Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hiigara129

  • Rank
  1. Hiigara129

    FIRE AND BLOOD Volume 1

    That has nothing to do with the history of the Targaryens up to Aegon V though. House Blackfyre's family line would have been well known during it's active era, not unlike the exiled Stuarts or the surviving Yorkists under Henry VII and VIII. Assuming we accept that Aegon VI is a Blackfyre, it's in the female line. That line only becomes important after Maelys the Monstrous's death in the Ninepeny Kings war. So no real conflict. If anything Volume 2 would be delayed due to Dunk and Egg. Vol. 2 could contain spoilers for future novellas. Also, we really have no clue how much of Volume 2 has been worked on yet. For all we know it could be more or less done with only a few necessary additions to be be finished. Not likely but it's possible. Do we have any proof of a Hightower-Targaryen marriage? I thought that was still speculation at this point. While that's a possibility, I doubt it. A break at the Great Spring sickness just doesn't seem to flow well. More likely we'd see Volume 2 pushed back until a few more Dunk & Egg novellas are finished or Volume 2 wouldn't focus on Aegon V's early years, before his accession to the throne. I think there's enough room to maneuver story-wise to allow Volume 2 to be published without revealing to much spoilers for future D & E novellas, especially if Fire & Blood focuses more at Court and on the reigns of the Kings rather than their entire lives. Well not necessarily. The Blackfyre thing could just as easily be a red herring. The only thing we know is the potential Aegon VI has the Targaryen appearance. Considering that such coloring isn't uncommon in Lys and some of the other Free Cities, he could just as easily be a commoner plucking from the streets.
  2. Hiigara129

    FIRE AND BLOOD Volume 1

    Just a thought, but the actual page number could be inflated here. The pre-order pages on Barnes and Noble and georgerrmartin.com call it Fire and Blood, not Fire and Blood Volume one. So maybe both volume's page numbers have been combined accidentally. Considering that GRRM accidentally combined Rogue Prince and Princess and the Queen for word count, it's not impossible to think that the early pre-order descriptions got the wrong number.
  3. I wonder if the Jace-Baela and Luke-Rhaena betrothals were some kind of quid pro quo between Rhaenyra and Corlys that allows the latter's name AND blood to remain in control of Driftmark; after all Corlys isn't stupid, he was no doubt well aware that Rhaenyra's sons weren't his biological grandsons.
  4. You could be right. Of course it was the Targaryens who conquered the Seven Kingdoms and united most of Westeros, so the name could be important in this scenario. Plus the dynasty was over a century old at Viserys I's death, so not exactly young, though in comparison to the old dynasties that's basically an infant. It's not really important but it would be nice of Fire and Blood mentions what Viserys meant to do about the incoming dynasty change.
  5. I hope the title makes sense. Let's say one of Rhaenyra Targaryen's Velaryon sons survives the Dance and becomes King. Would he rule as a Targaryen or a Velaryon? As far as I can tell this never came up in any of the sources. On the one hand they were born Velaryons and logic would dictate they would reign as Velaryons; but on the other hand it would mean the end of the Targaryens as the ruling house, something that's likely to cause concern at court and among the Lords of the Realm. Plus there is an example of the ruling House name passing through the female line in House Martell. So would anyone care to speculate?
  6. Though it's not all that strang for a monarchy to function under a salic or semi-salic succession law (see France, England at different times and Russia) you might be right over the female thing; excluding the 101 Great Council (still weird in my opinion) our only examples of a Princess being specifically passed up are the Queen who Daena the Defiant and apparently Daenora. Daena's exclusion makes perfect sense; even if the Realm had no problem with a Queen Regnant no one's going to accept an unmarried woman with an illegitimate child whose father she refuses to name. Daena's is less clear, though going by Ren's comment there a specific reason and I'm guessing it will be dealt with in a future Dunk and Egg novella or volume 2 of Fire and Blood. I will say that Daenora being a child makes the most sense. There seems to have been a concise effort to exclude a potential child monarch at the 233 Great Council, age being one of the tow major reasons Prince Magor was blocked, though I'm not sure of Vaella's age had anything to do with her exclusion. Considering the disaster of Aegon III's regency such a thing makes sense.
  7. Wow that's a complete shock to me as well! That really begs the question of just how the hell the succession worked. I mean yes most Medieval monarchies lack a codified succession law but sooner or later a set tradition developed; the Iron throne seems to be all over the place and actually pretty dependent on the Monarch naming apparently whomever he wanted as his heir. The First Great Council rejected a Queen Regnant in the form of Rhaenys but Viserys I installed his daughter Rhaenyra without (initial) widespread opposition. Then Aegon II usurped the throne and Rhaenyra lost. Later on there was a brief idea that Daena should succeed to the throne after Baelor the Blessed's death, but that was also rejected (though considering the whole bastard son thing that may not have been just due to her gender). Until now I thought that was the last time a female successor came up until Daenerys. But now we have Aelora as heiress (apparent or presumptive?), which throws out the apparent semi-salic law that functioned after the Dance of the Dragons. So does that mean that the King can name any relative he wishes as his heir(ess) or that the succession is lose enough that female can be added or removed depending on the will of the Crown?
  8. Hiigara129

    Who told the lie that Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna?

    The entire affair from start to finish is a mysterious mess. We know that Rhaegar, Ser Arthur and Ser Oswell abducted/captured/freed/whatevered Lyanna near Harenhal. We know that she was taken to the Tower of joy (which in itself is utterly bizarre) and died there. We know Rhaegar was at the ToJ for several months before meeting up with the Royalist army and dying at the Ruby ford. Everything else is a big question mark.For example, why was Lyanna traveling under such a light escort and where was she going? She was an unmarried young noble so you thin she would be traveling with her father or her brother yet neither Rickard nor Ned are mentioned as seeing the abduction first hand and we know that Brandon heard about it while traveling to Riverrun. Hell why take Lyanna to the Tower of Joy in the first place? It's entirely out of communications range and is in Dorne, the homeland of your wife and in-laws. Why not Dragonstone, Rhaegar's seat or Crackclaw point, a region of Targaryen Loyalists? Those are just two of the mysterious issues that are involved. Now as to whatever plans Rhaegar had to remove his father, in my opinion they were too little too late. The man's actions in regard's to Lyanna's abduction and it's aftermath proved that he was just as divorced from reality as his father was. He literally chose to screw around while the realm burned because of his actions. Rhaegar's obsession with prophecy led to the downfall of himself and his dynasty.
  9. Hiigara129

    Is Egg alive? Summerhall murder mystery.

    Assuming it is a murder and not what everyone believes it is: a disaster brought on by another Targaryen attempt to revive the Dragons. Either way if he survived he still completely abandoned his family and his nation out of fear. That would make him an even worse King than I thought.
  10. Hiigara129

    Jon Snow is the real Aegon.

    There shouldn't have been two Aegons at the same time. Jon was born after the sack of King's Landing and its quite likely that Lyarra knew that her son's half-siblings were dead. So it would either be a way to honor her Rhaegar/Aegon or perhaps some kind of spite thing. IDK but it's not impossible or unlikely. We don't know if Jon will have the same Targaryen name in the books though considering that the show cut the (f)Aegon storyline.
  11. I'd like to know more about Aenys and Maegor. Something I've always wondered is whether or not Maegor really usurped the throne from his nephew or did Aenys chose him as a successor. After all his aunt-stepmother Visenya took over his care in his last months, so for all we know Aenys named Maegor his heir during this time and told the Queen Dowager. Visenya never struck me as a poisoner. Stab you yes but not poison. Just my thoughts though.
  12. Hiigara129

    Is Egg alive? Summerhall murder mystery.

    OK to me the think the idea of Aegon V's survival is completely ridiculous. If he survived then he remains the King. Period. As far as we know there's no reason to think he would go into hiding and treat it as a de-facto abdication. It would also, as stated by others, cheapen the tragedy at Summherhall. Now the idea that it was a murder is quite interesting, though personally I discount the Maester's conspiracy idea. It have been Lords opposed to his reforms (which seems to be most of the Realm) or it could be closer to home, like an assassination attempt by a Targaryen Prince. Also, I haven't read the Dunk and Egg books but can't seem to find anywhere online that cites Aegon V having any kind of fire resistance. Was he able to stand hotter baths or hold his hand over flames? I think it's likely that some Targaryens have higher heat resistance than normal people but t the only one that's survived walking into fire is Dany. Until and unless something else its revealed, Dany's survival s utterly unique and should be considered a one-off, unrepeatable action, like GRRM has implied.
  13. The only out and out example would be Baelor the Blessed. He got the High Septon to dissolve his marriage to Daena since "it had been contracted before he had become a king and was never consummated." Later the small council of King Aerys I, urged the king to put Aelinor aside and marry another, hoping that Aerys's behavior was caused by dislike of her. So in theory annulments could and realistically should exist. They were common enough in the actual Medieval era (despite what one may think due to Henry VIII). However, those tended to be granted on grounds of Consanguinity, or too close of blood relation between husband and wife. Considering the Targaryen incest practices that wouldn't be viable for them. There was also non-consummation, the marriage happening when one or both parties were to young to consent to it and I'm sure other grounds that I'm not thinking of. One last thing, from Wikipedia: " Although an annulment is thus a declaration that "the marriage never existed", the Church recognizes that the relationship was a putative marriage, which gives rise to "natural obligations". In canon law, children conceived or born of either a valid or a putative marriage are considered legitimate,and illegitimate children are legitimized by a putative marriage of their parents, as by a valid marriage." This was true in the middle ages and is true today. Rarely does an annulment bastardize any children from the marriage. Of course in Westeros it seems as though the only marriages put aside were the ones that failed to produce heirs.
  14. Hiigara129

    If Aegon is false, why would Varys lie?

    I will say that the whole Varys -Kevan scene is one of the things people love to point to as proof that Aegon is real. Really it's the only semi-viable proof of the whole affair. But in my opinion the monologue/speech wasn't meant for Kevan but for another audience. In AFFC it's mentioned that many of Varys's spies have came to Qyburn after the former's departure, so it's not entirely unreasonable to think that some of his little birds have gone over as well. Perhaps the speech is meant for one of them to here and report back to Qyburn and the small Council. It would spread more chaos if Cersei knows that Varys killed her uncle and could strike at her anytime. Or perhaps the speech was a message for the little birds to spread across the capital. After all, it does have a sort of proto-populist feel to it, so maybe the idea is to spread it around the lower-classes in a bid to give Aegon a mob-style power base. It wouldn't be the first time royals or their supports have courted the lower classes and Varys would be well aware of their potential power thanks to the recent riot. Hell he could merely be screwing with Kevan to make his death even more agonizing. It's like telling your dying enemy "don't worry about your family, you'll be seeing them real soon." Or something to that effect. Now I could be completely off in but to me each seems more likely than Varys deciding on a great monologue to a dying man for no reason. He's not the kind of man to do anything on a whim or brag to a dying man.
  15. OK new member and first time commenting! Anyway, if we really use the War of the Roses as a guide then Daenerys would most likely be Edward of Westminister, the last, exiled member of the Lancastrian dynasty. That would also fit with an attempted Targaryen invasion that ultimately fails. That would leave Jon as the eventual distant, semi-legitmate claimate, who would then marry a Baratheon Princess (likely Shireen) and consolidate the competing claims. But I agree that while GRRM's inspiration for ASOIAF was the Wars of the Roses, it's highly unlikely that we can use the later to predict how the former will end.