Why does history refer to Rhaenyra Targaryen as a "traitor" and "usurper"?

[Lion of the West]

Rhaenyra is called a traitor and a usurper because sometimes, not always but sometimes, right conquers might.

Rhaenyra had not more claim on the Iron Throne than Daemon Blackfyre had and I think its a nod for this to be the case when both are associated with the same color. King Viserys was not an absolutist king and he had no right to change the very inheritance laws that gave him his own throne on a whim.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

My guess would had been for the same reason the Rebels used Robert’s grandmother to ease the Targ supporters.

7 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Rhaenyra had not more claim on the Iron Throne than Daemon Blackfyre had

Rhaenyra wasn't a bastard and Daemon wasn't the King's chosen heir and supported by some of the most important Lords in Westeros.

[Jaak]

The Dance ended with Tullies and Starks marching victoriously on King´s Landing to destroy Aegon son of Alicent. Who died suspiciously before their arrival.

Why didn´t the victorious Tullies call Aegon son of Rhaenyra they rescued Aegon II, and take the position that Aegon son of Alicent was never a King, always usurper, first of Rhaenyra and after killing her, usurper of Aegon son of Rhaenyra?

[Third Tail of the Dragon]

I'm not sure that Rhaenyra is considered a traitor and usurper by Westeros at large. The Baratheons would consider her one since they fought on the green side, and we probably get their point of view since they are the current ruling house.

However, it is clear that Rhaenyra is not considered to be a ruler of Westeros. I think the Black after they took the capital kept Aegon the II on the list of rulers for the same reasons Jahaerys the Concilliator kept Maegor on the official list of rulers and rather than Jahaerys older brothers who Maegor killed: Maegor's laws were kept still in effect. If Aegon II was never king, all his actions, laws, and rulings had no legal force, and retroactively canceling them might have resulted in chaos. Yeah, Aegon II did cancel Rhaenyra's actions, but given that his rule kind of collapsed we can assume it didn't go particularly well.

 

[Jaak]

26 minutes ago, Third Tail of the Dragon said:

However, it is clear that Rhaenyra is not considered to be a ruler of Westeros. I think the Black after they took the capital kept Aegon the II on the list of rulers for the same reasons Jahaerys the Concilliator kept Maegor on the official list of rulers and rather than Jahaerys older brothers who Maegor killed: Maegor's laws were kept still in effect. If Aegon II was never king, all his actions, laws, and rulings had no legal force, and retroactively canceling them might have resulted in chaos. Yeah, Aegon II did cancel Rhaenyra's actions, but given that his rule kind of collapsed we can assume it didn't go particularly well.

 

Did Rhaenyra, during her reign, cause any problems by cancelling Aegon II-s acts?

[Protagoras]

On 2016-09-17 at 11:16 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Rhaenyra is called a traitor and a usurper because sometimes, not always but sometimes, right conquers might.

Rhaenyra had not more claim on the Iron Throne than Daemon Blackfyre had and I think its a nod for this to be the case when both are associated with the same color. King Viserys was not an absolutist king and he had no right to change the very inheritance laws that gave him his own throne on a whim.

Not laws, guidelines. There have been decisions in the past which now serves as a reference, a pattern if you will for future, analogous cases. To call it law is a bit too much however - Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions and those institutions doesn´t exist in Westeros. 

Succession laws is a muddy territory than can be changed but usually need some kind of stability. so not too often. Usually it comes down to the "my army is strong enough to make this legal not only now, but in the future too - since I can hold this with enough naked force of arms" legality. Speak softly and carry a big stick, in other words. 

[shockwave]

if the targs get another ruling queen and she is named Rhaenyra, she would probably be Rhaenyra II. Rhaenyra isn't mentionned much as Rhaenyra I because Aegon II was alive during her reign and outlived much.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-09-17 at 1:43 PM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

My guess would had been for the same reason the Rebels used Robert’s grandmother to ease the Targ supporters.

Rhaenyra wasn't a bastard and Daemon wasn't the King's chosen heir and supported by some of the most important Lords in Westeros.

Daemon wasn't a bastard after he was legitimized, and one can argue rather convincingly that Daemon was Aegon IV's chosen heir by being granted the sword of kings. Not that I really care about "picking" heirs, but there you have it.

 

5 hours ago, Protagoras said:

Not laws, guidelines. There have been decisions in the past which now serves as a reference, a pattern if you will for future, analogous cases. To call it law is a bit too much however - Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions and those institutions doesn´t exist in Westeros. 

Succession laws is a muddy territory than can be changed but usually need some kind of stability. so not too often. Usually it comes down to the "my army is strong enough to make this legal not only now, but in the future too - since I can hold this with enough naked force of arms" legality. Speak softly and carry a big stick, in other words. 

Law, guidelines or traditions, it really makes no difference to me. Its clear that when Viserys ascended it had been a choice to go in one direction in regards to succession, even if I think that Rhaenys would have been a preferable candidate to Viserys.

While I do agree that force of arms is important, especially when legitimacy is lacking, I do think that legitimacy does matter if for no other reason than that it makes things more predictable and peaceful. I do however agree, to make it clear, agree that political power in a feudal society needs to be able to exercise sufficient violance in its defence.

I think we can see the time of the Barracks Emperors in Roman history as a case study of how a realm where the only legitimacy is strength of arms.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

15 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Daemon wasn't a bastard after he was legitimized, and one can argue rather convincingly that Daemon was Aegon IV's chosen heir by being granted the sword of kings. Not that I really care about "picking" heirs, but there you have it.

Daemon was legitimized but he was still a bastard born while Rhaenyra was always a trueborn/ Viserys made his Lords to swear fealty to Rhaenyra and she was formally chosen as the King's heir for the whole of Westeros to see, Aegon on the other hand just gave Daemon a sword with no other way of formalization his choice. There are no similarities between those situations.  

[Lion of the West]

1 hour ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Daemon was legitimized but he was still a bastard born while Rhaenyra was always a trueborn/ Viserys made his Lords to swear fealty to Rhaenyra and she was formally chosen as the King's heir for the whole of Westeros to see, Aegon on the other hand just gave Daemon a sword with no other way of formalization his choice. There are no similarities between those situations.  

Yes, there are similarities. Viserys heaped favors on Rhaenyra and Aegon IV on Daemon. Daemon got the sword that to that point had always passed from king to king. Dark Sister is the sword of "random guy I like" while Blackfyre is, or was, the sword of kings, while Rhaenyra gained Dragonstone. Both of them potent symbols of the king's wish.

And in regards to that oath it was sworn in relation to Rhaenyra's uncle Daemon, when the stuation changed and the people who swore the oath started to drop off, Viserys didn't care to renew the oath.

[Orphalesion]

On 14/09/2016 at 5:52 AM, Emie said:

Exactly Maxxine, the king has the final say, not the council. And I agree with the others, it's wrong to judge her when the war was a shitty thing to start in her first place. If she had just been allowed to rule in the first place without anyone being an asshole to her and try to stop her, she could have been a great ruler. 

"She could have been a great ruler if everybody had given her whatever she wanted without putting the slightest obstacle in her way!"  Seriously?

Why shouldn't we judge her by her actions in King's Landing only because the war was...well... a war? Should we judge no leader at all by their actions during wartime?

"Tywin  could have been a kind ruler who didn't slaughter countless people in Castamere and King's Landing, if Lord Reyne and the Mad King had not done stuff he disliked!"

Besides that, the Targaryens were not absolute rulers, they were feudal kings and as such they exist in a constant power struggle between them and their liege lords they can only do things for as long as the Great Houses are willing to play along and whether any law they pass will survive them is up to the political climate. Look at the reforms of Aegon V and see how well that ended. 

If the king had the final say and not anybody Jane Grey would have been Queen of England and Maria Theresa of Habsburg would have been Holy Roman Empress.

[Jaak]

The original set of 7 regents for Aegon son of Rhaenyra:

1. Corlys Velaryon - a Black
2. Jeyne Arryn - a Black
3. Torrhen Manderly - a Black
4. Grand Maester Munkun
5. Manfryd Mooton - defected to Greens
6. Royce Caron - from Stormlands, presumed Green
7. Ronald Westerling - from West, presumed Green

 

[Hangover of the Morning]

Aegon III didn't inherit because he was Rhaenyra's son but because he was Aegon's II closest (or perhaps only) male relative because all of the king's sons and brothers were exterminated during the war. Hence, why Rhaenyra is still considered a traitor, even though, it was her progeny who ended up continuing the line. Quite an irony and really shows how pointless that whole conflict was. 

[Lord Varys]

Daemon Blackfyre has nothing to do with Rhaenyra.

Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone and the chosen and anointed heir apparent to the Iron Throne of her father, the king.

Daemon Blackfyre was just a legitimized Targaryen bastard and great knight who began to dream of kingship when people gathered around him to disliked his royal brother.

Giving Blackfyre to the boy certainly was a slight to Daeron II but since Aegon never named Daemon his heir, granted him a title or some lands, or singled him out among his bastards we cannot assume he was anyway special by the time Aegon died. He was showing promise as a knight, that's clear, but Aegon legitimized all his bastards not just Daemon.

Thus it is clear he had no special preference for Daemon that is comparable to the favors Viserys I showed Rhaenyra.

Viserys I wanted his daughter to succeed him. Aegon IV just wanted to cause trouble for Daeron II when he died, possibly even arranging things so House Targaryen would rip itself to pieces.

2 hours ago, Hangover of the Morning said:

Aegon III didn't inherit because he was Rhaenyra's son but because he was Aegon's II closest (or perhaps only) male relative because all of the king's sons and brothers were exterminated during the war. Hence, why Rhaenyra is still considered a traitor, even though, it was her progeny who ended up continuing the line. Quite an irony and really shows how pointless that whole conflict was. 

Actually, we recently learned from Ran that Corlys Velaryon forced Aegon II and Alicent to spare Aegon the Younger's life, name him his heir, and betroth him to Jaehaera in exchange for his support.

In that sense Aegon III also became Aegon II's heir but he and (especially) Alicent didn't like that at all. Aegon II wanted to execute his nephew after he was restored to the throne but since he needed House Velaryon he was forced to go along with Corlys' demands.

Those Blacks who continued the fight after Rhaenyra's death would have already fought in the name of King Aegon III, though (or in the name of Prince Aegon intending to free and crown him eventually as heir of his late mother, not his treacherous uncle whom they had never acknowledged as king in the first place).

In that sense Aegon III is both the heir of Rhaenyra and Aegon II if you want to call him that, but the two factions would give completely different reasons for that. From the Green POV Aegon the Younger should have been killed. The fact that he lived at all and was named heir by Aegon II was already part of the (ultimate) Black victory.

8 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I think we can see the time of the Barracks Emperors in Roman history as a case study of how a realm where the only legitimacy is strength of arms.

Actually, law was a huge part of Roman civilization.

But they had, of course, no clear succession laws for the emperors and acknowledged that the army made those decisions in troubled times. That was the way of it, just as it was in real world medieval history (although there it wasn't necessarily the army considering that pretty much nobody had a standing army throughout most of the middle ages).

But in peaceful times succession was basically hereditary (including adoption) and a huge part of that was anointing heirs in the lifetime of an emperor and/or already appointing him co-ruler.

The idea that dynastic succession was more than an ideal in ancient (Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome) or medieval times is pretty obvious if you consult real world history. People wanted to believe that this is the way. But effectively you wore the purple when you wore the purple. It does not matter how you become king when you are king.

[Duranaparthur]

And the Daemon and Rhaenyra comparison does have the problem of clarity in the king's will and in the bonds of honor; Aegon IV never explicitly named Daemon as anything aside from a recognized (and later legitimized) bastard younger brother to Daeron, while the realm's lords all swore oaths to affirm Rhaenyra's claim to the throne at Viserys's request. There's a clarity there that you can't compare to the Unworthy's actions, and if anything, the comparison does drive home that Aegon II and Daemon derived a great deal of intial support from simply being a more appealing candidate to Reacher lords who backed them in a bid for the throne while having no claim ahead of time.

Plus, if we're going to argue about Viserys having no right to change the decrees of the Council that put him in charge, we should also acknowledge that the Greens founder, Hightower, was the one who pushed for Rhaenyra officially being recognized in the first place. Maybe someone has the right to call BS on the situation, but not the guys who did it. Precedent is arguably the core of their argument, but they've damaged their own credibility by calling for it to be broken in the first place.

And really, honor was probably part of the reason why no one bothered to dispute Rhaenyra's place as Not A Queen; the Blacks could argue that no matter the situation, they kept their word and kept their honor, which does have political power behind it, but the Greens needed their movements justified in some way. And Rhaeyra's kids was sitting in the throne but not Rhaeyra herself, so both sides could lie that they were entirely in the right.

[Jaak]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, we recently learned from Ran that Corlys Velaryon forced Aegon II and Alicent to spare Aegon the Younger's life, name him his heir, and betroth him to Jaehaera in exchange for his support.

In that sense Aegon III also became Aegon II's heir but he and (especially) Alicent didn't like that at all. Aegon II wanted to execute his nephew after he was restored to the throne but since he needed House Velaryon he was forced to go along with Corlys' demands.

That's odd.

Killing Aegon son of Rhaenyra was already proposed on Dragonstone. Then Aegon son of Alicent refused, because he wanted to keep Aegon son of Rhaenyra a hostage.

Did Aegon son of Alicent and Alicent want to go ahead executing Aegon son of Rhaenyra after returning to King's Landing? Because the Blacks (in Riverlands, Vale and North) had failed to submit to Aegon son of Alicent?

Betrothing Aegon son of Rhaenyra to Jaehaera made sense. Disinheriting Jaehaera, though...

Was Aegon son of Alicent treating Aegon son of Rhaenyra as his heir, or as a hostage? Certainly, his proposal to cut off an ear of Aegon son of Rhaenyra sounds like treatment of a hostage, not heir.

Where was Jaehaera, physically? She was safely delivered to Storm's End. Was she returned to King's Landing sometime between October and March?

 

[Lion of the West]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Daemon Blackfyre has nothing to do with Rhaenyra.

Rhaenyra was named Princess of Dragonstone and the chosen and anointed heir apparent to the Iron Throne of her father, the king.

Daemon Blackfyre was just a legitimized Targaryen bastard and great knight who began to dream of kingship when people gathered around him to disliked his royal brother.

Giving Blackfyre to the boy certainly was a slight to Daeron II but since Aegon never named Daemon his heir, granted him a title or some lands, or singled him out among his bastards we cannot assume he was anyway special by the time Aegon died. He was showing promise as a knight, that's clear, but Aegon legitimized all his bastards not just Daemon.

Thus it is clear he had no special preference for Daemon that is comparable to the favors Viserys I showed Rhaenyra.

Viserys I wanted his daughter to succeed him. Aegon IV just wanted to cause trouble for Daeron II when he died, possibly even arranging things so House Targaryen would rip itself to pieces.

Actually, we recently learned from Ran that Corlys Velaryon forced Aegon II and Alicent to spare Aegon the Younger's life, name him his heir, and betroth him to Jaehaera in exchange for his support.

In that sense Aegon III also became Aegon II's heir but he and (especially) Alicent didn't like that at all. Aegon II wanted to execute his nephew after he was restored to the throne but since he needed House Velaryon he was forced to go along with Corlys' demands.

Those Blacks who continued the fight after Rhaenyra's death would have already fought in the name of King Aegon III, though (or in the name of Prince Aegon intending to free and crown him eventually as heir of his late mother, not his treacherous uncle whom they had never acknowledged as king in the first place).

In that sense Aegon III is both the heir of Rhaenyra and Aegon II if you want to call him that, but the two factions would give completely different reasons for that. From the Green POV Aegon the Younger should have been killed. The fact that he lived at all and was named heir by Aegon II was already part of the (ultimate) Black victory.

Actually, law was a huge part of Roman civilization.

But they had, of course, no clear succession laws for the emperors and acknowledged that the army made those decisions in troubled times. That was the way of it, just as it was in real world medieval history (although there it wasn't necessarily the army considering that pretty much nobody had a standing army throughout most of the middle ages).

But in peaceful times succession was basically hereditary (including adoption) and a huge part of that was anointing heirs in the lifetime of an emperor and/or already appointing him co-ruler.

The idea that dynastic succession was more than an ideal in ancient (Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome) or medieval times is pretty obvious if you consult real world history. People wanted to believe that this is the way. But effectively you wore the purple when you wore the purple. It does not matter how you become king when you are king.

I dare say that you are wrong. Legitimacy has always been a part although it has often conflicted with the ambitions of selfish and greedy men wielding arms.

And Rhaenyra and Daemon are essentially mirror images of each other in that both are people who in a normal succession would not have gained the throne but tried to take the throne by essentially being set-up for it by their fathers. And while I agree that Blackfyre was essentially another victim of Aegon IV's malice, its also clear that he had about the same claim to the throne as Rhaenyra, which was "I am daddy's favorite!"

And Daemon was not just some bastard. He was Targaryen on both sides, he was the legitimized son of the king, he was as far as I can tell pretty much a personficiation of the masculine ideal and the king gav him the sword of kings; Blackfyre. And if the king can do whatever he likes, as I recall you claiming before, then why can't the king appoint his heir this way? Who is to say he has to designate the heir in some other way? I naturally think that the king can't pick an heir at will if there are sons of his body alive, but I know that other people think differently and thus they can't hold a candle to Aegon IV doing anything in whatever way he fancied. Which I, again, naturally reject.

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I dare say that you are wrong. Legitimacy has always been a part although it has often conflicted with the ambitions of selfish and greedy men wielding arms.

And Rhaenyra and Daemon are essentially mirror images of each other in that both are people who in a normal succession would not have gained the throne but tried to take the throne by essentially being set-up for it by their fathers. And while I agree that Blackfyre was essentially another victim of Aegon IV's malice, its also clear that he had about the same claim to the throne as Rhaenyra, which was "I am daddy's favorite!"

And Daemon was not just some bastard. He was Targaryen on both sides, he was the legitimized son of the king, he was as far as I can tell pretty much a personficiation of the masculine ideal and the king gav him the sword of kings; Blackfyre. And if the king can do whatever he likes, as I recall you claiming before, then why can't the king appoint his heir this way? Who is to say he has to designate the heir in some other way? I naturally think that the king can't pick an heir at will if there are sons of his body alive, but I know that other people think differently and thus they can't hold a candle to Aegon IV doing anything in whatever way he fancied. Which I, again, naturally reject.

Daemon was never Crown Prince, ie Prince of Dragonstone.  Rhaenyra had been Crown Princess for 15 years, prior to her father's death.  That's the difference.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

That's odd.

Killing Aegon son of Rhaenyra was already proposed on Dragonstone. Then Aegon son of Alicent refused, because he wanted to keep Aegon son of Rhaenyra a hostage.

Did Aegon son of Alicent and Alicent want to go ahead executing Aegon son of Rhaenyra after returning to King's Landing? Because the Blacks (in Riverlands, Vale and North) had failed to submit to Aegon son of Alicent?

We don't have much information on all that because Ran was not that forthcoming. But the way things are Aegon II on Dragonstone with a dying dragon is a very different matter from King Aegon II restored to the Iron Throne by the swords of the Stormlords.

Aegon II feeding Rhaenyra to Sunfyre didn't make him king again. It was the support he gathered thereafter - support that was not guaranteed, not even from the Green side. Borros Baratheon apparently had done pretty much nothing for most of the war. If he had continued doing nothing after the news from Dragonstone arrived Aegon II would never have regained the Iron Throne.

In addition, there are the Blacks still in the field to consider. There were still undefeated Riverlords, Northmen, and possibly even Valemen in the field. Aegon II needed leverage over them which explains why he spared Aegon the Younger on Dragonstone.

But eventually his use as a hostage would end, especially once he had defeated all his enemies in the field. That was the point of a continuation of the war. Borros led an army to defeat the Riverlords in the field, and if he had done so they might also have been able to eventually deal with the Stark army - especially considering the fact that Aegon II had sent envoys across the Narrow Sea to hire sellswords.

Corlys Velaryon would have made his deal with Aegon II prior to Borros' defeat, though. Around the time Aegon II was restored to the throne, one assumes. Unfortunately we have no idea whether the short-lived regime of Trystane Truefyre left him in the dungeons or whether they freed him. We also have no idea what Alicent did throughout this entire time.

Lady Baela Targaryen - Corlys Velaryon's granddaughter who Aegon II captured on Dragonstone, too - would also have been used as a hostage against Corlys Velaryon. But apparently she alone wasn't enough to sway him to support Aegon II. Keep in mind that the Velaryon men were fiercely loyal to the Sea Snake and even tried to free him after Rhaenyra had arrested him. If Aegon II wanted/needed the Velaryon men and navy he would have to placate Corlys or count them among his enemies.

Thus we can see how this deal was made despite the fact that we lack the details as of yet.

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

Betrothing Aegon son of Rhaenyra to Jaehaera made sense. Disinheriting Jaehaera, though...

She was not disinherited. In fact, Aegon II actually named them co-heirs but with Jaehaera being a lackwit she would never have had any voice in the matter anyway. The fact that Aegon II did that also shows that he never really saw Aegon the Younger as his heir (just as Tommen or Myrcella would never see Shireen as their heir unless pushed by force) and only betrothed her to Aegon because he had no other choice. If he could have had his way he most likely would have killed Aegon the Younger, named Jaehaera his heir, and betrothed her to a die-hard Green loyalist or the son of such a man.

In addition you have to keep in mind that Aegon II intended to remarry and was already betrothed or at least had promised to marry a daughter of Borros Baratheon. Assuming he was still capable of fathering children his ultimate goal would have been to have a son by his Baratheon wife to eventually disinherit Aegon the Younger (and Jaehaera) again after the war had been won and Corlys Velaryon died. Then he could eventually hand his crown to his trueborn son from his second marriage.

The idea that both Alicent and Aegon II truly intended to ever see the son of Rhaenyra and Daemon on the Iron Throne doesn't make much sense. They were playing for time and they lost when the Greens lost the war - and Corlys Velaryon then (most likely) arranged both Aegon II's murder and the wedding and coronation of Aegon III. 

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

Was Aegon son of Alicent treating Aegon son of Rhaenyra as his heir, or as a hostage? Certainly, his proposal to cut off an ear of Aegon son of Rhaenyra sounds like treatment of a hostage, not heir.

When the Riverlords were besieging the city and Cregan Stark's army was marching down Aegon the Younger clearly had reverted back to the status of a hostage in the mind of Aegon II. And there is a pretty good that he was never anything else in Aegon's mind.

2 hours ago, Jaak said:

Where was Jaehaera, physically? She was safely delivered to Storm's End. Was she returned to King's Landing sometime between October and March?

We don't know whether she ever reached Storm's End just as we don't know what happened to Willis Fell. But it is a good guess that she got to Lord Borros and returned with him to the capital to be reunited with her father and grandmother.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I dare say that you are wrong. Legitimacy has always been a part although it has often conflicted with the ambitions of selfish and greedy men wielding arms.

Well, I just spent a vacation reading quite a few books about various ancient and medieval dynasties. The bottom line is that until modern times very few royal dynasties had a fixed and clear succession, especially not if there was no son to inherit the throne.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And Rhaenyra and Daemon are essentially mirror images of each other in that both are people who in a normal succession would not have gained the throne but tried to take the throne by essentially being set-up for it by their fathers. And while I agree that Blackfyre was essentially another victim of Aegon IV's malice, its also clear that he had about the same claim to the throne as Rhaenyra, which was "I am daddy's favorite!"

You are just projecting stuff here. There is no hint that Aegon IV was 'daddy's favorite'. All we know is that the man gave Blackfyre to him and knighted him at the age of twelve. We have no indication that Aegon IV showed Daemon Waters any other favors throughout his lifetime. In fact, it is quite clear that Aegon IV wasn't close to the boy in any capacity because he only acknowledged him as his son when he gave him Blackfyre (unlike Aegor, Brynden, and Shiera whom he acknowledged when they were born).

In fact, Daemon Blackfyre may not actually have been the Unworthy's son. All we have is his word for it, and his word is worth nothing. We know Daena the Defiant died young at an unknown date. If she was already dead when Aegon acknowledged Daemon then he might have just as well have falsely acknowledged the boy because he intended to use him as a pawn against Daeron.

Rhaenyra on the other hand was showered with favors as a girl by both their parents and then formally named the Heir Apparent. There is a huge difference there.

4 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

And Daemon was not just some bastard. He was Targaryen on both sides, he was the legitimized son of the king, he was as far as I can tell pretty much a personficiation of the masculine ideal and the king gav him the sword of kings; Blackfyre. And if the king can do whatever he likes, as I recall you claiming before, then why can't the king appoint his heir this way? Who is to say he has to designate the heir in some other way? I naturally think that the king can't pick an heir at will if there are sons of his body alive, but I know that other people think differently and thus they can't hold a candle to Aegon IV doing anything in whatever way he fancied. Which I, again, naturally reject.

Well, we know that kings designate and anoint their heirs by saying that they do. Giving Blackfyre to Daemon certainly showed everybody that he favored him but a king can grant favors to pretty much everybody. Aegon IV had named an heir already - Prince Daeron, who was made Prince of Dragonstone upon his father's ascension. He was never formally disinherited so the succession was clear.

If Aegon had never named Daeron his heir and had given Daemon Blackfyre one could see this as Aegon giving people a hint who should succeed him. But this is not the case.