Prince Yourwetdream Aeryn Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 Could Viserys II make Dragonknight his heir after releasing him from Kinsguard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kandrax Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 I think he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 That seems to be overly problematic. If King Viserys II had intended to prevent Aegon from succeeding he would more likely have named Prince Daeron his heir, passing over the Aegon the Failure, rather than doing something as complicated as freeing a younger son from the KG and naming him heir instead of his older brother. Prince Daeron would be king, anyway, so all Viserys II needed to do was to make Aegon go away. Which could have been done in number of ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 Sure, if he wanted to all but guarantee a Targaryen civil war... another one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 3 hours ago, Lord Lannister said: Sure, if he wanted to all but guarantee a Targaryen civil war... another one. Depends on how much influence Aegon son of Viserys had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said: Depends on how much influence Aegon son of Viserys had. I kind of always thought of him as the Robert Baratheon of the Targaryens. He was crown prince, young and vigorous. At that time there would be no reason to disqualify the heir as he was perfectly qualified and dazzled the court. It wasn't until his older years his excesses boiled over. He had influence if he was disowned and would cause trouble over it, if to salve his pride if nothing else. Though irony points if his legitimate children end up causing rebellions instead of his illegitimate children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One-eyed Misbehavin Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 2 hours ago, Lord Lannister said: I kind of always thought of him as the Robert Baratheon of the Targaryens. He was crown prince, young and vigorous. At that time there would be no reason to disqualify the heir as he was perfectly qualified and dazzled the court. It wasn't until his older years his excesses boiled over. He had influence if he was disowned and would cause trouble over it, if to salve his pride if nothing else. Though irony points if his legitimate children end up causing rebellions instead of his illegitimate children. That’s a good point I’ll add that also could loosely describe Aegon II the usurper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mountain That Flies Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 On 3/29/2018 at 5:46 PM, Dead headofMaelysKinslayer said: Could Viserys II make Dragonknight his heir after releasing him from Kinsguard? The amount of strict rules-followers that populate a royal court would have flipped shit over a move like this. As a Prince, the future Aegon IV was well-like and already had an heir of his own in place. There’s little precedent at that point in athe Iron Throne’s history for such a swap, and not knowing what Aegon would become very few people would have accepted that. Plus there’s the inconvenient fact that being a great knight does not neccersaily make one a great king. The Dragonknight May have been a poor administrator who would have them been dealing with a potential insurrection. On 3/29/2018 at 6:43 PM, Lord Varys said: That seems to be overly problematic. If King Viserys II had intended to prevent Aegon from succeeding he would more likely have named Prince Daeron his heir, passing over the Aegon the Failure, rather than doing something as complicated as freeing a younger son from the KG and naming him heir instead of his older brother. Prince Daeron would be king, anyway, so all Viserys II needed to do was to make Aegon go away. Which could have been done in number of ways. This seems like a far more reasonable approach. Daeron was already married by this point, so stability and succession would not have been affected like appointing the Dragonknight would have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Redwyne Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 On 30.03.2018 at 10:27 AM, One-eyed Misbehavin said: That’s a good point I’ll add that also could loosely describe Aegon II the usurper Aegon II was hardly even close to being as cruel and corrupt as Aegon IV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One-eyed Misbehavin Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 6 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said: Aegon II was hardly even close to being as cruel and corrupt as Aegon IV. No Argument from me. Neither is Robert Baratheon for that matter which is the post I responded to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.