Jump to content

FictionIsntReal

Members
  • Content count

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About FictionIsntReal

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. FictionIsntReal

    Are the Sparrows a religious or popular movement?

    In a hypothetical where Varys isn't around to kill council members threatening to "undo Cersei's good work", Cersei is sent back to Casterly rock and Tommen grows up in King's Landing, surrounded by Kevan and his allies on the council. Tommen might be sad that his mom is gone, but it's not like the Faith killed her. Kevan could foresee a future in which King Tommen and the High Sparrow tolerate each other indefinitely without deluding himself, although of course he doesn't know about Varys. The church was everywhere, but people were willing to harm the church many times. It was just harder to reliably dominate the church back when secular authorities were relatively weak. We don't know Tommen has a "vendetta", right now he's a child who just stamps everything without reading it. And the High Sparrow hasn't turned against him (as opposed to Cersei) yet, so the GC isn't getting any free milk now. They are invading, which means this conflict will come to a head before Tommen grows out of his regency. The Sparrow could choose to withdraw his expressed approval of Tommen in favor of Aegon, but he would probably want some guarantees in exchange for that (just as he made demands of Cersei). The GC could seize it, with the Sparrow's help. No greenlanders are siding with the Ironborn (although I know there's speculation Cersei will attempt that in the future), and Stannis currently has a relatively small force which is occupied up north and at any rate incapable of seizing King's Landing. So the big choice is between Tommen and Aegon. During the Dance, the Shepherd was able to drive Rhaenyra out of King's Landing and kill a number of her dragons. He wasn't even a Septon, much less a high one, and he didn't have an allied army like the GC might be. The Lannisters don't have any dragons, and they've been pissing people off longer than the half-year Queen. Their hold on KL could disappear if the High Sparrow allied with the GC against them. The Brave Companions have one of the poorest reputations of Essosi mercenary companies, while the GC has the best. The GC were also formed by Westerosi exiles, even if they have incorporated many Essosi, so the cultural gap between them and native Westerosi won't be as large. A shared religion would be part of that. They are still invaders however without an existing powerbase of their own and plans to dispossess lords on the opposite side (Franklyn Flowers vs the Fossoways, possibly Rolly Duckfield vs the Caswells even if he's excluded from holding the land himself due to KG vows) so that will produce opposition. Aegon's lack of Jon Connington's aristocratic ethos (as shown by appointing Rolly) may also be just what Varys wanted, but will likely be a hindrance in allying with Westerosi nobility. As a mercenary company, they are there for pecuniary gain. Which is a contrast with some other fighters in this world, like Winter Wolves who set out to die in battle. The Sparrows are upset because the chaos of war has led to breakdowns in norms over people like the clergy being spared from harm. So the question is whether Aegon & co are considered likely to increase that chaos, or tamp it down and help protect the Faithful. The Faith don't have a standing army. Under feudalism there aren't standing armies, just people with a capacity for violence who can be temporarily mobilized to fight. You could call that a monarch "sharing their crown" with the whole kshatriya caste, but that's just the way things are until they can afford their own standing army. Cousin-marriage is accepted by the Faith, even for non-Targaryens. I can't remember about aunt-nephew, but I know that uncle-niece is permitted under Judaism. Joffrey's decision was idiotic, as everyone trying to keep his regime in place knew. Soon after street preachers were denouncing his family and there was a riot which killed the High Septon and a KG. What "price"? There hasn't been any communication between them, so certainly no specific offers or demands. Harry Strickland is supposedly in his element negotiating contracts rather than in the battlefield, so why deprive the man before his chance to shine?
  2. FictionIsntReal

    Are the Sparrows a religious or popular movement?

    The weak monarchies of feudalism are what permitted the Catholic Church to be so powerful in the middle ages. Yes, Varys working to sow discord certainly makes that even less likely. Unless she marries yet again to Young Griff. Kevan of House Lannister was backing that humiliation. And Tommen will do what the adults tell him to. The great powers of Europe were plural, thus none could claim a monopoly on the choice. As noted above, the weakness of those monarchies enabled the Church. The Faith of the Seven is in another boat, as it is entirely concentrated in Westeros, under the rule of one monarch. That's an interesting comparison. And it brings to mind one of my favorite works of interactive fiction, Varicella, in which the papacy is still in Avignon and the player character resembles a blend of Littlefinger and Varys. Good points. Perhaps moving the center of the Faith to another city would be an item for the High Sparrow's future agenda. The Golden Company are a relatively small force relatively lacking in ties to Westeros. They'll want local help and buy-in. Cersei thought it was important that the High Septon give Tommen his blessing, but she's now vulnerable to their accusations. Young Griff has been raised by Septa Lemore in the ways of the Faith, so he'd be well suited to the throne if Cersei's children are deemed illegitmate and spawns of incest. Rivals like Stannis and Euron are heathens, so it makes sense for the Crown and Faith to unite against them.
  3. FictionIsntReal

    Are the Sparrows a religious or popular movement?

    Margaery was accused, but all the sane accusers recanted under the Faith's questioning. I think Margaery comes out looking pretty good, even if she's not on great terms with them for locking her up. I'm cribbing here from my recollection of Harold Berman's "Law and Revolution", and the initial dispute between church leaders and secular political figures was over the appointment of bishops in the 11th century. The church won out and got to be autonomous. With the Faith, it's not just bishops but the High Septon himself that has been appointed by the Crown. Prior to the High Sparrow, Tyrion selected a High Septon to replace the fat corrupt one who died in the riot, and Tyrion refers to his selection as " a trained seal who barks prettily on command". Cersei has him killed so he can be replaced with her own choice, but then the Sparrows disrupt the process and actually start acting like an independent church.
  4. FictionIsntReal

    Are the Sparrows a religious or popular movement?

    Correct. The modern distinction between religious and secular political spheres doesn't entirely exist. Separation of church and state doesn't either, with the current system in Westeros being something like caesaropapism, and the High Sparrow wanting it to be more like actual papism, in which an emperor might have to beg for forgiveness. The amount of religious freedom in westeros is actually oddly high, since in the past the notion would have been incomprehensible given the close ties between accepting the same religion and adhering to the same rules. The worshipers of the Old Gods and Drowned God aren't exactly under a millet system, but instead hold power over provinces in which their religion is normative.
  5. FictionIsntReal

    The Fourth Aegon and the Sixth

    The fact that they took part in seizing Tyrosh doesn't mean they'd been evicted. Having a base of operations there would assist in launching a coup.. And they were willing to seize it because the Band of Nine were willing to seize many places so they could all have kingdoms. Maelys didn't have any sons, the Blackfyre name would die with him. The entire basis of his supposed "confidence" in your hypothetical was his leverage, and if he got rid of that he could no longer be confident. Nor would anyone simply forget that.
  6. FictionIsntReal

    The Fourth Aegon and the Sixth

    It occurs to me now that he would have even better odds if he skipped the step of actually impregnating all those women and instead just sent people to look for kids already born with the right appearance (as Varys allegedly did with the "pisswater prince", although without the time constraint of the sack or the need to trick people by swapping it in for someone already known). Then he could also get around the age thing. If "Serra" never existed, that would fit this story best. We learn what Cersei's children were after Ned investigates and Cersei confirms in the same book in which all the characters are introduced. I don't think there's space in the books for anyone to do a similar investigation of this surprise reveal character and then confront anyone about it like Ned did with Cersei. It was Robert who passed out from drinking, Cersei terminated a pregnancy if it wasn't from Jaime, and it seems like we're supposed to believe in the fantasy genetics of the Baratheon look. Does Illyrio really need to make up such a story and put on an act to manipulate Tyrion? It seems like a risk that Tyrion could find out that he was never married to any such woman, no hands in his bedchamber and there wasn't any such rift with the Prince of Pentos. Illyrio already had the locket on him, rather than something he whipped up after Tyrion got mopey about Tysha. On the other hand, Tyrion finds out that Littlefinger framed him and nothing came of that. In addition to marrying Serra, he'd have to acknowledge Young Griff as their son somehow, which would conflict with also claiming he's Aegon. That's my preference, but I also dislike R+L=J and prefer if Jon Snow is really just a bastard important due to his actions rather than his secret parentage. Are the GC even aware of Varys' involvement? Illyrio doesn't hold public office, so he can take trips to Westeros, but it would be trickier for Varys to go over to reassure the GC everything is on the up and up. If they were that far away or disposable to the GC, then how do they later convince the GC of their heritage in order to have a "hold over" them? Why would Maelys hand over his family to Silvertongue rather than let his own lieutenants take care of such matters? And if Silvertongue was using them as leverage over the GC, why would he sell that leverage into slavery and lose it?
  7. FictionIsntReal

    The Fourth Aegon and the Sixth

    This is an interesting theory that I wasn't familiar with earlier but I'm not sure about that timing. He couldn't have known far in advance that Aegon would be a candidate for such a swap, and having it happen too late would make Young Griff too young to be credible (here having more candidates does increase the odds that he gets one early). Do we know when he married Serra? It was a matter of public information, since it put him on the outs with Pentoshi high society. We also know that he has not currently acknowledged Young Griff as his son, since he's currently being presented as "Griff's" or Rhaegar's. I guess he could have it in his will. The odds for any particular pregnancy is low, but @Lord Varys is suggesting he just recruited more women to multiply those odds. I have also heard the theory that there was a double-swap: Varys sent the actual Aegon to Illyrio in Pentos, and then Illyrio betrayed him by swapping Aegon out with his own child. There's also the theory that they lied to the Golden Company because neither of them care about Targaryen or Blackfyre bloodlines, although the question is why the GC would accept any such claim without something like an artwork's "proof of custody". That's also why I don't believe Varys or Serra are themselves acknowledged female-line Blackfyres: if the GC or other Blackfyre supporters thought they were important, they wouldn't have permitted either to be sold into slavery. I didn't see him mention any Blackfyres above, although it's possible he did somewhere else where he discussed this theory. As for the gap in GC activity, they weren't passive in Essos, as they actually spend most of their time just being a mercenary company. But they also weren't all that likely to be successful. Their actual invasions of Westeros ended after Bittersteel died, Maelys was part of a larger plot with the Band of Nine and died on the Stepstones without ever reaching Westeros. I basically agree. I have a different interpretation: Illyrio believes in bribery rather than the Red God. The latter just happens to be popular enough in Pentos for Illyrio to present that assurance as the popular opinion there. Note also that it's a "promise" rather than a "prophecy", although it could be there is some relevant prophecy in that religion we just haven't heard of.
  8. FictionIsntReal

    The Wall was built to protect the Others, not just humanity

    Thus far, the Others have not gotten more characterization than Orcs. On the other hand, there is a lot more space to human villains who HAVE. On the third hand, there are a number of human villains like Gregor who really do seem that black-and-white. That's what makes it spooky. We don't know what's in the Heart of Winter north of the Wall either, just that it made Bran cry.
  9. FictionIsntReal

    The Kingsguard's oaths when the king dies

    What punishment did he advocate? His daughter-in-law was a hostage being used against the Dornish, and he'd previously dismissed her child as "smelling Dornish". He'd also named Viserys his heir, skipping over Aegon. If he cared about protecting them, they would have also been on a ship. There have actually been multiple instances of bodies only being found after the fighting is over, without knowing who specifically killed them. It even happens to a kingsguard during the riot in Clash of Kings, during which Tyrek Lannister simply disappeared. He betrayed Aerys, who was no longer king but dead. Aerys tried to send Jaime after Tywin, but that didn't work. Plotted to betray his king, but didn't succeed in killing him. Robert could do nothing to Tywin and remain alive and on the throne, as he did just that. Stannis could not permit the Karstarks to proceed with their betrayal of him. I now pronounce all my claims to be "obvious", and if anyone disagrees it just proves they are so obtuse as to not understand the obvious Seriously, this is just more evidence that you can't, because if you could have you would have rather than repeatedly replying without doing so. Do you actually believe that a marriage causes children to grow more slowly in Westeros? Is Brienne of Tarth a bastard? Gregor and Sandor Clegane? The custom of guest-right exists throughout Westeros (including the Riverlands, where the Twins are), even if it's most sacred to northmen (and I should note that Wyman Manderly gives his Frey guests parting-gifts as per custom though he's a follower of the Faith of the Seven). And nobody thinks of Tywin as cursed due to that betrayal like the Rat King was and the Freys now appear to be. He's considered dislikable rather than a sacred oathbreaker like Jaime. Alright, so Roose answers Robb's call for banners and accepts command of a host for war against the Lannisters prior to Robb being declared king. He continues to fight on Robb's behalf throughout the war, and acknowledges him as "your grace". Then he stabs his king at dinner. I said Robert pardoned everyone who bent the knee to him, and acknowledged those two guys Tywin sent to the Wall as happening without Robert being present or even being aware as far as we know. We've been talking about Kingsguard, and Robert was present to pardon Selmy despite Roose urging his death, and later to permit Jaime to continue serving. I suppose Ned could have tried to kill Jaime or Tywin before Robert arrived, but he was written by GRRM rather than you and wouldn't attempt something so stupid. Aenys Blackfyre was able to send messages submitting himself to a Great Council, and Jorah Mormont was also able to get a pardon while in Essos. He could have sent messages proclaiming Robert to be king and asking for forgiveness. I don't actually know. Orton himself hadn't done anything against Robert as far as we know either. Jon Connington fought Robert and never bent the knee, and we know remained a Targaryen loyalist even in exile. That was not the case with the kingsguard. To give a later example, he also accepted the surrender of Balon Greyjoy (after he bent the knee and proclaimed Robert king) and permitted him to remain Lord of the Iron Islands, but still required Theon as a hostage.
  10. It followed the principle of primogeniture, passing down to the eldest son unless one wasn't available. Daeron was at the time Aegon was crowned. Robert didn't formally grant Dragonstone to Joffrey, letting Stannis keep it, but that wasn't considered a reason why Joffrey shouldn't get the throne. Instead his illegitimacy is why Ned and Stannis don't acknowledge him as king. It's accepted that people can be too young to rule as kings, which is why regents will step in until they reach an age of majority. If the king has no son, that makes succession more ambiguous and there is more scope for something like a Great Council. We see such a council skipping over a child whose father was never crowned, not an adult son of a king. Doing the latter would be a recipe for strife because an adult can actually lead a force to fight on their behalf. It's an idea that exists only in your own head. You don't know that. While he was alive. Another king named Viserys attempted an unconventional designation of an heir which didn't take after his death, and he wasn't disinheriting someone who had already been acknowledged as heir. Like I said, Viserys I proclaimed his daughter heir and then his Master of Laws said that was not permitted under Andal law. He's actually described as "never more than adequate", implying that he was somethimes less than that. He inherited because he was the eldest son, even though Maegor was known as the Prince of Dragonstone. And Daeron's lack of martial ability is cited as a reason why Daemon Blackfyre was more deserving of the throne, while some questioned Aenys' paternity because he did not resemble his father. Do you mean with his father? If Viserys killed Aegon, yes. How to legitimately do that is another story. Rhaenyra was denied the throne on Viserys' death, and her example is now cited for the precedent that the throne does not go through women. The Dragonstonian Targaryens ARE the "blood of the dragon", and often Prince of Dragonstone prior to inheriting the throne themselves (and if Orys Baratheon really was the bastard half-brother of Aegon, then his father was inarguably of the "blood of the dragon" and pre-eminent Targaryen). During the Great Council of 101 AC someone popped up claiming descent from Maegor, and while I doubt that was true, it's because Maegor appeared to be infertile rather than because kings didn't sleep around. Within the Dance we know that two brothers of kings, Daemon and Aemond, had mistresses. Each had at times been a presumptive heir. I don't think it was just because they were unusually bad guys, since Corlys Velaryon also seems to have fathered bastards he attributed to his son. With Aegon IV we know of a LOT of mistresses and bastards, although not the whole enormous list of everyone he slept with. He was unusual because of the favor he doled out on that basis. If the Blackfyre rebellion hadn't occurred though, his bastards might not have been notable enough to be worth space in a history. I'm not sure they didn't have any bastards, although they may not have recognized any. And sons sleep around without needing their father's encouragement. The Grand Maester used that phrase in a letter to the Citadel, it is not cited as a reason for the marriage. Instead that is said to be a natural choice given the traditions of the Targaryens and the affections of the siblings. It is also noted that there were whispers about Rhaena losing her maidenhead on one of her flights, and hence "some have suggested that Aenys might have felt the need to see his daughter wed as soon as possible". He pushed the rumor, and it would have been more effective with proof. And yet people speculated that Aenys was not the son of Aegon because of that lack of resemblance. Aegon is described by a historian who disliked him as "skilled", and since even normal people tend to overrate themselves I expect a narcissist like Aegon would do that to an even greater degree. Aegor was also noted as a warrior, and the only thing he had in common with Daemon was Aegon. The whole point of the Maidenvault is that everyone knows there were no men to despoil the maidens. We know she escaped three times, to be specific. We don't know the duration of those escapes. He could indeed have lied, although as noted that would be an unusual lie for him. He was speculated to be the father before he claimed Daemon, partly because Daemon looked completely Targaryen. We know the "bitter poison" of his last act, and you don't know that WASN'T the reason he's considered the worst. It has to do with why they're not considered terrible for refraining from kinslaying. Viserys named an heir and then refused when pressed to replace his daughter with his son as heir, while also bringing back a Hand he'd dismissed for just that pressure and permitting his brother and daughter to behave in a way that made them seen unfit for power. Aegon spread rumors that Daeron was illegitimate, gave Blackfyre to Daemon and then legitimized all his bastards so they could potentially inherit the throne. It was a willful attempt to cause trouble rather than neglectfully assuming his wishes would be obeyed after death. Who? Jaehaerys had no other sons, or even Targaryen nephews. To you it's very simple not to have the adult son of the king inherit, but that's basically what the Targaryens always did. Finally, monarchy is not like Roman emperors trying to avoid the appearance of monarchy by selecting heirs. A responsible monarch guarantees succession according to the objective criteria of inheritance, which makes succession more certain. Twelve years is not twenty. They also didn't intentionally cause such problems. What makes someone the "worst king ever" is not a "fact", but an opinion. And while you dismiss these rebellions, the text we have does not. I can grant you it wouldn't be EXACTLY the same set of people doing the same things, but beyond that we can only guess that something similar is unlikely rather than actually know. The example you gave of that not being automatic involved someone receiving the title at age 7, far younger than Daeron. The Master of Laws under Viserys I disagreed, and his ruling became known as the "iron precedent". The difference between the laws of succession for the Iron Throne and Dornish laws of inheritance come into play with the Myrcella plot. Viserys thought he wasn't bound by Andal laws of succession, but once he was dead his council acted as if he was restricted. A Great Council was summoned when succession was ambiguous, not when the king had a legitimate son to succeed him. Twice. Once with ships, once with pyromancer constructed "dragons" hauled up the Boneway. Aegon discarded mistresses repeatedly, so forcing him to give up one prior to moving onto the next was not that big a deal. The other two examples involve him trying something and failing so badly it made his cause seem like a loser. None of that means someone could have taken the unprecedented step of skipping over him in succession for his son. Tyrion was granted a trial by combat twice, both in the Eyrie and in King's Landing. And he was permitted the champion there who offered to fight on his behalf. Aerys II denied Rickard his trial by combat, and now Tywin uses him as an example for Joffrey should NOT behave if he wants to stay alive and on the throne. You're not a westerosi and you disregard westerosi norms. This would address the accusation about Aemon's adultery with Naerys specifically, which is the charge that was actually made. The Queen gets to accept a Kingsguard who offers to fight for her, Cersei arranged to have the ones better than Osney Kettleblack (the accuser, like Morgil) unavailable in King's Landing for Margaery rather than choosing the worst one herself. Margaery also has the option of choosing trial by battle or not, just as Tyrion was initially tried in court. Defendants get to choose their champions. Kingsguard vow to serve for life, which is why Barristan's dismissal was unprecedented. And if he had done something like that, there would still be no grounds on which to deny Naerys her right to accept Aemon as champion. Aemon was the only person other than Aegon alleged to have slept with Naerys, presumably because it seemed plausible for him and nobody else. I am chuckling at the idea that being really "loved" by Aegon was this rare privilege he actually cared about, while the wife whose permission he refused to join the Faith and avoid sleeping with him is a matter of indifference. Naerys' piety and opposition to the Targaryen practice of incest is one reason why I don't believe the rumor, but it would be a completely alien mindset to Aegon. He was jealous of the esteem Aemon was held in, and if Arianne scoffs at the idea that this ideal Kingsguard upheld his vows Aegon would be even less likely to accept that he really was that chivalrous. You asked a question about ancestry, but George didn't merely give a yes or not answer. He said "it was Aegon's very public gift of Blackfyre to his bastard son that first started widespread talk that perhaps he should be king", and that "first started" indicates when such talk began and that such talk persisted over time. GRRM didn't say that "nobody thought" that, so no it's not that clear. Nobody in westeros thinks that, because he wasn't irrelevant. If he hadn't legitimized any bastards, they wouldn't have been eligible to inherit. If he hadn't spread that rumor, Daeron would be unlikely to be called "falseborn". Nobody in westeros thinks that, because he wasn't irrelevant. If he hadn't legitimized any bastards, they wouldn't have been eligible to inherit. If he hadn't spread that rumor, Daeron would be unlikely to be called "falseborn". Kings can legitimize bastards, but I don't think there's any precedent for reversing legitimation. I agree that he was no Machiavellian genius, but he deliberately caused problems and in that case it bore fruit traceable right back to him. He had four daughters with "Merry" Megette, the blacksmith's wife. We don't know of any bastard sons prior to Daemon or Balerion. Had he acknowledged any older sons? Megette was not a "woman of note", but we know the names of her bastards. Falena Stokeworth was more notable, but Aegon never acknowledged any children by her though it was rumored Jeyne was his. We get no indication that Daemon WASN'T the eldest bastard son acknowledged by Aegon. The history of succession in Westeros indicates that people DO care about primogeniture. Deviating from it is exceptional and requires explanation.
  11. FictionIsntReal

    Was Brandon Stark really that good a swordsman?

    Ned never fought Darkstar, but rather the Sword of the Morning, Arthur Dayne. And he says that he would have died if not for Howland Reed, although we don't know the precise details.
  12. FictionIsntReal

    The Wall was built to protect the Others, not just humanity

    Enemies rarely collaborate on building a wall. I think the dragon just sensed the magic and that something really creepy was on the other side.
  13. FictionIsntReal

    The Kingsguard's oaths when the king dies

    Ned just saw Tywin present the bodies and Robert dismiss them as dragonspawn. Within Casterly Rock people have a firmer idea, but from Ned's POV we just know that "some said" Gregor killed Aegon. We don't get any of his thoughts on Amory Lorch, if he has any. We don't get references to any armed men inside or on the battlements. Aerys sent his queen and heir away, so he was not focusing on protecting anyone inside Maegor's. I didn't say anything about an "accident", just that in a chaotic sack lots of people will die and assigning responsibility isn't obvious. Although Tywin could be blamed for his decision to sack the city at all. The Karstarks were arrested for plotting to betray Stannis. It was imperative to arrest them, and if their troops had tried fighting that would be indicative that they were likewise ready to turn on Stannis. Making a show of force compelling Stannis to release the Karstarks isn't really an option. If you don't do it yourself when asked to provide evidence that you know there were candidates, it suggests you don't actually know. Not "just as well". If Robert doesn't want to marry at all, he's not going to buckle under to marry a child who can't even consummate a marriage. And since one of the most important duties of a king is to have heirs, he really does need to focus on someone of childbearing age. I said "significantly". There are limits to folk beliefs, because people would notice whether bastards really leapt ahead of other children in development. The Westerosi don't see it that way. Roose Bolton had acclaimed Robb Stark as king and been appointed one of the highest ranking leaders in his army, and had commanded an enormous number of men on Robb's behalf. Tywin during Robert's rebellion is somewhat more like Walder Frey during that same rebellion. He stayed out of the fighting until after the Trident decided things. He wasn't able to stab Aerys like Roose stabbed Robb, because he wasn't that close to him, although Jaime wound up killing him. Jaime is remembered as having violated a sacred vow. Roose Bolton was also in a marriage alliance with Walder Frey and coordinated the betrayal with him, so Walder's violation of guest-right carries over to taint Roose. While he was part of the planning of it, Tywin gets less blame for that because he was more removed. We get no reference one way or another. Connington is one of the most die-hard loyalists, and he never bent the knee. He restored some of it. Since we don't here of him depriving many loyalists of land, the source of Davos Seaworth's land could well come from Connington.
  14. Daeron appears to have become Prince of Dragonstone automatically as Aegon had no other legitimate sons. We don't get references to Aegon himself doing anything to show favor to him. I'm explaining why it would be more difficult to skip over Aegon IV in favor of his son compared to skipping over the infant son of a dead man. Nobody ever brings that up as a possibility, in my view because primogeniture & patriarchy are firmly established norms. Nor had Viserys made any moves which seemed to presage it. Aegon IV is not noted for his paranoia, but he is known for being impulsive and entitled. Merely being impatient for his father to die would be in-character. Possibly, or it could have resulted in Daeron's death. I really don't think Aegon would have permitted to live if he was displacing him on the throne, and like I said I don't think the other lords would go along with that displacement. I don't think he'd have to change that much, he was well-liked as young man, known for being charming and witty. The latter, I expect, although he'd make clear that he thought such a proclamation was illegitimate. Aegon II did basically nothing himself to succeed his father despite Rhaenyra being named heir. We don't get any such reasoning in the text, just a note that his later awful behavior would be consistent with that. He's said to be "skilled with lance and sword" while Daeron is specified as NOT being martial. I would actually say you're being unfair to Aegon II here, since we don't get any named mistresses and what little we know from rumors indicates they were of common birth. Aerys II is compared to Aegon IV for taking mistresses from his queen's companions, although that comparison is understandably said to be an exaggeration. Yes, he was not able to prove it or he would have offered such proof. The only *additional evidence* he got was Daeron being a big disappointment, particularly compared to Daemon. But Naerys and Aemon would have known better: they'd know for a fact that they never slept together, and Naerys specifically would know that her husband was the only man she'd been with. Fiction can be like that, but self-deception on the other hand tends to work more similarly in fiction (particularly for characters we're supposed to dislike) and reality. We also know that people doubted Aenys was Aegon's son because he also failed to live up to the martial ideal. He knew while she was sequestered in the Maidenvault that she wasn't with anyone else. Aegon sleeping with fewer women and/or having fewer bastards than imagined would be surprising. Aegon IV is known for the most "willful misrule". Aerys II and Maegor killed lots of people, but it was ostensibly in service of securing the throne and succession, even if they had wrongheaded ideas of how to go about that. Aegon IV just didn't care about his responsibility toward the realm, and caused trouble where none existed. If you ask me, I'd say Maegor was actually the worst king and nearly extinguished the Targaryen dynasty shortly after it started. Aerys II engaged in some willful misrule later in his reign to undermine Tywin, but for most of his reign he seems to have let Tywin do a good job. Did he say what he did that was worse than muddying the succession? Kinslaying is considered a very grave sin, which is why Victarion didn't kill Euron and Roose says he didn't kill Ramsay. What specifically did he do? He actually does deserve more blame than he gets for the Dance, but he did try to make the succession clear. Aegon IV intentionally muddied it. What were they supposed to have done? He didn't seem insane when he was young. The World of Ice and Fire characterizes it differently: People still remember Daemon Blackfyre as a reason to revile bastards. I don't imagine them as good or bad kings, I just don't know what would have happened with either on the throne. There's no reference to Aegon granting those titles at all. We know he was already an adult when his father became king, considerably older than the ages you've referenced at which other Princes were declared. I'll go further and say that since it's said that since he was heard to make references to Daeron's illegitimacy after Aemon was no longer alive to respond, that it's more than implied. Kaeth does more than imply, but instead simply claims as much. Aemon won his trial by combat and was thus considered vindicated by the Seven. Aegon also wanted to invade Dorne, but after his two attempts failed embarassingly he knew there was little he could do. I think his largest priority was always bedding more women, and that's what he used his political clout for. We know that Aegon failed to get his way multiple times. He was forced to give up Barba Bracken, he had to give up on invading Dorne, and his attempt to push rumors about Daeron's illegitimacy blew up in his face. Lysa was considered crazy, but her denial wasn't as arbitrary or even perverse as denying Aemon would be. Jaime was far from the Eyrie, and when Tyrion selected someone available there she didn't deny that. Aegon denied being the source of the rumors while Aemon lived. We also know from Cersei's plot against Margaery that the Queen is REQUIRED to be defended by a Kingsguard, and since Aemon himself was being accused he could demand a trial by combat for vindication. Morgil winning the trial by combat would serve as vindication for the rumor, and we know Aegon pushed that rumor. Covertly poisoning Aemon wouldn't do that. Aegon both continued to foster the rumor about Daeron's illegitimacy, undermining his claim, and legitimized his bastards so they could rival him. Do you not remember what happened to Terrence Toyne and Bethany Bracken? Aegon went above and beyond in showing how much he hated someone else sleeping with a woman he believed belonged to him. No, this is what GRRM said: He also said that it had previously been passed from king to king, and hence was thought by some to symbolize the monarchy. That might have been a smart thing to do, but it didn't happen. Daemon was older than Bryden and Aegor, as well as Targaryen on both sides. We don't know when Balerion Otherys was born (though he was the last of three bastards), but all of Bellegere's children had dubious paternity and seem to have been raised in Braavos rather than Westeros like the "Great Bastards". Bloodraven was low enough in the succession based on age not to be a rival for the throne. Fireball and Bittersteel are often pointed to as responsible for pushing Daemon toward rebellion, and both of them had resentments traceable to Aegon IV, although in those cases it wasn't planned on Aegon's part to foster rebellion. Making his lineage more Targaryen than Daeron's actually seems risky. Above I cited some SSMs telling us that.
  15. FictionIsntReal

    Maekar vs bloodraven for the iron throne

    Maekar. When I read the title of this post my initial assumption was that you'd be asking WHY they didn't fight each other and instead Maekar let Bloodraven stay on as Hand. I myself wonder about that.
×