valens said:

So, Alicent was kinda like Margery Tyrell? The "royal slut" or the woman/girl who would do anything just to be close to the Targs. I bet she was. Daemon seems to have been a picky guy, since he also discarded that Royce woman, whatever her name was. He was however pleased with Laena Velaryon, since she was a delicate beauty. He only wanted the finest looking women. And I imagine his brother took Alicent because he needed a wife, both because of his needs as a man and his needs to have a queen. King without a queen is an unglamorous thing.

Actually, if we can believe Littlefinger then Margaery Tyrell isn't ambitious herself so she certainly didn't make out with either Renly or Joffrey or any other man. She just goes along with the plans her family makes.

Rhea Royce and Prince Daemon didn't get along which was well known by the time Viserys I took the throne and called Daemon back to court. This makes Alicent's affair with Daemon much worse, actually, because it means they most likely tried to play the same game with Daemon than they later played with Viserys I - to replace Daemon's present wife with Alicent Hightower. After all, at this point Prince Daemon was widely seen as the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne.

The marriage between Aemma Arryn and Prince Viserys had been arranged. And if the information we have about the date of the marriage is literally correct - Viserys I being married for a decade to Aemma by the time he took the throne in 103 AC - then he and Aemma married in 93 AC when Viserys was sixteen and she eleven. I don't that think this was a happy marriage.

Alicent and Viserys I began their affair during Aemma's final pregnancy, possibly because Viserys I no longer dared to have sex with his pregnant wife to not endanger the child. And he certainly fell in love with her.

[Maia]

On 8.7.2016 at 2:18 PM, Lord Varys said:

 Now, those children were legitimized as Laenor's was a way to make Rhaenyra's sons look more legitimate (if Laenor had fathered bastards he could also have fathered Rhaenyra's sons, right?) as well as give Corlys some heirs of his body as heirs to Driftmark. The man had just lost his wife and Jace had lost his brother Lucerys.

 

Not to mention that both of Laena's daughters were betrothed at that point - Rhaena to Cregan Stark, Baela to Jace, so the compromise that was arranged for Lucerys as Velaryon heir couldn't have worked for Joffrey.  

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Maia said:

Not to mention that both of Laena's daughters were betrothed at that point - Rhaena to Cregan Stark, Baela to Jace, so the compromise that was arranged for Lucerys as Velaryon heir couldn't have worked for Joffrey.  

We assume that considering that the only free Targaryen bride for Cregan Stark at that point would have been Rhaena Targaryen but to my knowledge that is still not confirmed.

But indeed I do think that the compromise to legitimize Addam and Alyn of Hull and name Addam heir to Driftmark was partially caused by the fact that Luke had been recently killed. The other side of the deal was the fact that Rhaenys had been killed, too, and Corlys blamed Rhaenyra for that. They had to make some concessions to get him back into the fold.

Unfortunately we don't know much about that. I'm wondering whether Rhaenyra herself was already capable of mounting Syrax herself at that point. If she was then she would have been really cowardly. If not then blaming her was understandable on an emotional level but irrational nonetheless. Jace and Joff accompanying Rhaenys and Meleys to Rook's Rest could very easily have led to their deaths. Meleys and Syrax could possibly have taken down Vhagar, and Vermax and Tyraxes Sunfyre, but it would have been a close things. Most likely everybody would have been killed/severely injured in such a scenario.

But without Syrax as help Meleys would have gone down as she did, although I think the boys could have killed Aegon II and Sunfyre. That dragon wasn't all that big, after all. But if all had gotten entangled they way they were in reality things would probably have gone the same as they did in the story and Rhaenyra had no lost her mother-in-law but also two of her remaining sons.

One wonders why they didn't send word to Daemon at Harrenhal. Caraxes and Meleys could clearly have made a difference at Rook's Rest. But perhaps he was at the same time occupied with the Battle of the Burning Mill (we have no idea when exactly that took place) or on some other campaign in the Riverlands.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-07-09 at 0:56 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'm pretty sure young Prince Daemon sucked at being the Master of Coin and the Master of Law. The man wasn't made for this kind of work at this early age (however, he would have been later in life).

However, it is also quite clear that Otto loathed him because Daemon had fucked and discarded Alicent - who seems to have thrown herself at him to eventually become the wife of the heir presumptive of the Iron Throne. If the rumors are true the first Targaryen to fuck Alicent was the Old King, though.

It is pretty obvious that Otto and his family were desperately trying to get close to the throne. Alicent put herself in the chamber and bed of the Old King, later seduced Prince Daemon, and eventually began an affair with King Viserys I himself while Queen Aemma was still alive and carrying the king's son.

Once Daemon discarded as the slut she clearly was (especially if the rumors about the Old King are true - but even if not, she began an affair with a married man) Daemon and Otto/Alicent became enemies.

The 'heir of a day' joke seems to have been told to Viserys I by Harwin Strong, not the Hightowers. At that time there were a lot of factions at court and not everything revolved around the Hightowers. But Daemon didn't went to exile over that thing. He just finally lost his status as heir presumptive to Rhaenyra. Daemon was only exiled after he had either fucked or otherwise made out with Rhaenyra years later. Prior to that Daemon just left court and began his conquest of the Stepstones.

Not sure what that revenge was. Rhaenyra executed Otto of his treason, not Daemon.

Things can be changed. Before the Rhoynar came sons came before daughters in Dorne, too. If the lords in Dorne could submit to the whim of Princess Nymeria then the Lords of the Seven Kingdoms could also submit to the whim of Viserys I (which all of them actually did). Nobody dared to contest Rhaenyra's right to succeed her father while Viserys I was still alive. And we can be reasonably sure that there would have been no Dance had Rhaenyra been Hand when her father died.

For the first thing, I find myself appaled by the focus on Alicent's sexual experiences based on rumors. I thought the forum was at this point above the "logic" of bad woman = much sex and women with many sexual partners = very bad, and the most often ackompning logic of men with many sexual partners = very good. So in a word Alicent is a horrible person if she had many sexual partners while Prince Daemon is an awesome guy for the same thing.

But to start the reply I see no reason to thinkt hat Alicent was sleeping with anyone at court before Viserys as I do not put much stock in rumors trying to paint women as "evil sluts". I don't claim to be a very good person and in fact I'm probably more of an an asshole than not, but I do believe that I am above that specific level of gunning in on a woman's sexuality in an effort to discredit them.

Furthermore there are more reasonable ways to see the issues between the Daemon-Rhaenyra axle and the Hightowers at court. To start with we know that Daemon made enemies, easy and many of them in both Westeros and Essos. So unless one thinks that Daemon were sleeping with, or perhaps the correct term for a macho-hero like Daemon Targaryen would have been "conquering", the wives and daughters of Dorne's and the Three Sisters' leaders as well, there's no reason to think that the Otto-Daemon feud was based on some sexual encounter Thing is that we know that Daemon is a rather mean person who don't hesitate to insult or harm people he thinks are in his way and so I find no reason to think it requires something more of Daemon than to be himself to make Otto into his enemy, as Otto most likely as an old hand at the Small Council expected a certain degree of respect. And what I se in Otto's actions is in no way a drive for power, its and understanding that if a person like Daemon gets a hold over Otto, then Daemon will have Otto killed on way or another. The only way for Ser Otto to retain his life would have been to ensure that Daemon didn't get power over him and that's the red line through Otto's actions.

The revenge was that Otto and his line was ended by the rebels while Prince Daemon lived the live of a macho-hero and then went out in a blaze of glory, and his line usurped the throne. 

And of course things can be changed. There are for example Great Councils yet for some reason Viserys didn't want to go that route but prefered to forbid any discussion of the subject. The fact that no one could bring up the matter of succession was addressed by the fact that the Velaryons got their heads chopped off and Otto lost his position in the small council in clear attempts by Viserys to silence any and all debate on the issue. I don't know how someone is supposed to make a case one way or another when the king will use violence or exile you if you dare to speak up. I know for sure however that such silence is not a silent acceptance.

 

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

For the first thing, I find myself appaled by the focus on Alicent's sexual experiences based on rumors. I thought the forum was at this point above the "logic" of bad woman = much sex and women with many sexual partners = very bad, and the most often ackompning logic of men with many sexual partners = very good. So in a word Alicent is a horrible person if she had many sexual partners while Prince Daemon is an awesome guy for the same thing.

Nobody said Alicent was a bad person. Just that she was promiscuous and ambitious. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

But to start the reply I see no reason to thinkt hat Alicent was sleeping with anyone at court before Viserys as I do not put much stock in rumors trying to paint women as "evil sluts". I don't claim to be a very good person and in fact I'm probably more of an an asshole than not, but I do believe that I am above that specific level of gunning in on a woman's sexuality in an effort to discredit them.

Or not. We only have the sources we have. I don't buy the story that Selyse has fucked Patches because the series indicates that this isn't true. But we don't have firsthand information on Alicent Hightower or confirmation that she is just slandered there. Thus I take at least the Daemon affair as truth because there needs to be an explanation why Otto and Daemon didn't get along. And this thing provides such an explanation. The rumor telling us that Alicent and Viserys had an affair before Queen Aemma died also sounds valid to me because it casts a bad light on the king himself, something the court would usually avoid while the king was still alive. Nothing suggests that this story was only perpetrated later.

 The rumor involving the Old King may just be a rumor. Or not. I can't say. And neither can you. I could see it being an outgrowth of speculation what slutty Alicent (when her affairs with Daemon and Viserys became known) had been up to back when she was the Old King's nursemaid. 

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Furthermore there are more reasonable ways to see the issues between the Daemon-Rhaenyra axle and the Hightowers at court. To start with we know that Daemon made enemies, easy and many of them in both Westeros and Essos. So unless one thinks that Daemon were sleeping with, or perhaps the correct term for a macho-hero like Daemon Targaryen would have been "conquering", the wives and daughters of Dorne's and the Three Sisters' leaders as well, there's no reason to think that the Otto-Daemon feud was based on some sexual encounter Thing is that we know that Daemon is a rather mean person who don't hesitate to insult or harm people he thinks are in his way and so I find no reason to think it requires something more of Daemon than to be himself to make Otto into his enemy, as Otto most likely as an old hand at the Small Council expected a certain degree of respect. And what I se in Otto's actions is in no way a drive for power, its and understanding that if a person like Daemon gets a hold over Otto, then Daemon will have Otto killed on way or another. The only way for Ser Otto to retain his life would have been to ensure that Daemon didn't get power over him and that's the red line through Otto's actions.

That is a lot of speculation with no textual evidence. The only explanation for the Otto-Daemon enmity we are given is the Alicent-Daemon affair. More importantly, it is odd that Daemon and Otto should become enemies at all because they (and Viserys) actually were allies in 101 AC at the Great Council when most of the lords favored Prince Viserys. Daemon is a somewhat reckless and cruel guy and he and Otto may have had very different personalities but they were still in the same camp, backing Viserys over Laenor. It is quite strange that this should change shorty after Viserys I took the throne.

You should also reread the accounts on Otto's personality and his (non-existing) popularity among his peers. The man became overly proud as Hand and made himself a lot of enemies. 

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

The revenge was that Otto and his line was ended by the rebels while Prince Daemon lived the live of a macho-hero and then went out in a blaze of glory, and his line usurped the throne.

Not sure how Daemon's line usurped anything. Aegon II himself named Aegon the Younger his heir.

4 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And of course things can be changed. There are for example Great Councils yet for some reason Viserys didn't want to go that route but prefered to forbid any discussion of the subject. The fact that no one could bring up the matter of succession was addressed by the fact that the Velaryons got their heads chopped off and Otto lost his position in the small council in clear attempts by Viserys to silence any and all debate on the issue. I don't know how someone is supposed to make a case one way or another when the king will use violence or exile you if you dare to speak up. I know for sure however that such silence is not a silent acceptance.

Actually, only one Velaryon was beheaded (and then fed to Syrax), the others just lost their tongues.

All alternative to hypocrisy and false smiles would have been open rebellion. Just as Daemon Blackfyre didn't wait for his brother to die (or poisoned him to get him out of the way like Alicent apparently poisoned Viserys I) and Robert didn't wait for Rhaegar and Aerys to die of old age.

Not to mention how the Faith Militant didn't take any of that shit from Aenys I and Maegor I without a fight. If you believe in something you have to fight for it, and when you think your king does something unlawful then you have to go through the legal and non-legal means to stop that.

But nobody - including the Hightowers - did that. They just accepted everything as it was and then staged a coup.

[Lion of the West]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nobody said Alicent was a bad person. Just that she was promiscuous and ambitious. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

Or not. We only have the sources we have. I don't buy the story that Selyse has fucked Patches because the series indicates that this isn't true. But we don't have firsthand information on Alicent Hightower or confirmation that she is just slandered there. Thus I take at least the Daemon affair as truth because there needs to be an explanation why Otto and Daemon didn't get along. And this thing provides such an explanation. The rumor telling us that Alicent and Viserys had an affair before Queen Aemma died also sounds valid to me because it casts a bad light on the king himself, something the court would usually avoid while the king was still alive. Nothing suggests that this story was only perpetrated later.

 The rumor involving the Old King may just be a rumor. Or not. I can't say. And neither can you. I could see it being an outgrowth of speculation what slutty Alicent (when her affairs with Daemon and Viserys became known) had been up to back when she was the Old King's nursemaid. 

That is a lot of speculation with no textual evidence. The only explanation for the Otto-Daemon enmity we are given is the Alicent-Daemon affair. More importantly, it is odd that Daemon and Otto should become enemies at all because they (and Viserys) actually were allies in 101 AC at the Great Council when most of the lords favored Prince Viserys. Daemon is a somewhat reckless and cruel guy and he and Otto may have had very different personalities but they were still in the same camp, backing Viserys over Laenor. It is quite strange that this should change shorty after Viserys I took the throne.

You should also reread the accounts on Otto's personality and his (non-existing) popularity among his peers. The man became overly proud as Hand and made himself a lot of enemies. 

Not sure how Daemon's line usurped anything. Aegon II himself named Aegon the Younger his heir.

Actually, only one Velaryon was beheaded (and then fed to Syrax), the others just lost their tongues.

All alternative to hypocrisy and false smiles would have been open rebellion. Just as Daemon Blackfyre didn't wait for his brother to die (or poisoned him to get him out of the way like Alicent apparently poisoned Viserys I) and Robert didn't wait for Rhaegar and Aerys to die of old age.

Not to mention how the Faith Militant didn't take any of that shit from Aenys I and Maegor I without a fight. If you believe in something you have to fight for it, and when you think your king does something unlawful then you have to go through the legal and non-legal means to stop that.

But nobody - including the Hightowers - did that. They just accepted everything as it was and then staged a coup.

For the first part the use of the term "slut" is a derogatory term as I know that you are aware of and I can tell you didn't pick that word at random. If you are not aware of this I would recommend you to read an introductionary book on feminism and then return to the forum after this is done.

Or yes. The fact that all of Alicent's supposed sexual relations are down to rumors, seemingly feeding on each other, and that its implausible that for example Daemon would have been able to keep his mouth shut about sleeping with Alicent. A guy who makes the joke of "an heir for a day" don't seem likely to not spread far and wide that he once slept with his enemy's daughter. He had absoutely no reasonable motive to keep silent about it and would seem to be in character for him. And as you mentioned Otto was not good at winning friends either so when he and Daemon gets in the same room, they are not going to stand each other, without throwing Alicent into the mix. It all seems to have been an anti-Otto slander to show how manly Daemon was and "owned" him in every way.

It looks kind of clear how Daemon usurped. First the royal branch of House Targaryen was killed off and then thanks to shennanigans and luck, Daemon's branch camei nto possession of the crown. Usurperation may have been a hard word, but Daemon's treachery paid well for his descendents.

As in staging a coup and raising in rebellion, l think the fact that the Greens didn't raise a rebellion speak in their favor as there remained, however slim, a chance that some form of peaceful resolution could have been reached between the Greens and Blacks after Viserys' death. In fact Grand Maester Orwyle was sent to Dragonstone with peace terms for Rhaenyra, which she of course discarded out of hand without bothering to offer terms of her own to make Aegon give up his crown to her. And this scenario is fairly close to another one, that is the Unworthy and Daeron II. As I recall Daeron II was not to please with his father's politics but didn't raise his allies and friends in rebellion and instead he and his allies waited for Aegon IV to die and then started to reverse Aegon IV's misrule. Does this mean that Daeron II was a hypocrit and a man of false smiles for not rebelling, and likewise his allies, or were they sensible in that they didn't want to start a war needlessly when they essentially only needed to wait for the old king to die before they could enact their desired changes without starting a war? The fact that the Greens didn't raised their arms while Viserys lived and actually at least made an effort with diplomacy speaks clearly in that there were Greens who were more sensible, or at least tried some other path than war, unlike the Black leadership.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

For the first part the use of the term "slut" is a derogatory term as I know that you are aware of and I can tell you didn't pick that word at random. If you are not aware of this I would recommend you to read an introductionary book on feminism and then return to the forum after this is done.

I didn't introduce the term into the debate. I agree with you that it shouldn't used. But we are talking about fictional people here. I don't insult any real people. And I actually think Alicent was more her father's pawn in all this, especially in the younger years when she had all her affairs. Later on in the 120s she clearly was as bad as her father. It is no surprise that she was imprisoned for life in the end. That wouldn't have been done if people considered her some innocent bystander or noble queen.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Or yes. The fact that all of Alicent's supposed sexual relations are down to rumors, seemingly feeding on each other, and that its implausible that for example Daemon would have been able to keep his mouth shut about sleeping with Alicent. A guy who makes the joke of "an heir for a day" don't seem likely to not spread far and wide that he once slept with his enemy's daughter. He had absoutely no reasonable motive to keep silent about it and would seem to be in character for him.

But do we know who revealed the stuff about Alicent and Daemon? Couldn't it still be just a rumor if Daemon himself claimed he had slept with Alicent? If I claim I've slept with a woman that claim alone doesn't make it true, right? Unless there is a marriage or some sort of official mistress thing going on or a historian has access to good evidence like genuine love letters referring to a sexual encounter then nobody can be completely sure that there was a sexual relationship between two people.

Right now all historians writing the history of the War of the Five Kings would have is the rumor spread by Stannis Baratheon that Jaime and Cersei Lannister had a sexual relationship - in spite of the fact that we, the readers, know for a certainty that this is the case.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And as you mentioned Otto was not good at winning friends either so when he and Daemon gets in the same room, they are not going to stand each other, without throwing Alicent into the mix. It all seems to have been an anti-Otto slander to show how manly Daemon was and "owned" him in every way.

On what do you base that claim? Nothing of this sort is ever said. Alicent sleeping with Daemon fits Hightower ambition very much, though. It is the same modus operandi she later used with Viserys I. First have a sexual relationship and then marry him. The idea with Daemon would have been to seduce the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne, get rid of the Rhea Royce match (perhaps via Otto's influence on Viserys I) and then marry Daemon so that the Hightower-Targaryens would eventually sit on the Iron Throne. Basically the same thing they later tried to do with Viserys I.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

It looks kind of clear how Daemon usurped. First the royal branch of House Targaryen was killed off and then thanks to shennanigans and luck, Daemon's branch camei nto possession of the crown. Usurperation may have been a hard word, but Daemon's treachery paid well for his descendents.

That makes no sense. Aegon II named Aegon the Younger his heir and betrothed him to his daughter. This wasn't a decision made by some usurper.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

As in staging a coup and raising in rebellion, l think the fact that the Greens didn't raise a rebellion speak in their favor as there remained, however slim, a chance that some form of peaceful resolution could have been reached between the Greens and Blacks after Viserys' death.

You have to reread TPatQ here. First the Greens murdered Lyman Beesbury, kept the news about the king's death a secret from his own daughter and brother, and then imprisoned so many people at court that even the High Septon got irritated. That is not an attempt for a peaceful resolution. It is a coup. Alicent even hoped Rhaenyra would die in childbirth.

The idea to reach a peaceful settlement only came up after Rhaenyra had been crowned, too, making it clear that there would most likely be war. Aegon II had already been crowned at that point, too.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And this scenario is fairly close to another one, that is the Unworthy and Daeron II. As I recall Daeron II was not to please with his father's politics but didn't raise his allies and friends in rebellion and instead he and his allies waited for Aegon IV to die and then started to reverse Aegon IV's misrule. Does this mean that Daeron II was a hypocrit and a man of false smiles for not rebelling, and likewise his allies, or were they sensible in that they didn't want to start a war needlessly when they essentially only needed to wait for the old king to die before they could enact their desired changes without starting a war?

Man, now are you in complete crackpot territory. Prince Daeron was his father's heir. He had no right to do or demand anything. Up to the point he became king in his own right he didn't have any power of his own (outside of Dragonstone). It is not his job to counter misrule or to keep the Realm together. That is the task of the king and his government - and Prince Daeron had no part in that.

But if we follow your line of reasoning - that King Viserys I had somehow not the right to choose his own heir and successor - then the entire Realm would have had the right to complain very loudly or rebel, right? If the power of the king was limited in any way in this topic by law or custom then such an action would be expected. The fact that nobody rebelled over this suggests that nobody truly questioned the authority of the king to name his heir and successor, though. If that had been the case then the Greens would have blatantly refused to accept that Rhaenyra was the heir and Princess of Dragonstone. They would have said a woman can't be the heir and would always have referred to Prince Aegon as the Prince of Dragonstone and the king's heir. But nobody did so. In fact, what Alicent and Otto was that Viserys I name Aegon his heir instead of Rhaenyra, thus implicitly confirming that even they acknowledged that Rhaenyra was the heir of Viserys I.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The fact that the Greens didn't raised their arms while Viserys lived and actually at least made an effort with diplomacy speaks clearly in that there were Greens who were more sensible, or at least tried some other path than war, unlike the Black leadership.

Not if Alicent poisoned her own husband and king. And the coup they staged bespeaks that they chose the path of violence and war. Or have you forgotten that the Green Council knew their plans meant war even when they made them in the very night the king died?

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-07-16 at 0:42 PM, Lord Varys said:

I didn't introduce the term into the debate. I agree with you that it shouldn't used. But we are talking about fictional people here. I don't insult any real people. And I actually think Alicent was more her father's pawn in all this, especially in the younger years when she had all her affairs. Later on in the 120s she clearly was as bad as her father. It is no surprise that she was imprisoned for life in the end. That wouldn't have been done if people considered her some innocent bystander or noble queen.

But do we know who revealed the stuff about Alicent and Daemon? Couldn't it still be just a rumor if Daemon himself claimed he had slept with Alicent? If I claim I've slept with a woman that claim alone doesn't make it true, right? Unless there is a marriage or some sort of official mistress thing going on or a historian has access to good evidence like genuine love letters referring to a sexual encounter then nobody can be completely sure that there was a sexual relationship between two people.

Right now all historians writing the history of the War of the Five Kings would have is the rumor spread by Stannis Baratheon that Jaime and Cersei Lannister had a sexual relationship - in spite of the fact that we, the readers, know for a certainty that this is the case.

On what do you base that claim? Nothing of this sort is ever said. Alicent sleeping with Daemon fits Hightower ambition very much, though. It is the same modus operandi she later used with Viserys I. First have a sexual relationship and then marry him. The idea with Daemon would have been to seduce the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne, get rid of the Rhea Royce match (perhaps via Otto's influence on Viserys I) and then marry Daemon so that the Hightower-Targaryens would eventually sit on the Iron Throne. Basically the same thing they later tried to do with Viserys I.

That makes no sense. Aegon II named Aegon the Younger his heir and betrothed him to his daughter. This wasn't a decision made by some usurper.

You have to reread TPatQ here. First the Greens murdered Lyman Beesbury, kept the news about the king's death a secret from his own daughter and brother, and then imprisoned so many people at court that even the High Septon got irritated. That is not an attempt for a peaceful resolution. It is a coup. Alicent even hoped Rhaenyra would die in childbirth.

The idea to reach a peaceful settlement only came up after Rhaenyra had been crowned, too, making it clear that there would most likely be war. Aegon II had already been crowned at that point, too.

Man, now are you in complete crackpot territory. Prince Daeron was his father's heir. He had no right to do or demand anything. Up to the point he became king in his own right he didn't have any power of his own (outside of Dragonstone). It is not his job to counter misrule or to keep the Realm together. That is the task of the king and his government - and Prince Daeron had no part in that.

But if we follow your line of reasoning - that King Viserys I had somehow not the right to choose his own heir and successor - then the entire Realm would have had the right to complain very loudly or rebel, right? If the power of the king was limited in any way in this topic by law or custom then such an action would be expected. The fact that nobody rebelled over this suggests that nobody truly questioned the authority of the king to name his heir and successor, though. If that had been the case then the Greens would have blatantly refused to accept that Rhaenyra was the heir and Princess of Dragonstone. They would have said a woman can't be the heir and would always have referred to Prince Aegon as the Prince of Dragonstone and the king's heir. But nobody did so. In fact, what Alicent and Otto was that Viserys I name Aegon his heir instead of Rhaenyra, thus implicitly confirming that even they acknowledged that Rhaenyra was the heir of Viserys I.

Not if Alicent poisoned her own husband and king. And the coup they staged bespeaks that they chose the path of violence and war. Or have you forgotten that the Green Council knew their plans meant war even when they made them in the very night the king died?

I'm very happy we can then agree to not lower ourselves to the level previously mentioned in my posts.

I agree its entirely possible that Daemon spread the rumors of him sleeping with Alicent but we should not be to quick to give credit ti rumors as based on hearsay its close to impossible to say which rumor is true and which is false. I don't believe in the rumors regarding Alicent sleeping with various people but I know that I have no hard evidence against them either. But I know that I have decided what I think on this matter.

I base my comments on the anti-Otto slander on that many disliked Otto, Daemon is portrayed as the ultimate macho-man so him doing the 13 year old male's fantasy of "in your face" getback at someon they dislike, use their supposed superhuman sexual prowess to sleep with "Otto's women", sound like something that many chavunistic people in Westeros would love to hear in regards to someone they dislike. The fact that the supposed "relaton" between Daemon and Otto broke down so fast speaks to me that it was not true given how Daemon is quick to ensure he's married into the powerful Velaryons to prevent himself from losing power. If Daemon and Alicent really had a relation between them I don't see Daemon casting off the support of a house as powerful as the Hightowers and the Hand of the King so fast.

I know that Aegon II made the decision to allow the foolishness of "decalring an heir" to continue, basically under threat, and by necessity for the favor of Corlys Velaryon. I just think that given how this supposed "acceptance" of Prince Aegon by Aegon II came about I don't see it as anything else but that Daemon's treachery paid off well for his children's future.

I agree that the murder of Lord Beesebury was unnecessary and was innocent blood spilt but the rest just looks like real politik to me. If the loyalists can't deal with the Blacks from a positon of strength what is there to prevent Rhaenyra to laugh at all attmepts at peaceful solutions and use a shitload of violence to get her way and laugh all the way to her grave in some fourty or fifty years' time? I'd say, nothing. The fact that the Greens does the trouble of sending a delegation speaks volumes in regards to Rhaenyra not even bothing to send a reply to offer her own terms for a peaceful resolution. Note that Breakspear did to my knowledge suggest that pardons be offered to Daemon and his supporters in the Blackfyre Rebellion and that it was entirely possible for Lyonel Baratheon to come to terms with Aegon V. I fail to see why war was so necessary that Rhaenyra couldn't even be bothered to send terms back to Aegon II.

I am just pointing out that a lack of universal rebellion does not mean that people who dislike the politics made by the king are hypocrits. For as you recall the people who wanted to change things got into serious trouble when Viserys tried to strangle the debate.

I find it much more likely to think that the Greens actually hoped that a civil war among the Targaryens could be avoided and King Aegon II could take his father's throne without further bloodshed.

Let us not forget that some men take their oaths seriously, and when looking at the reasons for various Great Houses to support Greens and Blacks its clear that there's no great and uniform determination to support Princess Rhaenyra, or King Aegon. Stark wanted the same as Baratheon, a marriage with the royal family, Lannister and Tully seems to have risen for no alterior motive although in the Tully's case it was against the wish of Lord Tully, Lady Arryn seems to have made her decision based on self-interest while the Greyjoys went Black because it was easier to reave and pillage in the West than in the areas loyal to Rhaenyra. In the end it seems that neither Black nor Green can be seen as some driven more by conviction than the other side.

IF Alicent poisoned Viserys and I find it very unlikly that she did. If its was planned, then how come that the Greens seems to have started to look after potential allies after Viserys was dead? Why had they not already seeked out these lords and made them allies to be ready? Knowing the rightful path leads towards war is something many in Westeros can see, but the fact that they, unlike the Blacks, could be bothered to make an effort at a peaceful resolution says to me that they were hardly as belligerant as I understand you as trying to paint them as.

[Valens]

On 15.7.2016 at 10:16 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nobody said Alicent was a bad person. Just that she was promiscuous and ambitious. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

Or not. We only have the sources we have. I don't buy the story that Selyse has fucked Patches because the series indicates that this isn't true. But we don't have firsthand information on Alicent Hightower or confirmation that she is just slandered there. Thus I take at least the Daemon affair as truth because there needs to be an explanation why Otto and Daemon didn't get along. And this thing provides such an explanation. The rumor telling us that Alicent and Viserys had an affair before Queen Aemma died also sounds valid to me because it casts a bad light on the king himself, something the court would usually avoid while the king was still alive. Nothing suggests that this story was only perpetrated later.

 The rumor involving the Old King may just be a rumor. Or not. I can't say. And neither can you. I could see it being an outgrowth of speculation what slutty Alicent (when her affairs with Daemon and Viserys became known) had been up to back when she was the Old King's nursemaid. 

That is a lot of speculation with no textual evidence. The only explanation for the Otto-Daemon enmity we are given is the Alicent-Daemon affair. More importantly, it is odd that Daemon and Otto should become enemies at all because they (and Viserys) actually were allies in 101 AC at the Great Council when most of the lords favored Prince Viserys. Daemon is a somewhat reckless and cruel guy and he and Otto may have had very different personalities but they were still in the same camp, backing Viserys over Laenor. It is quite strange that this should change shorty after Viserys I took the throne.

You should also reread the accounts on Otto's personality and his (non-existing) popularity among his peers. The man became overly proud as Hand and made himself a lot of enemies. 

Not sure how Daemon's line usurped anything. Aegon II himself named Aegon the Younger his heir.

Actually, only one Velaryon was beheaded (and then fed to Syrax), the others just lost their tongues.

All alternative to hypocrisy and false smiles would have been open rebellion. Just as Daemon Blackfyre didn't wait for his brother to die (or poisoned him to get him out of the way like Alicent apparently poisoned Viserys I) and Robert didn't wait for Rhaegar and Aerys to die of old age.

Not to mention how the Faith Militant didn't take any of that shit from Aenys I and Maegor I without a fight. If you believe in something you have to fight for it, and when you think your king does something unlawful then you have to go through the legal and non-legal means to stop that.

But nobody - including the Hightowers - did that. They just accepted everything as it was and then staged a coup.

It seems Martin likes it that way. Daemon almost came to blows with Corlys over the dispute who would rule, while Otto was on the same side as Daemon. But then Daemon and Seasnake became friends while Daemon at the same time fell out with Otto and became his nemesis. It is irony, but not so odd really, because Otto's (and Alicent's) interests seem to have been from day one to keep Daemon as far away from power and KL as possible. I'd say they were both scheming and calculated, perhaps not evil but not good either. Too power hungry for my liking, and given they were not of royal blood or didn't have any blood connections to the Targs, that is not very sympathetic. They were like usurpers, trying to install their family in power. I don't like Hightowers very much in general. Gerold might have been a rather impressive figure, physically speaking and being the commander of the Kingsguard, but he didn't judge Aerys even after he killed Rickard and Brandon in the most cruel and twisted way.

[Trigger Warning]

A strong enough blood claim with power behind it is pretty much always good enough to challenge a lawful successor. They'll just make up whatever justifications they feel like doing during and after the power struggle. 
 

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree its entirely possible that Daemon spread the rumors of him sleeping with Alicent but we should not be to quick to give credit ti rumors as based on hearsay its close to impossible to say which rumor is true and which is false. I don't believe in the rumors regarding Alicent sleeping with various people but I know that I have no hard evidence against them either. But I know that I have decided what I think on this matter.

Well, if we don't believe any rumors then Visenya didn't kill Aenys I, Aegon the Unworthy didn't poison his own father, Laenor Velaryon was the father of Addam and Alyn of Hall as well as his legal sons, and Rhaenyra Targaryen never had an affair with either Criston Cole, Daemon Targaryen (in her youth), or Harwin Strong.

Because, you know, all of that are just rumors, too. There is no proof one way or another.

And you have no good reason aside from 'Hey, I want to believe this' to come to Alicent's defense. That isn't enough.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I base my comments on the anti-Otto slander on that many disliked Otto, Daemon is portrayed as the ultimate macho-man so him doing the 13 year old male's fantasy of "in your face" getback at someon they dislike, use their supposed superhuman sexual prowess to sleep with "Otto's women", sound like something that many chavunistic people in Westeros would love to hear in regards to someone they dislike.

Not sure what you are getting at there. Daemon and Otto may have never liked each other very much but they had no reason to become enemies as early as 103-105 AC when Prince Daemon was still seen as the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne. Unless, of course, something happened that Otto Hightower couldn't forgive. Like Daemon fucking and discarding his beloved daughter.

Otto only grew haughty and arrogant later on during his first stint as Hand. In 103-105 AC he had just been serving in the office for a few years.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

The fact that the supposed "relaton" between Daemon and Otto broke down so fast speaks to me that it was not true given how Daemon is quick to ensure he's married into the powerful Velaryons to prevent himself from losing power. If Daemon and Alicent really had a relation between them I don't see Daemon casting off the support of a house as powerful as the Hightowers and the Hand of the King so fast.

You have to reread TRP or at least recheck the time line. Daemon and Otto became enemies as early as 103-104 AC when Daemon was serving on the Small Council. He also didn't marry quickly into House Velaryon. That happened about a decade later and was only made possible by the sudden death of Daemon's wife, Rhea Royce. It had nothing to do with the topic at hand, not to mention that Corlys and Daemon had become allies during that whole Stepstones business.

Daemon also had no need for Otto Hightower as an ally back in 103-105 AC. He was the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne of Westeros. Why would he have to be on good terms with his brother's Hand? He already had everything he wanted, anyway. Should Viserys I die without a son then King Daemon I Targaryen would inevitably rise to the Iron Throne.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I know that Aegon II made the decision to allow the foolishness of "decalring an heir" to continue, basically under threat, and by necessity for the favor of Corlys Velaryon. I just think that given how this supposed "acceptance" of Prince Aegon by Aegon II came about I don't see it as anything else but that Daemon's treachery paid off well for his children's future.

If you want to call Aegon III a king who was happy on his throne and with his life then continue. Nothing Daemon did had any positive effects for his children, and neither did the folly Alicent and Otto did. It cost all of them their lives and resulted in the weakening of the royal dynasty as well as House Hightower.

And every king names an heir. The Conqueror named an heir, Aenys I named an heir, Maegor named an heir, Jaehaerys I named three heirs, Viserys I named an heir, Rhaenyra named an heir, Aegon II named an heir, Aegon III named an heir, Aegon IV named an heir, Daeron II named two heirs, Aerys I named three heirs, Aegon V named two heirs, Jaehaerys II named an heir, Aerys II named two heirs.

If you want to talk about a fantasy series in which kings don't name heirs then you have to pick another fantasy series.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree that the murder of Lord Beesebury was unnecessary and was innocent blood spilt but the rest just looks like real politik to me. If the loyalists can't deal with the Blacks from a positon of strength what is there to prevent Rhaenyra to laugh at all attmepts at peaceful solutions and use a shitload of violence to get her way and laugh all the way to her grave in some fourty or fifty years' time? I'd say, nothing. The fact that the Greens does the trouble of sending a delegation speaks volumes in regards to Rhaenyra not even bothing to send a reply to offer her own terms for a peaceful resolution. Note that Breakspear did to my knowledge suggest that pardons be offered to Daemon and his supporters in the Blackfyre Rebellion and that it was entirely possible for Lyonel Baratheon to come to terms with Aegon V. I fail to see why war was so necessary that Rhaenyra couldn't even be bothered to send terms back to Aegon II.

Well, but Otto Hightower had no legal basis to incarcerate all those people he did incarcerate, right? Just being friends or allegedly friends with the Princess of Dragonstone isn't a crime in this society.

And there is no hint that anybody (especially not Aegon II who had been forced to make those 'terms') in the Green camp truly wanted peace. What about the letters Otto sent to the Triarchy (inviting a foreign power to attack the Seven Kingdoms which is treason) and to Dalton Greyjoy and others? Do you think they prepared for war because they wanted to make peace? That doesn't seem to be likely.

Vice versa, we don't know whether Rhaenyra made offers of her own that were then rejected by Aegon II. After all, you do remember that TPatQ was heavily abridged, right?

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I am just pointing out that a lack of universal rebellion does not mean that people who dislike the politics made by the king are hypocrits. For as you recall the people who wanted to change things got into serious trouble when Viserys tried to strangle the debate.

If you wait until you can rebel with impunity (or believe you can) you are a hypocrite in my book. Especially if you think a king is not allowed to change the succession at all - as you think people believed (without any basis in the text).

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I find it much more likely to think that the Greens actually hoped that a civil war among the Targaryens could be avoided and King Aegon II could take his father's throne without further bloodshed.

And you base this on what? Your own personal opinion isn't enough. That is about as important in the matter as my declaration that Lyanna Stark had the best hairstyle ever during the tourney at Harrenhal. Prove me wrong on that one or challenge my inner image of Lyanna Stark's perfect hair. You can't. But I can't convince you either unless you are willing to just take my word for it.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Let us not forget that some men take their oaths seriously, and when looking at the reasons for various Great Houses to support Greens and Blacks its clear that there's no great and uniform determination to support Princess Rhaenyra, or King Aegon. Stark wanted the same as Baratheon, a marriage with the royal family, Lannister and Tully seems to have risen for no alterior motive although in the Tully's case it was against the wish of Lord Tully, Lady Arryn seems to have made her decision based on self-interest while the Greyjoys went Black because it was easier to reave and pillage in the West than in the areas loyal to Rhaenyra. In the end it seems that neither Black nor Green can be seen as some driven more by conviction than the other side.

That isn't really true. Just look at all those Reach lords who rose to defend Rhaenyra's claim without ever being directly approached by her. Or those Riverlords who rallied to Prince Daemon as soon as he had taken Harrenhal.

The thing about the Dance is that only very few people followed their liege lords in all this. It was much more often a personal issue.

True, the great lords needed some offers but I daresay that Borros Baratheon was in a rather precarious position. Aemond Targaryen arrived there first, and he was the rider of Vhagar. You cannot possibly not receive the rider of Vhagar or dismiss his offer, especially if he asks for the hand of one of your daughters. I think Borros' maester tricked the illiterate fool into believing that Rhaenyra's letter was written in a manner it clearly wasn't (if it had been written this way then Cregan Stark would have received a similar letter and would have been equally displeased) causing him to threw Lucerys Velaryon out of his hall.

2 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

IF Alicent poisoned Viserys and I find it very unlikly that she did. If its was planned, then how come that the Greens seems to have started to look after potential allies after Viserys was dead? Why had they not already seeked out these lords and made them allies to be ready? Knowing the rightful path leads towards war is something many in Westeros can see, but the fact that they, unlike the Blacks, could be bothered to make an effort at a peaceful resolution says to me that they were hardly as belligerant as I understand you as trying to paint them as.

Another rumor you just dismiss out of hand. Viserys I died at a very opportune moment for Greens and at a very bad moment for the Blacks. And somehow the Greens were able to completely control the court and the flow of information thereafter. That doesn't indicate that he died a natural death.

As to why Otto and Alicent didn't have made any alliances before:

Perhaps because that would have been treason? It is easy to assume that the entire Small Council aside from Lyman Beesbury was in Otto's camp but that doesn't have to be the case. It is one thing to go against the Hand and the Queen Dowager when the king is dead and quite another to plot against the king and the Princess of Dragonstone when the king is still alive and well, no?

It is entirely possible that even people like Tyland Lannister, Ironrod Wylde, and Larys Strong weren't fully on board with Otto's coup until that fateful Small Council session. And if they weren't yet on board then the Lords of Westeros surely could have been, either. Talking to people who could then have talked to the king or Rhaenyra would have been very dangerous indeed at that point.

And especially the unwillingness of the Reach to support Aegon II demonstrates that the Greens didn't exactly first check the strength of their position down there. Quite the contrary, in fact.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Valens said:

It seems Martin likes it that way. Daemon almost came to blows with Corlys over the dispute who would rule, while Otto was on the same side as Daemon. But then Daemon and Seasnake became friends while Daemon at the same time fell out with Otto and became his nemesis. It is irony, but not so odd really, because Otto's (and Alicent's) interests seem to have been from day one to keep Daemon as far away from power and KL as possible. I'd say they were both scheming and calculated, perhaps not evil but not good either. Too power hungry for my liking, and given they were not of royal blood or didn't have any blood connections to the Targs, that is not very sympathetic. They were like usurpers, trying to install their family in power. I don't like Hightowers very much in general. Gerold might have been a rather impressive figure, physically speaking and being the commander of the Kingsguard, but he didn't judge Aerys even after he killed Rickard and Brandon in the most cruel and twisted way.

I've discussed this a little bit above. Daemon and Otto became enemies shortly after Viserys I had called Daemon to court to help him rule in 103 AC. That is long before he and the Seasnake became best buddies. That only happened after Viserys I had named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent in 105 AC and had rejected Laena Velaryon as his new wife in 106 AC, causing both Daemon and Corlys to unite their forces for the Stepstones adventure.

I don't think Otto and Alicent had reasons to dislike Daemon in the beginning. In fact, he would have been their first target to take the Iron Throne. Viserys I only had a daughter and Queen Aemma was no likely to give him any further living children, having a long history of miscarriages. Why not getting close to Viserys' immediate heir and hook up Alicent with him? In time Daemon's marriage to Rhea Royce could be annulled, Alicent married to Daemon, and Viserys I be killed to hand the throne to Daemon and eventually go to Otto's grandchildren.

More or less the same scheme they did with Viserys I as Alicent's husband later on.

[YOVMO]

On July 6, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Valens said:

It is said he wanted his son Laenor to rule, since his mother was a Targaryen. But how is this possible? As far as I know, their laws are such that someone who is descended from the Targaryen dynasty on his male side always has a stronger claim than one from a female line. Was this simply old Sea Snake getting ahead of himself?

He could claim that the tourney at Harrenhall was a ruse to get all the great lords together and have a great counsel where rhaegar renounced his claim and said all the primageniture of Aerys are disqualified from the throne due to Aerys' madness.

 

There is historical basis for this. The trick would be to prove it happened

[Valens]

18 hours ago, YOVMO said:

He could claim that the tourney at Harrenhall was a ruse to get all the great lords together and have a great counsel where rhaegar renounced his claim and said all the primageniture of Aerys are disqualified from the throne due to Aerys' madness.

 

There is historical basis for this. The trick would be to prove it happened

I can't say this post makes much sense to me. I think you need to read the original post more carefully. This is not about Rhaegar or Aerys. It is about the time just before the Dance of Dragons. Daemon and Viserys, Rhaenyra and Aegon II, etc.

[YOVMO]

23 hours ago, Valens said:

I can't say this post makes much sense to me. I think you need to read the original post more carefully. This is not about Rhaegar or Aerys. It is about the time just before the Dance of Dragons. Daemon and Viserys, Rhaenyra and Aegon II, etc.

Omg ! I suck!!!!!! So sorry