Jump to content

Rhaenyra: Traitor or legitimate heir?


Traverys

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

By who? Targaryn sympathizers who are sour that their side lost the war? Surely you can't be including the King who had received his Crown, was anointed with the seven oils, was in possession of the Conqueror's Iron Throne, and is above anyone else, in that claim? Surely you don't mean any of the Lord Paramount's and all of their subjects that fought in a bloody war in order to crown King Robert? And surely you aren't referring to the Faith, of whom ordained Robert as the rightful King of the Seven Kingdoms, are you?

The name of the dynasty is irrelevant. Robert is as much a Targaryen as Harrold Hardyng is an Arryn. The fact that he kept his dad's name instead of taking that of his grandmother or royal great-grandfather doesn't change that he is a Targaryen descendant. That's what gives him a claim to the Iron Throne.

Robert had the trappings of power as much as Aegon II and Maegor had them. In that sense they are all true kings. But this doesn't mean that their dynasties have to be stable (if we assume they have new dynasties). Maegor and Aegon II may have called themselves Targaryen but they weren't of Aenys' or Rhaenyra's branch of the family, were they? That is a difference.

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I would disagree, now those are two different issues. Maegor did not overthrow the Targaryn regime, as Robert did. Once Aerys was dead, and Robert was crowned as the Baratheon King, the Targaryn dynasty and its authority ceased to exist, along with any claims that Viserys might have had. 

Again, you overthrow kings and not regimes. King Aerys II was murdered by his Kingsguard, and then Robert Baratheon seized the throne and was crowned and anointed king. But his claim did never go unchallenged. King Viserys III was crowned and anointed on Dragonstone as a rival pretender, just as there were Blackfyre pretender kings challenging the Targaryen claim from Daemon Blackfyre to Maelys Blackfyre (with less and less public recognition over time, of course).

The family name of a king is irrelevant here. If Robert hadn't been as much a descendant of the Targaryen kings from Aegon I to Aegon V you might have a point there. But the Baratheons aren't a new dynasty. Robert isn't Vespasian restoring peace securing the throne after Nero's death, say.

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Not really. Robert's claim and ascension to the throne had nothing to do with his distant Targaryn blood. He would have still been proclaimed King, had he not had any ties to the Targs whatsoever. Robert did not consider himself to be dragonspawn, as I don't recall him having the desire to exterminate himself. 

That is Robert's obvious hypocrisy. If a crow calls the raven black you can't believe it, no? If Robert hadn't had Targaryen blood Ned and Jon wouldn't have made him king. He had the better claim. Robert killing Rhaegar didn't make him king, just as Jaime killing Aerys didn't make Jaime or Tywin king. Nor did Bloodraven become king because he killed Daemon Blackfyre, etc.

1 hour ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Are you sure about that? Could you provide a quote to back this up?

Reread the chapter in AGoT where Ned and Cat discuss Robert's offer and the consequences it might have if Ned were to refuse. Cat tells Ned that he no longer knows Robert (which is correct) and that Ned refusing Robert's offer after Robert taking it upon himself to actually honor Ned with his royal presence would be seen as an insult by the king. Kings are accustomed to get what they want. It may be too much to assume that Robert would conclude that he could no longer trust Ned - but Cat is of the opinion that Robert not trusting Ned could get very dangerous for House Stark. And Ned does not contradict - which in a sense confirms he did not consider that claim nonsensical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

<snip> If Robert hadn't had Targaryen blood Ned and Jon wouldn't have made him king.

No? Who would they have made King if this were the case? Or would they have decided not to rebel had they not had someone with a trace of Targaryn blood amongst them?

And you didn't answer my question. Who are you referring to, that you claim do not see Robert's rule as legitimate?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Reread the chapter in AGoT where Ned and Cat discuss Robert's offer and the consequences it might have if Ned were to refuse. Cat tells Ned that he no longer knows Robert (which is correct) and that Ned refusing Robert's offer after Robert taking it upon himself to actually honor Ned with his royal presence would be seen as an insult by the king. Kings are accustomed to get what they want. It may be too much to assume that Robert would conclude that he could no longer trust Ned - but Cat is of the opinion that Robert not trusting Ned could get very dangerous for House Stark. And Ned does not contradict - which in a sense confirms he did not consider that claim nonsensical. 

So? Nothing in that chapter, or any of your assumptions here support your original claim.

Ned was considering not accepting Robert's offer, and had Bran's "accident", or Lysa's letter not arrived, he may well have declined. In fact, was it not Cat who had to convince Ned to accept Robert's offer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

No? Who would they have made King if this were the case? Or would they have decided not to rebel had they not had someone with a trace of Targaryn blood amongst them?

They did not rebel to make a new king. If they had to make a new king they would have chosen a man with a claim, not just some dude. We don't know whom, but we do know that it wouldn't have been Robert. Robert didn't care all that much about being king - other men among the rebels would have been put forth. Perhaps Selwyn Tarth.

46 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

So? Nothing in that chapter, or any of your assumptions here support your original claim.

Ned was considering not accepting Robert's offer, and had Bran's "accident", or Lysa's letter not arrived, he may well have declined. In fact, was it not Cat who had to convince Ned to accept Robert's offer?

It does. Ned considered rejecting Robert's offer and he did not just reject it out of hand - as he felt like - because he knew that slighting the king was potentially dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They did not rebel to make a new king.

Correct, they rebelled in order to overthrow an oppressive regime led by a mad man.

Quote

If they had to make a new king they would have chosen a man with a claim, not just some dude. We don't know whom, but we do know that it wouldn't have been Robert.

Who is "we"? I sure don't know that, and I would challenge you to provide some evidence for this claim. As they did have to make a new King, and they did choose Robert.

Quote

other men among the rebels would have been put forth. Perhaps Selwyn Tarth.

Har!! 

Quote

It does. Ned considered rejecting Robert's offer and he did not just reject it out of hand - as he felt like - because he knew that slighting the king was potentially dangerous.

As he also didn't just accept it out of hand, as he would of if your claim was true. Again, he was considering declining Robert's offer, and only reluctantly accepted, due to circumstances arising that had nothing to do with a fear of Robert.

Of course slighting the King has a potential of being dangerous, just as if I were to slight my boss, it could result in an undesirable outcome for me. He may have taken this into consideration when contemplating his decision, however it certainly wasn't the principal factor, nor was it the only reason why he accepted the position of Hand, as you claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rebel leaders chose Robert because he had the better claim than Jon or Ned. He had a better claim than them because his father's mother was a Targaryen princess and daughter and sister of Targaryen kings. Not to mention that both the royal Targaryen and Baratheon lines are descended from Alyssa Velaryon, herself the daughter of a Targaryen daughter. And though he certainly didn't become king on account of it, there is likely a perception that the Baratheons are male line descendants of Lord Aerion Targaryen, the bastard Orys Baratheon's likely father. In a sense they are almost a bastard branch of House Targaryen from their arrival. In other words, it is common knowledge in Westeros that the Baratheons have the blood of the dragon running through them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, I'm not asserting that Robert's Targ blood did not play a role in him being chosen as the King. However, it was more of an afterthought, or a lucky coincidence that amongst the candidates to take the throne, there was someone with Targ blood, which would help to appease those that were pro Targaryn, and make for a smoother transition.

As I've implied up thread, had he not had any connections to the Targs, it would not have necessarily prevented the Rebels from choosing Robert. They had to choose someone... and I'm quite sure it wouldn't have been Selwyn Tarth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Correct, they rebelled in order to overthrow an oppressive regime led by a mad man.

LOL, no. They just replaced one sucker with another. Robert Baratheon's 'regime' is pretty much the same as King Aerys'. Changing the man wearing the crown is of no significance if the government officials remain the same - which they very much did.

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Who is "we"? I sure don't know that, and I would challenge you to provide some evidence for this claim. As they did have to make a new King, and they did choose Robert.

LOL, if Robert didn't want to be king - as we know he claimed - then Robert not having a claim would have resulted in him not becoming king. He wouldn't even have put forth his name.

The men having the real power - the rebel leaders in the various rebellions (Prince Daemon, Bittersteel, Gormon Peake, Ned and Jon, etc.) - use puppets and figureheads if they can't sit the throne themselves because they don't have a claim. Tywin and Mace might very much like to be king themselves but they can't, and they know that. And so would Robert, Ned, and Jon during the Rebellion if Robert hadn't had a claim.

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

As he also didn't just accept it out of hand, as he would of if your claim was true. Again, he was considering declining Robert's offer, and only reluctantly accepted, due to circumstances arising that had nothing to do with a fear of Robert.

He asked for permission to think about the offer and discuss it with his wife. But Robert makes it pretty clear that he expects him to accept it. This isn't really a choice, even more so after Robert offers to betroth Joffrey to Sansa. Rejecting him after such an offer would be a major slight. 

2 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Of course slighting the King has a potential of being dangerous, just as if I were to slight my boss, it could result in an undesirable outcome for me. He may have taken this into consideration when contemplating his decision, however it certainly wasn't the principal factor, nor was it the only reason why he accepted the position of Hand, as you claim.

Stop inventing stuff. I never said it was the only reason why Ned accepted the position of Hand.

I only brought that thing up to point out that even a king as weak and disinterested in ruling his kingdom as Robert very much had his lords - even lords as powerful as the Lord of Winterfell - under his thumb by office.

4 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Just to clarify, I'm not asserting that Robert's Targ blood did not play a role in him being chosen as the King. However, it was more of an afterthought, or a lucky coincidence that amongst the candidates to take the throne, there was someone with Targ blood, which would help to appease those that were pro Targaryn, and make for a smoother transition.

That is just flat out wrong. Robert made his claim known around the time of the Trident - which sort of indicates that he did so prior to the Trident although we don't know that for a fact as of yet. Robert liked to connect his kingship to his victory over Rhaegar but if Ned, Jon, or some nameless dude had brought down the Prince of Dragonstone Robert Baratheon would still have been the king the rebels put forth - because he was the great-grandson of Aegon V.

4 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

As I've implied up thread, had he not had any connections to the Targs, it would not have necessarily prevented the Rebels from choosing Robert. They had to choose someone... and I'm quite sure it wouldn't have been Selwyn Tarth.

Why not? This is a monarchy where nobility and royalty is defined by blood. That's the important criteria. Not who slay someone on a battlefield. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert made his claim known around the time of the Trident

When Ned confronted him on the Throne Jaime said he was just keeping it warm for their friend Robert. So he knew the rebels where going to seat Robert and he was in King's Landing the whole time.  That always lead me to believe that both sides figured the rebels would seat Robert on the Throne if they won.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

When Ned confronted him on the Throne Jaime said he was just keeping it warm for their friend Robert. So he knew the rebels where going to seat Robert and he was in King's Landing the whole time.  That always lead me to believe that both sides figured the rebels would seat Robert on the Throne if they won.

That is an implicit hint, but we also have George confirming it that Robert declared himself around the time of the Trident. Aerys II knew Robert wanted to be king (evident from the talk with Rossart Dany sees in House of the Undying and Jaime overheard back when they were spoken), and it is pretty likely that the rebels also decided what they intended to do if they won the Trident before they actually fought the battle.

So my guess would be that Robert made it clear to Rhaegar and his men that he was a pretender king now, and the only way Aerys and Rhaegar, etc. could save their lives is by running away and hiding in exile. There must have been some exchange of words between the loyalists and the rebels prior to the final battle.

But as I've said - we don't know when Robert declared himself. It could also have been only after the Trident. However, that's somewhat less likely.

Informal talks and deliberations as to who should be king if they won should have gone back to earlier times during the Rebellion. Considering that Ned, Jon, and Robert were separated until the Battle of the Bells one assumes Robert - or rather many of his followers - may have developed the notion that he should be king while he and his Stormlanders fought their heroic battles in the Stormlands, the Reach, and the Riverlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There must have been some exchange of words between the loyalists and the rebels prior to the final battle.

I wonder if Barristan was privy to such a meeting. 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Informal talks and deliberations as to who should be king if they won should have gone back to earlier times during the Rebellion. Considering that Ned, Jon, and Robert were separated until the Battle of the Bells one assumes Robert - or rather many of his followers - may have developed the notion that he should be king while he and his Stormlanders fought their heroic battles in the Stormlands, the Reach, and the Riverlands.

One has to wonder what would have happened if after Robert killed Rhaegar he died from an infection from his wounds a day or so later. Would they Crown Stannis? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

I wonder if Barristan was privy to such a meeting. 

One has to wonder what would have happened if after Robert killed Rhaegar he died from an infection from his wounds a day or so later. Would they Crown Stannis? 

The Sack wouldn't even be a given after that. Tywin could decide to back Aerys after all, instead of a dead king and his imprisoned brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-12-23 at 4:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

LOL, no. They just replaced one sucker with another. Robert Baratheon's 'regime' is pretty much the same as King Aerys'. Changing the man wearing the crown is of no significance if the government officials remain the same - which they very much did.

LoL, what are you talking about? Keeping the same Grand Maester and the same Master of Whispers, two of the least influential and least powerful positions on the small council, is not of any significance. There is no one of any authority or power from Aerys' government officials that are a part of Robert's. He replaced the Hand of the King, the Master of Coin, Master of Law, Master of Ships, and the Lord Commander of the King's guard, pretty much the entire body of government.

Quote

The men having the real power - the rebel leaders in the various rebellions (Prince Daemon, Bittersteel, Gormon Peake, Ned and Jon, etc.) - use puppets and figureheads if they can't sit the throne themselves because they don't have a claim.

Yes, in succession disputes, and in-house bickering as to who has the best claim to the throne, not in cases where a rebellion has overthrown the existing regime.

Quote

Tywin and Mace might very much like to be king themselves but they can't, and they know that. And so would Robert, Ned, and Jon during the Rebellion if Robert hadn't had a claim.

Tywin and Mace weren't in the position to make a claim, as the main heads of the Rebellion wouldn't have accepted it for obvious reasons.

As was the case with Robert, Ned nor Jon wanted the position. And if you recall, Ned even states that his decision to not take the throne for himself was not one of his mistakes, when talking to Cercei. It's seems that despite Ned not having Targ blood or any claim to speak of, both Cercei and Ned believe that Ned was a viable candidate to become the next King.

Quote

Stop inventing stuff. I never said it was the only reason why Ned accepted the position of Hand.

Sorry, I had misremembered your statement. My mistake, and my apologies.

Quote

Robert made his claim known around the time of the Trident 

Hmm, I don't recall this. Would you mind providing a quote or the chapter please.

ETA: never mind, just saw your subsequent post explaining.

Quote

which sort of indicates that he did so prior to the Trident although we don't know that for a fact as of yet. Robert liked to connect his kingship to his victory over Rhaegar but if Ned, Jon, or some nameless dude had brought down the Prince of Dragonstone Robert Baratheon would still have been the king the rebels put forth - because he was the great-grandson of Aegon V.

Like I've stated, I agree that Robert's claim influenced the decision to choose him. My point being that had Robert not had Targ blood, it wouldn't have prevented the rebels from placing him on the throne. Perhaps he would have rejected had that been the case, but the Crown would have most likely went to Ned or Jon then, neither of which have any claim through Targ blood.

I don't believe they would have looked outside of the three to place a figure head on the throne, this was a rebellion won with the sword (or more aptly in this case, a war hammer) not a matter of succession, and who had a right to that ugly chair. Through the means of might, they had the power to place whoever they wanted on the throne, succession rules and divine rights be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/12/2017 at 9:11 PM, Adam Yozza said:

No that's not the general custom. The prededent that's been set is in fact uncle before daughter, at least when it comes to Royalty. That's established with Jahaerys over Aegon's daughters, Baelon over Rhaenys and even Viserys considers Daemon his heir over Rhaenyra before the half a day heir comment.

That's the custom except for the Targaryens and Dorne, Dorne being more equal to women while Targaryens ever more for male preference than the rest. Actually, the Targaryen succession precedence lends more legitimacy to Aegon's claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

That's the custom except for the Targaryens and Dorne, Dorne being more equal to women while Targaryens ever more for male preference than the rest. Actually, the Targaryen succession precedence lends more legitimacy to Aegon's claim.

Indeed. Precedence and tradition does lend more legitimacy to Aegon's claim than Rhaenyra's. However the point is that precedence is not a law and the King is not beholden to it. He is an absolute monarch and can do as he likes. Viserys I was King and he was not bound by previous successions. He chose Rhaenyra over Aegon so Rhaenyra was his heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Indeed. Precedence and tradition does lend more legitimacy to Aegon's claim than Rhaenyra's. However the point is that precedence is not a law and the King is not beholden to it. He is an absolute monarch and can do as he likes. Viserys I was King and he was not bound by previous successions. He chose Rhaenyra over Aegon so Rhaenyra was his heir.

Right, but once Viserys is dead, he is (obviously) no longer King, and thus his wishes are no longer law, and the realm reverts back to tradition and precedent for choosing it's monarch.  You can only make this case as long as Viserys is alive.  In other words, Rhaenyra is only the favored heir while Viserys lives; once he's dead, and she isn't crowned, she has no claim to legitimacy through Viserys will (according to your theory, since obviously the next monarch would have absolute power to undo whatever he wanted of Viserys' actions).

And by the way, I know this is difficult to grasp, but the Targaryen's are emphatically not absolute monarchs.  They are weak feudal monarchs who have superweapons for the first half the reign.  The kind of divine kingship and absolutism we see in Early Modern Europe does not exist in the feudal period, when kingship (and lordship in general) is a complex skein of interlocking rights and responsibilities for all parties involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's said in Archmaester Gyldayn writes that the Great Council of 101 AC established the precedent in the eyes of many: seniority aside, the Iron Throne cannot pass to a woman, nor through a woman to her male descendants. With this in mind, why is it written that the Kingmaker had to persuade Aegon II to make a claim? Wouldn't Aegon II have accepted it? It did take Ser Criston's urging to "do it or she'll kill you" to result in action on Aegon's part, but a lot of lords made oaths to Rhaenyra, which again they then proceeded to break. So I don't necessarily think anything was set by precedent at all. I think in the end Lords, especially the Great Lords of the Great Houses, will do what is best for them, maybe with the exception of a Stark or two. Lords will do what they think gives them the best chance of still being Lords when the dust has settled.

 

PS: does choosing a successor not initially singled out by precedent matter at all? Rhaenyra was chosen but ruled for half a year. Daemon Blackfyre was heir in all but name, many imagining him to be the spitting image of the Conqueror and most likely a better king, but they both ended up dying a traitor's death. Please correct me if I'm wrong, that's just what I recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

LoL, what are you talking about? Keeping the same Grand Maester and the same Master of Whispers, two of the least influential and least powerful positions on the small council, is not of any significance. There is no one of any authority or power from Aerys' government officials that are a part of Robert's. He replaced the Hand of the King, the Master of Coin, Master of Law, Master of Ships, and the Lord Commander of the King's guard, pretty much the entire body of government.

He apparently replaced the men who died during the war and the Sack, but there is no indication that he actually dismissed so much as a single official that was appointed by Aerys.

That is not a regime change. A regime change implies that the entire ruling class/bureaucracy, etc. are replaced by new men.

Also note that Renly and Littlefinger were rather late additions to Robert's Small Council. Robert had at least one Master of Coin prior to Littlefinger - most likely a succession of Masters of Coin, considering his habits - and it is also not likely that the young boy Renly was named Master of Laws while he was not yet an adult. Stannis may have been named Master of Ships shortly after Robert took the throne considering that Robert charged him with building a new royal fleet to take Dragonstone.

Robert's Lord Commander of the Kingsguard was a Targaryen man. Just as his Master of Whisperers and his Grand Maester (at least technically).

17 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Yes, in succession disputes, and in-house bickering as to who has the best claim to the throne, not in cases where a rebellion has overthrown the existing regime.

Those men tried to overthrow kings. They are not different from the man propping up Robert Baratheon to be king - which apparently were Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark, Hoster Tully, and presumably others - likely many of Robert's Stormlords.

17 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Tywin and Mace weren't in the position to make a claim, as the main heads of the Rebellion wouldn't have accepted it for obvious reasons.

Jaime considers the possibility of Tywin seizing the throne in place of Joffrey/Tommen. This is a possibility that is technically on the table. The fact that this is not done is precisely the point I'm making here - Westeros is a hereditary monarchy were blood claims are very important. It is not that establishing a new royal dynasty never happens - it did happen in the Riverlands repeatedly - but the Iron Throne is different.

The Targaryens broke other royal houses and did not eradicate them. The Lannisters, Starks, and Arryns bent the knee to the dragons, but the chances are not that good that they will also bend the knee to a dragonless peers from the ranks of the lords - a peer that has no blood claim to the Iron Throne.

Robert Baratheon isn't just the Lord of Storm's End. He is also not just the descendant of Orys Baratheon and Alyssa Velaryon. He is also the great-grandson of King Aegon V and the descendants of all the Targaryen kings Aegon V is descended from. He has pretty much as a strong a claim to the Iron Throne as Harrold Hardyng has to the Vale. Both are pretty strong claims. That's why Robert becomes king in the end.

17 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

As was the case with Robert, Ned nor Jon wanted the position. And if you recall, Ned even states that his decision to not take the throne for himself was not one of his mistakes, when talking to Cercei. It's seems that despite Ned not having Targ blood or any claim to speak of, both Cercei and Ned believe that Ned was a viable candidate to become the next King.

There they seem to operate under the framework that seizing/controlling the physical throne may enable you to actually ascend it. Just as Jaime entertained the notion of Tywin being able to become king. This is not something that would be impossible to do, of course. The question is whether such a king could prevail. And that's very unlikely.

What right has a Stark, Lannister, Arryn, or Tyrell to rule over the Seven Kingdoms?

17 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Like I've stated, I agree that Robert's claim influenced the decision to choose him. My point being that had Robert not had Targ blood, it wouldn't have prevented the rebels from placing him on the throne. Perhaps he would have rejected had that been the case, but the Crown would have most likely went to Ned or Jon then, neither of which have any claim through Targ blood.

We actually don't know whether the Arryns or Starks don't have a drop of Targaryen blood through the female line. But that aside - we don't really know who was considered as a potential king by the rebels in addition to Robert. If Robert hadn't had any royal blood they would have offered the throne to somebody else. Especially if any such somebodies had also decided to join the rebels.

17 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I don't believe they would have looked outside of the three to place a figure head on the throne, this was a rebellion won with the sword (or more aptly in this case, a war hammer) not a matter of succession, and who had a right to that ugly chair. Through the means of might, they had the power to place whoever they wanted on the throne, succession rules and divine rights be damned.

There is no indication that any of this is true. This wasn't a rebellion to depose a dynasty, it was just a rebellion against the ruling king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was the rightful heir even the idiot that aegon sent to negotiate with her said as much when he said it was you the king named when she asked him. The hightowers were just like Lannisters are now wanting to be targs, but realizing they can't be. I mean the coup made no sense and when Rhaenyra took the city all of a sudden alicent wanted to call a great council? I mean seriously why didn't you do that first you waited for your father to die, grandson, and your only daughter to go mad to see this?

I do agree some on Rhaenyra's choices just really made no sense, but she was the one Visearys groomed to rule not aegon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True heir to the iron throne ask the Lords who chose to swear their fealty to her only to later abandon her cause at the 1st chance. 

Hightowers were schemers otherwise along wouldn't have degraded a week in order to set up their plot. Criston Cole got shot down and couldn't deal.

People always talk about her descent to madness but if the Realm's Delight had been able to inherit her birthright she wouldn't have became the understandably bitter person she did. 

RIP Beesbury 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...