Would Rhaenyra's Velaryon sons rule as Targaryens or Velaryons?

[dmfn]

On 7/13/2018 at 5:13 AM, Lord Varys said:

They were born as Velaryons and they died as Velaryons. I don't doubt they would have also ruled as Velaryons. The name of the mother is fine and good, but there is a reason why you take the name of your father in this world. And it is not that the Velaryons were not worthy to sit the Iron Throne. Since Corlys Velaryon they are as famous as the Targaryens themselves, and they do have their blood. 

If they were born Strongs or Plumms or Penroses they might have seriously considered changing their names, but there was nothing wrong with the name Velaryon.

True words

Aegon the Conqueror's mother was a Velaryon even, so they have always had blood relatives on the throne.

But also I think people were more impressed by Valyarian traits, not specifically any certain family. About half the realm was ready to go Blackfyre.

[Jaak]

On 7/25/2018 at 6:40 PM, Bael's Bastard said:

@Lord Varys
The Iron Throne and the dragons were perceived as Targaryen, no matter how close the Velaryons were to House Targaryen. As Lucerys is reported to have said: "Only Targaryens ride dragons." Those handful of Velaryons that rode dragons (Laena, Laenor, Jacaerys, Lucerys, Joffrey, Addam) would've been seen as doing so on account of their recent Targaryen ancestry.
 

Yes. But had Targaryens ever been serious about "Only Targaryens ride dragons.", they could have insisted from the beginning of Rhaenys' marriage that her children would have surname "Targaryen" from birth, along with dragon eggs. And ditto about Rhaenyra's children.

They did not.

[Bael's Bastard]

On 7/28/2018 at 12:02 PM, Lord Varys said:

I don't think we have any evidence indicating this. If Laenor Velaryon had been chosen, Laenor Velaryon would have been chosen - the lords would have known that the boy they made their king was a Velaryon. And we have no indication that Laenor Velaryon preferred the name Targaryen.

We don't have any evidence that House Targaryen would have ever accepted or allowed anyone to sit their Iron Throne with a name other than Targaryen. Laenor wasn't a candidate because of his Velaryon ancestry, but because of his Targaryen ancestry. If he had ascended the Iron Throne it would have been because of his Targaryen ancestry, not because of his Velaryon ancestry. We have no indication that Laenor didn't prefer the name Targaryen. But his preference is irrelevant, as the preference of a boy that was 7 at the time of the Great Council in 101 AC and 8-9 at the time of the death of King Jaehaerys I wouldn't have factored into the name he ascended with had he been chosen.

On 7/28/2018 at 12:02 PM, Lord Varys said:

But as Rhaenyra's husband he would become the prince/king consort of the monarch and if he had changed his name then Rhaenyra's children by him would have also born as Targaryens, preventing Jace and his brothers from changing their names to Targaryen later in life.

The reason why Jace taking the Targaryen name would be problematic is that this would again cast doubt on his parentage. Isn't he proud of his Velaryon father? Is he so uncertain of his birth that he has to take the name of his mother rather than that of his father? And this could then also cast doubt on the parentage of his brother(s) laying claim to Driftmark in Jace's place.

Jacaerys taking the Targaryen name upon his accession would have made perfect sense, since he was the heir to the Iron Throne on account of his mother Rhaenyra Targaryen, and he was going to accede to the Iron Throne on account of her, not on account of his father Laenor Velaryon. Yes, Laenor had Targaryen ancestry on both sides. This is what made him a candidate in the Great Council, and part of what made him an ideal match for Rhaenyra, along with regaining the friendship of Lord Corlys. But Rhaenyra Targaryen is the one who was going to accede the Iron Throne, not Laenor, and their issue was going to accede the Iron Throne on account of her, the ruler, not Laenor, the spouse.

On 7/28/2018 at 12:02 PM, Lord Varys said:

A Targaryen son could also changed his name to Velaryon - or, better still, claim Driftmark as a Targaryen. Why not?

Because it makes no sense for Laenor to change his name to Targaryen in a scenario where he isn't going to sit the Iron Throne himself, and where his child with Rhaenyra is going to inherit the Iron Throne from her, not from him. No need for all their children to be born Targaryens, or for them to inherit the seat of House Velaryon as Targaryens.

On 7/28/2018 at 12:02 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Velaryons and Baratheons would always have been the presumptive heirs of the Targaryens - while Aegon didn't have Aenys and Maegor, Aethan Velaryon and Orys Baratheon would have been his presumptive heirs, just as Daemon Velaryon and Robar Baratheon after Maegor's death if we assume there hadn't been any other Targaryen heirs left.

Robert and Stannis and Renly later also keep the Baratheon name. While we can argue that it makes sense for Robert to do that because of his issues with his royal cousins, Stannis and Renly don't share Robert's sentiment.

Not sure what pertinence these comments have to the comment you are responding to. The Targaryen name and the Iron Throne were well established by the time King Jaehaerys I put the issue of his heir up to the Great Council in 101 AC, and died in 103 AC. By that time, it was no longer a question of whether the Targaryens would rule Westeros, but which Targaryen would rule Westeros.

I don't see why you would think that it would make sense for Stannis or Renly to use a name other than Baratheon. They were Baratheons by birth, and were heirs to their Baratheon brother who captured the Iron Throne from the Targaryens. Stannis is vehement about being Robert's rightful heir, while Renly makes no pretense of having a superior right, pointing to his army as his claim, and Robert's warhammer was his.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

We don't have any evidence that House Targaryen would have ever accepted or allowed anyone to sit their Iron Throne with a name other than Targaryen. Laenor wasn't a candidate because of his Velaryon ancestry, but because of his Targaryen ancestry. If he had ascended the Iron Throne it would have been because of his Targaryen ancestry, not because of his Velaryon ancestry. We have no indication that Laenor didn't prefer the name Targaryen. But his preference is irrelevant, as the preference of a boy that was 7 at the time of the Great Council in 101 AC and 8-9 at the time of the death of King Jaehaerys I wouldn't have factored into the name he ascended with had he been chosen.

Only if we go with the Great Council scenario - but Laenor Velaryon would have been heir of his mother Rhaenys, too, if she had ruled as queen, or perhaps even if his grandfather Aemon had ruled as king. Nobody would have convened a Great Council in such a scenario, nor do I see a reason why the people involved should be so in love with the name Targaryen if they decided to name Rhaenys' children Velaryon rather than Targaryen.

I mean, why didn't Rhaenys and Corlys name their children Targaryen, if they cared so much about that? Even in our scenario that would make sense to make it clear that Laena and Laenor had as much claim to the throne as Baelon's Targaryen brood.

If Corlys Velaryon had ended up ruling in the name a boy king Laenor (either as Lord Regent or Protector of the Realm) I see no reason why he should have felt the need to change the name of his only son to satisfy some Targaryens. 

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Jacaerys taking the Targaryen name upon his accession would have made perfect sense, since he was the heir to the Iron Throne on account of his mother Rhaenyra Targaryen, and he was going to accede to the Iron Throne on account of her, not on account of his father Laenor Velaryon. Yes, Laenor had Targaryen ancestry on both sides. This is what made him a candidate in the Great Council, and part of what made him an ideal match for Rhaenyra, along with regaining the friendship of Lord Corlys. But Rhaenyra Targaryen is the one who was going to accede the Iron Throne, not Laenor, and their issue was going to accede the Iron Throne on account of her, the ruler, not Laenor, the spouse.

But it is custom in this world that children take the name of the father and not the mother. And since it was already clear - to King Viserys I and the Realm - that Rhaenyra's son Jacaerys would follow Rhaenyra just as Rhaenyra would follow Viserys the king could just as well have named his grandsons Targaryen, just as he gave them dragon eggs.

And even Rhaenyra's personal arms reflect the importance of her consort's house. And they also reflect that Queen Aemma is seen as an Arryn, not a Targaryen, never mind the fact that her mother was a Targaryen.

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Because it makes no sense for Laenor to change his name to Targaryen in a scenario where he isn't going to sit the Iron Throne himself, and where his child with Rhaenyra is going to inherit the Iron Throne from her, not from him. No need for all their children to be born Targaryens, or for them to inherit the seat of House Velaryon as Targaryens.

It would have made sense for him to change his name if the goal had been for him to have Targaryen children. They are only Velaryons because he is a Velaryon. If he had been a Targaryen, they would have been Targaryens - just as Daemon's daughters and sons are born Targaryens.

Apparently you do not name your children after the mother, not even if she is the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne.

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Not sure what pertinence these comments have to the comment you are responding to. The Targaryen name and the Iron Throne were well established by the time King Jaehaerys I put the issue of his heir up to the Great Council in 101 AC, and died in 103 AC. By that time, it was no longer a question of whether the Targaryens would rule Westeros, but which Targaryen would rule Westeros.

Or which Velaryon. And while the Targaryens were established as a dynasty by then, they didn't have a tradition going back centuries or millennia. They play not even remotely in the same league as the ancient royal and noble bloodlines of Westeros. The Conqueror was only Jaehaerys' grandfather. Westeros grew accustomed to the Targaryen rule and name, and it could also grew accustomed to the Velaryon. During Corlys' days it should have been nearly as prominent as the Targaryen name, anyway. I mean, people wouldn't have gone 'King Laenor Vhat?' when the boy had taken the throne.

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I don't see why you would think that it would make sense for Stannis or Renly to use a name other than Baratheon. They were Baratheons by birth, and were heirs to their Baratheon brother who captured the Iron Throne from the Targaryens. Stannis is vehement about being Robert's rightful heir, while Renly makes no pretense of having a superior right, pointing to his army as his claim, and Robert's warhammer was his.

Robert is king because of his Targaryen grandmother, not because of some warhammer. And especially Stannis must be aware of this. If it was no issue for the Baratheons to stick to their name once they finally rid the Realm of their cousins, why should we assume the Velaryons pretenders of the early days should not insist on keeping their name?

[Jaak]

On 7/24/2018 at 11:21 AM, LionoftheWest said:

Well, I'm not talking about the generation of the Dance of the Dragons but rather that there would have been alot of potential dragon riders around and alot of dragons for the following generations. The more people there are around the more likely there will be bad blood somewhere and not all kings are so wise that they can avoid setting up a war *cough* Viserys *cough* and like Maekar said "To many dragons are as dangerous as to few".

So essentially I think that unless there was a convient pruning of the House of the Dragon, there is more likely than not there would haev been a nasty situation in a generation or so.

As of the war against Garin, Old Valyria deployed 300 dragons at a single battle. Not counting fighting dragons deployed elsewhere at the time, and noncombatant dragonriders (women, children, elders and cripples).

Essos was slightly bigger that Westeros, but in Essos Old Valyria was making deserts the way Targaryens in Westeros did not.

The 300 fighting dragons of Old Valyria were split between 40 families. That makes an average of 7...8 deployed - more that that total. Probably 12...15 average. Targaryens were one of the minor families - 600 years later just 5 total, of whom little Balerion was not apparently rideable. Meaning the major families of the 40 must have been yet bigger - over 20 dragons.

Valyria did have civil wars. Did not make dragons extinct, like Dance of Dragons did.

Who knew how many dragons Targaryens of Westeros could sustain?

[Lion of the West]

14 hours ago, Jaak said:

As of the war against Garin, Old Valyria deployed 300 dragons at a single battle. Not counting fighting dragons deployed elsewhere at the time, and noncombatant dragonriders (women, children, elders and cripples).

Essos was slightly bigger that Westeros, but in Essos Old Valyria was making deserts the way Targaryens in Westeros did not.

The 300 fighting dragons of Old Valyria were split between 40 families. That makes an average of 7...8 deployed - more that that total. Probably 12...15 average. Targaryens were one of the minor families - 600 years later just 5 total, of whom little Balerion was not apparently rideable. Meaning the major families of the 40 must have been yet bigger - over 20 dragons.

Valyria did have civil wars. Did not make dragons extinct, like Dance of Dragons did.

Who knew how many dragons Targaryens of Westeros could sustain?

Very much true that we don't know how many dragons the Targaryens could hope to sustain but I don't think that mundane resources were the problem but rather that with a base in King's Landing the dragons were removed from their rightful element of fire, as could be found in abundance in the volcanic Valyria. So unless the Targaryens could find some kind of volcanic areas to house their dragons, the dragons would always be a declining population. And setting up hatcheries in Valyria was apparently not project to be done due to the demons or curse or whatever.

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

On 1/14/2018 at 4:39 PM, Lord Varys said:

It is difficult to say. The fact that they all were raised bearing the Velaryon name makes it very likely that this would have been the name they would have kept. It wasn't exactly a humble or problematic name. And we have to keep in mind that one of them was supposed to inherit Driftmark from Corlys. For that, the Velaryon name was not unimportant...

And they were all dragonriders, anyway. They did not need the Targaryen name. Laenor Velaryon was also considered for the Iron Throne as a Velaryon, not a Targaryen, so this wasn't a problem.

Whether they would have wanted to keep the Velaryon name is another matter. As kings they could have decided themselves what name they would use.

One should also keep in mind that Viserys I had just been the fifth king on the Iron Throne. House Targaryen wasn't exactly established as this century-old royal dynasty of the Seven Kingdoms. The royal name could presumably still change rather easily.

Let us use the pope for example.  The cardinal has his birth name.  He takes on a different name upon his coronation.  This can happen in the case of a Velaryon taking the throne.  He can rename himself King Laenor of House Targaryen. 

[Ran]

On 7/30/2018 at 11:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

 

Robert is king because of his Targaryen grandmother, not because of some warhammer.

Both in the books and out of them (by GRRM remarking on this issue), the opposite is held to be true, that the thin lineal claim was a pretty thin pretext. As recognized by the fact that none of the parties involved in the War of the Five Kings ever made an effort to establish connections to the Targaryens, whether in symbolism or word or deed. No one claiming the Iron Throne after Robert's death felt they had to do more than connect themselves to Robert.

And given Robert's hatred of the Targaryens, and the fact that Aerys II was such a divisive figure, and the fact that Rhaegar did something beyond the pale that helped launch a war, the value of the Targaryen name was at an all-time low. No surprises whatsoever that no one thought it worth the trouble or even palatable to go under the name Targaryen.

This was not the case immediately following Jaehaerys I's death. The value of the Targaryen name had reached a high last seen during Aegon the Conqueror's reign. 

Perhaps if Robert's mother had been a Targaryen elder daughter of a beloved Prince of Dragonstone and a dragonrider, and Robert himself was a dragonrider, and maybe he had the silver-gold hair and purple eyes of the Valyrians, the taking of the Targaryen name would have been more obvious a course to take. Alas, he was merely a black-haired, blue-eyed, dragongless grandson of an okay king's youngest dragonless daughter who hated the Targaryens with the light of a thousand suns.

I think Daemon Blackfyre is a much less obvious case for taking up the Targaryen name than Laenor is. Blackfyre's pride and the fact that he built his legitimacy on his possession of that sword could well indeed have led him to eschew the Targaryen name in preference of his own "brand", to speak in modern terms, even had he won the Iron Throne and disposed of Daeron the Good and his many heirs. 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Both in the books and out of them (by GRRM remarking on this issue), the opposite is held to be true, that the thin lineal claim was a pretty thin pretext. As recognized by the fact that none of the parties involved in the War of the Five Kings ever made an effort to establish connections to the Targaryens, whether in symbolism or word or deed. No one claiming the Iron Throne after Robert's death felt they had to do more than connect themselves to Robert.

But it is a fact that Rhaegar's death on the Trident at Robert's hands didn't make Robert king, no? And we do know from the ADwD Baratheon appendix (and supported by Rhaegar, who sees his cousin Robert as a pretender when he rides against, not to mention that Aerys earlier supposedly realized Robert was as great a danger as Daemon Blackfyre) that Robert's claim comes from his grandmother. And Robert did make his claim known before Rhaegar's death.

If Rhaegar had been killed by somebody else, Robert would have still become king - and Ned makes it clear that Robert became king because of his claim, not because of some hammer.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

And given Robert's hatred of the Targaryens, and the fact that Aerys II was such a divisive figure, and the fact that Rhaegar did something beyond the pale that helped launch a war, the value of the Targaryen name was at an all-time low. No surprises whatsoever that no one thought it worth the trouble or even palatable to go under the name Targaryen.

It was still the royal name, though. If people felt Robert didn't need it, then Velaryon dragonriders wouldn't have needed it, either. That doesn't mean they could not have called themselves Targaryen, it just means we have no reason to assume they would have to.

And Jaehaerys I didn't call himself Velaryon, say, to distance himself from Maegor the Cruel and from his weak father - men who would have made the name Targaryen as popular as Aerys II did.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

This was not the case immediately following Jaehaerys I's death. The value of the Targaryen name had reached a high last seen during Aegon the Conqueror's reign. 

But men like Laenor or Rhaenyra's sons simply didn't need the prestige of a name when they had dragons. Unlike men like Daemon Blackfyre and, yes, also Robert Baratheon.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Perhaps if Robert's mother had been a Targaryen elder daughter of a beloved Prince of Dragonstone and a dragonrider, and Robert himself was a dragonrider, and maybe he had the silver-gold hair and purple eyes of the Valyrians, the taking of the Targaryen name would have been more obvious a course to take. Alas, he was merely a black-haired, blue-eyed, dragongless grandson of an okay king's youngest dragonless daughter who hated the Targaryens with the light of a thousand suns.

Hating somebody doesn't change who you are. Robert didn't look like a Targaryen, yes, but he is still as much a Targaryen as Harrold Hardyng is an Arryn, and everybody knows that.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I think Daemon Blackfyre is a much less obvious case for taking up the Targaryen name than Laenor is. Blackfyre's pride and the fact that he built his legitimacy on his possession of that sword could well indeed have led him to eschew the Targaryen name in preference of his own "brand", to speak in modern terms, even had he won the Iron Throne and disposed of Daeron the Good and his many heirs. 

But he was just two years a 'Blackfyre' by the time he was legitimized, no? What brand had been established by a boy of 12-14 that could ever hope to be stronger than the Targaryen name. And Blackfyre may be the sword of kings, but the name 'Blackfyre' is a bastard's name, whereas the Targaryen name was kept by the line of the Falseborn king (from the Blackfyre POV).

Why on earth would be the Blackfyres was stupid as to not call themselves Targaryen?

And by the way - what's your view on why Bloodraven kept his Rivers name when he was legitimized? And do you think Bittersteel and his children also kept the bastard name? Why didn't they call themselves 'Targaryen' which was their right?

[Bael's Bastard]

On 7/30/2018 at 5:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

Only if we go with the Great Council scenario - but Laenor Velaryon would have been heir of his mother Rhaenys, too, if she had ruled as queen, or perhaps even if his grandfather Aemon had ruled as king. Nobody would have convened a Great Council in such a scenario, nor do I see a reason why the people involved should be so in love with the name Targaryen if they decided to name Rhaenys' children Velaryon rather than Targaryen.

I mean, why didn't Rhaenys and Corlys name their children Targaryen, if they cared so much about that? Even in our scenario that would make sense to make it clear that Laena and Laenor had as much claim to the throne as Baelon's Targaryen brood.

If Corlys Velaryon had ended up ruling in the name a boy king Laenor (either as Lord Regent or Protector of the Realm) I see no reason why he should have felt the need to change the name of his only son to satisfy some Targaryens. 

In any scenario you come up with, Laenor was or would have been a candidate for the Iron Throne only on account of his Targaryen mother and ancestry, because it was the Iron Throne of House Targaryen. Thus, I think it most plausible that Laenor would have taken the Targaryen name upon accession in any scenario where he acceded to the Iron Throne, whether:

- Jaehaerys I had chosen Rhaenys as his heir after the death of her father Aemon in 92 AC, and Laenor eventually succeeded her
- the Great Council had chosen Rhaenys as Jaehaerys's heir in 101 AC and Laenor eventually succeeded her
- the Great Council had chosen Laenor as Jaehaerys's heir in 101 AC and he had acceded to the Iron Throne in 103 AC

There is no scenario in which I think it plausible that Laenor would have acceded to the Iron Throne as a Velaryon rather than as a Targaryen. There was no reason, and perhaps no right, for Rhaenys and Corlys to name their children Targaryen. Only in a scenario where she or her son had been chosen to accede to the Iron Throne would there be a reason and a right, and perhaps even an obligation, for him to accede to the Iron Throne as a Targaryen.

On 7/30/2018 at 5:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

But it is custom in this world that children take the name of the father and not the mother. And since it was already clear - to King Viserys I and the Realm - that Rhaenyra's son Jacaerys would follow Rhaenyra just as Rhaenyra would follow Viserys the king could just as well have named his grandsons Targaryen, just as he gave them dragon eggs.

And even Rhaenyra's personal arms reflect the importance of her consort's house. And they also reflect that Queen Aemma is seen as an Arryn, not a Targaryen, never mind the fact that her mother was a Targaryen.

In this world kings and lords do not make a habit of passing their ancestral thrones or seats to other houses. I think it is safe to assume that neither Viserys I nor Corlys Velaryon had any intention to pass their throne/seat to someone carrying a name other than their own when Viserys named his daughter the heir to the Iron Throne and wed her to a Velaryon, and when Corlys wed his only son to the Targaryen heir to the Iron Throne.

There was never a reason for all of Rhaenyra's children to be named Targaryens. They were Velaryons by birth, and ideally, only one of them was going to accede to the Iron Throne, and there was no need to cross that bridge before they got to it. When it came time for one of them to accede to the Iron Throne, they could take the proper name to sit it, while the other could inherit Driftmark as a Velaryon.

On 7/30/2018 at 5:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

It would have made sense for him to change his name if the goal had been for him to have Targaryen children. They are only Velaryons because he is a Velaryon. If he had been a Targaryen, they would have been Targaryens - just as Daemon's daughters and sons are born Targaryens.

Apparently you do not name your children after the mother, not even if she is the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne.

Whose goal was it for him to have Targaryen children? You are making some very bizarre and convoluted arguments. By wedding the Targaryen heir to the Iron Throne, his son(s) would be heir(s) to the Targaryen Iron Throne. On account of him, they would be heirs to the Velaryon seat. There was no need for them to be be born Targaryens, or to be named Targaryens upon birth. When the time came for one of them to accede to their mother's throne, they could take the Targaryen name associated with the throne, and the others could keep the name of their father. It is the simplest solution, and neither Viserys nor Corlys need compromise their respective throne/seat.

On 7/30/2018 at 5:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

Or which Velaryon. And while the Targaryens were established as a dynasty by then, they didn't have a tradition going back centuries or millennia. They play not even remotely in the same league as the ancient royal and noble bloodlines of Westeros. The Conqueror was only Jaehaerys' grandfather. Westeros grew accustomed to the Targaryen rule and name, and it could also grew accustomed to the Velaryon. During Corlys' days it should have been nearly as prominent as the Targaryen name, anyway. I mean, people wouldn't have gone 'King Laenor Vhat?' when the boy had taken the throne.

Not really. The relative youth of the monarchy is a non-argument. The millennia old dynasties with their ancient royal and noble bloodlines all bent their knees to the Targaryens, or died refusing to. The Iron Throne was created by the Targaryens, and only Targaryens had ever sat it. The candidates with non-Targaryen names were candidates on account of their Targaryen ancestry. All the wealth and fame in the world does not put the Velaryon name on the same level as the Targaryen name, and there is no evidence either the rest of House Targaryen nor the great houses of Westeros would have supported putting someone on the throne without the having that name.

On 7/30/2018 at 5:57 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robert is king because of his Targaryen grandmother, not because of some warhammer. And especially Stannis must be aware of this. If it was no issue for the Baratheons to stick to their name once they finally rid the Realm of their cousins, why should we assume the Velaryons pretenders of the early days should not insist on keeping their name?

Under different circumstances, where House Baratheon had remained on good terms with House Targaryen, and tragedy had befallen the remnants of House Targaryen to the point of needing to determine the next king, some Baratheon or another very well might have acceded to the Iron Throne using the Targaryen name.

But that is not what happened. Robert's Rebellion was a revolt against House Targaryen, not a civil war between different branches. Robert's Targaryen ancestry might have cited in choosing between the rebel leaders, or trying to justify the usurpation after the fact, but there is no comparison between that situation and the situation we are discussing.

The Velaryons we are discussing were not pretenders. There were not rebels or would be usurpers, but candidates to be chosen to inherit the throne from King Jaehaerys, and later, heirs of Viserys and Rhaenyra. Robert and his brothers had no reason at all to want the Targaryen name, or to be convinced to take it. The son of Corlys and sons of Laenor, had they been chosen to acceded to the Iron Throne, would have had reason to take the Targaryen name upon accession.

[Bael's Bastard]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It was still the royal name, though. If people felt Robert didn't need it, then Velaryon dragonriders wouldn't have needed it, either. That doesn't mean they could not have called themselves Targaryen, it just means we have no reason to assume they would have to.

The two situations are not remotely similar, so not sure why you insist on comparing them. The Velaryons were either heirs or candidates to be named heirs to Viserys I and Jaehaerys I. Robert wasn't up for consideration to succeed Aerys, and fought to remove the Targaryens from their Iron Throne.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And Jaehaerys I didn't call himself Velaryon, say, to distance himself from Maegor the Cruel and from his weak father - men who would have made the name Targaryen as popular as Aerys II did.

Tell me you're not seriously making this argument.

[Jaak]

22 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Very much true that we don't know how many dragons the Targaryens could hope to sustain but I don't think that mundane resources were the problem but rather that with a base in King's Landing the dragons were removed from their rightful element of fire, as could be found in abundance in the volcanic Valyria. So unless the Targaryens could find some kind of volcanic areas to house their dragons, the dragons would always be a declining population. And setting up hatcheries in Valyria was apparently not project to be done due to the demons or curse or whatever.

Obviously they were not. Targaryens had a grand total of 2 rideable dragons in 10 (Quicksilver was not yet), and no Valyria (but did have Dragonstone). By 129, there were 10 dragons who were ridden, 3 who had been, and 1 of the wild dragons would prove tameable as well. The increase from 2 to 14... had Targaryens not been such damn fools as to launch Dance of Dragons, how many dragons could they have gone on to breed?

Had Blacks won, it could easily have meant 5 dragonriding families. Targaryen, Velaryon, Addam was "acknowledged" as a Velaryon, but the other three dragon"seeds" were surnameless commoners and promised lordships. King Hugh Hammer got round to wearing his crown, but at least Princess and Queen does not specify if he ever got round to picking surname/dynastic name.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

In any scenario you come up with, Laenor was or would have been a candidate for the Iron Throne only on account of his Targaryen mother and ancestry, because it was the Iron Throne of House Targaryen.

Claims have nothing to do with names. Dynasties do change their names when they continue through the female line yet the claim is still in the blood.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Thus, I think it most plausible that Laenor would have taken the Targaryen name upon accession in any scenario where he acceded to the Iron Throne, whether:

- Jaehaerys I had chosen Rhaenys as his heir after the death of her father Aemon in 92 AC, and Laenor eventually succeeded her
- the Great Council had chosen Rhaenys as Jaehaerys's heir in 101 AC and Laenor eventually succeeded her
- the Great Council had chosen Laenor as Jaehaerys's heir in 101 AC and he had acceded to the Iron Throne in 103 AC

There is no scenario in which I think it plausible that Laenor would have acceded to the Iron Throne as a Velaryon rather than as a Targaryen. There was no reason, and perhaps no right, for Rhaenys and Corlys to name their children Targaryen. Only in a scenario where she or her son had been chosen to accede to the Iron Throne would there be a reason and a right, and perhaps even an obligation, for him to accede to the Iron Throne as a Targaryen.

Sorry, but you simply have no basis in the text for any of that speculation. You can still believe Laenor or Rhaenyra's sons would have discarded the names of their fathers upon their accession, but there is no evidence actually indicating that they wanted to do stuff like that.

On the contrary, there is evidence that the sons of mothers can and do carry the names of those mothers - or why do you think the Waynwood boys are Waynwoods, or Arys Oakheart and his siblings are Oakhearts?

I expected Rhaenyra's sons by her first husband to bear the name Targaryen, after her, to mark them as heirs to the Iron Throne. But that didn't happen, and we have to acknowledge that.

The idea that people change their names when they become kings is not exactly well-founded in this world, nor is the idea well-founded that Laenor Velaryon or even Rhaenyra and her sons felt the need to change any names.

In fact, Queen Rhaenyra declares her son Joffrey Velaryon Prince of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne after she takes KL in 130 AC. She doesn't name the boy Targaryen, never mind that she still has a younger son bearing the name Targaryen at her side.

Are we supposed to imagine that Rhaenyra and Viserys I didn't realize that Rhaenyra's having three Velaryon and two Targaryen sons might confuse things?

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

In this world kings and lords do not make a habit of passing their ancestral thrones or seats to other houses. I think it is safe to assume that neither Viserys I nor Corlys Velaryon had any intention to pass their throne/seat to someone carrying a name other than their own when Viserys named his daughter the heir to the Iron Throne and wed her to a Velaryon, and when Corlys wed his only son to the Targaryen heir to the Iron Throne.

No, that's not safe to say. If Viserys I had wanted a Targaryen to follow his daughter he should have married her to a Targaryen, not a Velaryon. And Corlys Velaryon's opinion on the names of the sons of the Princess of Dragonstone is irrelevant. If Viserys I had decided to name the boys Targaryen, they would have been named Targaryen, and Driftmark would have passed to a Targaryen rather than a Velaryon.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

There was never a reason for all of Rhaenyra's children to be named Targaryens. They were Velaryons by birth, and ideally, only one of them was going to accede to the Iron Throne, and there was no need to cross that bridge before they got to it. When it came time for one of them to accede to the Iron Throne, they could take the proper name to sit it, while the other could inherit Driftmark as a Velaryon.

See above - when Rhaenyra was down to only one Velaryon son he remained a Velaryon son and became Prince of Dragonstone. Joffrey Velaryon was never the heir to Driftmark because Rhaenyra herself legitimized Addam and Alyn of Hull and acknowledged Addam as heir to Driftmark, not her own son Joffrey. While Jace was still alive Joff was getting nothing.

And, by the way, this is a strong indication that legitimized bastards do not come behind their trueborn siblings - meaning that a legitimized Jon Stark would come before Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Whose goal was it for him to have Targaryen children? You are making some very bizarre and convoluted arguments. By wedding the Targaryen heir to the Iron Throne, his son(s) would be heir(s) to the Targaryen Iron Throne. On account of him, they would be heirs to the Velaryon seat. There was no need for them to be be born Targaryens, or to be named Targaryens upon birth. When the time came for one of them to accede to their mother's throne, they could take the Targaryen name associated with the throne, and the others could keep the name of their father. It is the simplest solution, and neither Viserys nor Corlys need compromise their respective throne/seat.

Laenor was heir to his father regardless what name he had. And the same goes for Laenor's sons. Never mind how they are named.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Not really. The relative youth of the monarchy is a non-argument. The millennia old dynasties with their ancient royal and noble bloodlines all bent their knees to the Targaryens, or died refusing to. The Iron Throne was created by the Targaryens, and only Targaryens had ever sat it. The candidates with non-Targaryen names were candidates on account of their Targaryen ancestry. All the wealth and fame in the world does not put the Velaryon name on the same level as the Targaryen name, and there is no evidence either the rest of House Targaryen nor the great houses of Westeros would have supported putting someone on the throne without the having that name.

But there is evidence that Rhaenyra's Velaryon sons were her heirs, and that Laenor Velaryon was a serious contender for the Iron Throne? Where on earth is your evidence that the people of Westeros are so obsessed with the Targaryen name? It is just a name. The name of a dynasty which has only produced four kings by the time a Velaryon is seriously considered for the throne. This royal dynasty doesn't have any established tradition at this point. Only three generations of Targaryen kings sat on the throne by the time Jaehaerys I died.

And those people still have real power. They don't have to care about names and sigils - they do have the actual dragons.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Under different circumstances, where House Baratheon had remained on good terms with House Targaryen, and tragedy had befallen the remnants of House Targaryen to the point of needing to determine the next king, some Baratheon or another very well might have acceded to the Iron Throne using the Targaryen name.

But there is no indication that Robert did not take the name Targaryen because of his hatred. The option doesn't even come up. And why on earth should Robert or any Baratheon betray his own Baratheon ancestors by changing names?

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

But that is not what happened. Robert's Rebellion was a revolt against House Targaryen, not a civil war between different branches. Robert's Targaryen ancestry might have cited in choosing between the rebel leaders, or trying to justify the usurpation after the fact, but there is no comparison between that situation and the situation we are discussing.

That is not exactly true. Just as the revolt against Maegor, Robert's Rebellion was a war to topple a tyrannical king, but it is also simply a fact that Robert Baratheon is the great-grandson of a Targaryen king and a part of House Targaryen through the female line. If it had been a war against 'House Targaryen' as such, Robert should have asked Gregor crash his head against the Wall, too - and those of his brothers, too.

And it is not that rightful heirs and better claims were only ignored after the bloodbath of the Sack - Aerea and Rhaella were apparently ignored after Maegor's death just as much as Viserys, Daenerys, and Rhaella were ignored in favor of Robert Baratheon after the Rebellion.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The Velaryons we are discussing were not pretenders. There were not rebels or would be usurpers, but candidates to be chosen to inherit the throne from King Jaehaerys, and later, heirs of Viserys and Rhaenyra. Robert and his brothers had no reason at all to want the Targaryen name, or to be convinced to take it. The son of Corlys and sons of Laenor, had they been chosen to acceded to the Iron Throne, would have had reason to take the Targaryen name upon accession.

And what is the difference relating to the name between being a pretender or usurper and a claimant whose claim is discussed peacefully? Unless I'm mistaken rebels and pretenders could just as well change their names as men who peacefully take a throne?

And men who have to 'prove' that they have claims in war and battle should have even more incentive to change their names before they have won the war so people might be swayed by the fact that they are as much 'true Targaryens' than the others.

This is the reason why it is actually telling that neither Jacaerys nor Joffrey Velaryon officially change their names during the Dance - that can be seen as a sign that they have no intention to rule as Targaryens.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The two situations are not remotely similar, so not sure why you insist on comparing them. The Velaryons were either heirs or candidates to be named heirs to Viserys I and Jaehaerys I. Robert wasn't up for consideration to succeed Aerys, and fought to remove the Targaryens from their Iron Throne.

But there is no indication that a Lord Robert - succeeding to the throne after his Targaryen cousins had been killed by a lightning strike - would have changed his name to Targaryen.

What people are obsessed with is the blood of the dragon, not names. And the Velaryons, by and far, are the blood of the dragon to this day. They have intermarried so often with their Targaryen cousins that they still retain the Valyrian looks even without practicing incest.

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Tell me you're not seriously making this argument.

Sure., if your point is that Robert's main reason for keeping his own name is that the Targaryen name was tarnished and he hated the Targaryens then I most certainly make this parallel. Because we actually can make a case that Jaehaerys, Alysanne, and Alyssa hated Maegor much more than Robert hated Rhaegar or Aerys. 

On his mother's side Jaehaerys Targaryen was a Velaryon - and his stepfather was a Baratheon. And if the Targaryen name was tarnished by the reign of Maegor the Cruel why keep the name? Or let's say Jaehaerys Targaryen doesn't exist, and the only heir left is a Velaryon or Baratheon. Why would they take the Targaryen name after Maegor, even if they are descended from Targaryens through the male or female line?

[Lion of the West]

21 hours ago, Jaak said:

Obviously they were not. Targaryens had a grand total of 2 rideable dragons in 10 (Quicksilver was not yet), and no Valyria (but did have Dragonstone). By 129, there were 10 dragons who were ridden, 3 who had been, and 1 of the wild dragons would prove tameable as well. The increase from 2 to 14... had Targaryens not been such damn fools as to launch Dance of Dragons, how many dragons could they have gone on to breed?

Had Blacks won, it could easily have meant 5 dragonriding families. Targaryen, Velaryon, Addam was "acknowledged" as a Velaryon, but the other three dragon"seeds" were surnameless commoners and promised lordships. King Hugh Hammer got round to wearing his crown, but at least Princess and Queen does not specify if he ever got round to picking surname/dynastic name.

I did not mean that the population would by default die off in a few decades but even given time they wouldn't have been able to create a new Valyria either. 

Considering how few and feeble dragons they managed to breed after the Dance I dare say that, fairly few. The fact that the dragons could not replenish their population after the Dance but die off indicates that the dragons were never a stabile and healthy population. Hence my comment that being cut off from Valyria made them into a dwindling population, incapable of replenish its numbers after significant losses.

The Blacks did win the war and we got exactly zero dragonriding families a few decades after it. That's how "easily" it could have been 5.

[The Grey Wolf]

@LionoftheWest

If the dragons were poisoned by Grand Maester Munkun and his cronies that would explain why.

Since there were once dragons everywhere it can't just be because Westeros lacked Valyrian geography.

That being said if the Targs had ever expanded to the size of the Lannisters or Tyrells a culling via civil war would definitely have taken place.

[Jaak]

On 8/1/2018 at 1:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

But it is a fact that Rhaegar's death on the Trident at Robert's hands didn't make Robert king, no? And we do know from the ADwD Baratheon appendix (and supported by Rhaegar, who sees his cousin Robert as a pretender when he rides against, not to mention that Aerys earlier supposedly realized Robert was as great a danger as Daemon Blackfyre) that Robert's claim comes from his grandmother. And Robert did make his claim known before Rhaegar's death.

If Rhaegar had been killed by somebody else, Robert would have still become king - and Ned makes it clear that Robert became king because of his claim, not because of some hammer.

We are NOT told that Robert made his claim before Rhaegaer´s death.

The last word on it is still the SSM that Robert made a claim for throne "around" the time of Trident.

Expressly leaving open the option that Robert made the claim only shortly after Rhaegaer´s death.

 

But that Rhaegaer saw Robert as the usurper, and not Jon or Eddard, suggests that Rhaegaer correctly guessed the rebels´ plans, even if rebels may have been unwilling to announce them as yet.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

We are NOT told that Robert made his claim before Rhaegaer´s death.

The last word on it is still the SSM that Robert made a claim for throne "around" the time of Trident.

Expressly leaving open the option that Robert made the claim only shortly after Rhaegaer´s death.

Even if this is the case, it is still pretty clear that Robert's claim has nothing to do with his warhammer and everything with his blood claim. If Robert had not, in fact, killed Rhaegar (and action which in and of itself won him nothing because Rhaegar wasn't the king nor the only man in his army) and the rebels had won Robert would have still been the king of the rebels if they had refused to proclaim Viserys III the new king - because Robert was the only rebel leader with a sufficient (or rather: confirmed) amount of royal blood in his veins.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

But that Rhaegaer saw Robert as the usurper, and not Jon or Eddard, suggests that Rhaegaer correctly guessed the rebels´ plans, even if rebels may have been unwilling to announce them as yet.

It was clear even by the time of the Battle of the Bells that Robert Baratheon was the danger and the figurehead of the rebels. Else Jon Connington would have never believed Jon and Ned had walked back home with their tails between their legs and meekly accepted a pardon if he had just killed Robert at Stoney Sept. This belief in and of itself that Robert's Rebellion was indeed Robert's Rebellion - Ned and Jon and Hoster provided Robert with troops, but he, Robert, drove the entire enterprise.

I'm not sure if Connington is right there, of course, but his opinion puts things into perspective. And after all - without a viable rival claimant to challenge Rhaegar and Aerys II would there have been enough of a cause to unite the rebels?

Would Maegor the Cruel have fallen if he had killed all his brother's sons - or all of Aenys' descendants? Would mere hatred of Maegor have been enough to unite the Seven Kingdoms against him? We don't know, but it seems to pretty obvious that both Jaehaerys and Robert helped the rebel movements they served as leaders/figureheads a great deal. Without them to unite them they might not have had enough in common to actually topple the kings they were challenging.

[Lion of the West]

On 8/2/2018 at 9:29 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

@LionoftheWest

If the dragons were poisoned by Grand Maester Munkun and his cronies that would explain why.

Since there were once dragons everywhere it can't just be because Westeros lacked Valyrian geography.

That being said if the Targs had ever expanded to the size of the Lannisters or Tyrells a culling via civil war would definitely have taken place.

Sorry for a late reply.

If there would indeed be a grand conspiracy then it would change the ball game but I'm personally a bit hesitant to put blame on secret conspiracies. Not saying it couldn't happen, but that I'm withholding my committment to that idea until I get more solid confirmation.

In regards to dragons that's true, but then again we don't know how the world looked and most importantly, dragons can fly and move great distances. It wouldn't suprise me if dragons were across the world but came together, perhaps to mate and/or other purposes in a region like Valyria or further down south, or I don't know. I will happily admit that this is speculation though.

True that a culling is likely to have happened..