Lord Varys

And just for the record: If it turns out that Haegon Blackfyre is going to grab cousin Aerys by the beard and drag him out of his library to throw him out of the Red Keep to sit the Iron Throne for a day, a fortnight, or a moon, leaving it to Bloodraven and Maekar to restore him at the end of the war ... then Haegon I Blackfyre should be counted as one of the Kings on the Iron Throne as he then would be one. Of course, Haegon most likely won't do that, but he is the only Blackfyre left who still has a fighting chance.

That doesn't add up at all. Daeron II was the king, he wore the crown, he sat the throne. He didn't have the sword, but the sword was pretext/justification for a rebellion, not a post hoc argument/justification by later historians why Daemon Blackfyre was a king who ruled and sat the throne, etc. And why wasn't the sword that? Because Daemon Blackfyre never actually sat the throne. Because he never actually ruled. Even Blackfyre partisans can only say that Daemon Blackfyre should have been king because he was the rightful heir, etc. ... they can't say he actually was the king. People in-universe and among the readership can argue back and forth if Aegon II or Rhaenyra had the better claim. But erasing Rhaenyra's short stint on the throne makes no sense. Because it happened. And even if she was just a usurper and a false queen and an evil tyrant - like Maegor - then her reign still happened and any honest chronicler and historian would duly chronicle her reign. Like they do with Maegor's. They could and would add a value judgment - like her being an evil usurper, totally unfit for the crown, etc. - but they could and would not erase her. And as I'm saying since almost forever - in light of who continued the Targaryen dynasty nobody would even feel a strong incentive to do so. Would maesters and septons and septas and singers instill traditional Westerosi misogyny in the descendants of Aegon III and Viserys II? Absolutely, just as they did with Jaehaerys and Alysanne whose relatively conservative attitudes towards religion, marriage and family life certainly reflect general Westerosi attitudes. But you would not cite the king's own martyred mother as a bad example for female rule. It would be more trouble than it could be worth. You would risk royal displeasure, and that means risking your place at court, your income, whatever privilege you had. And the general notion that Aegon III and Viserys II would be keen to staff the court they control with people prefer their usurping shithead uncle over their poor martyred mother is, quite frankly, insane. Especially this image of Aegon III being too traumatized to care about the past which traumatized him lacks empathy and feels unrealistic. If anything, then his trauma detached him from the present. If one had to guess what he thought about, where he was in his mind when he didn't talk, watched the stars, etc. then one good guess would be to watch his mother being devoured by Sunfyre while he helplessly watched, hearing about Jace's death in the Gullet, watching Joff tumble to his death, etc. We know the lad worshipped his elder brothers, so losing them would have been a huge part of his continued suffering. And less we forget - one of those elder brothers was actually killed by one of his uncles. The same uncle who also played a huge role in the death of his father. Not to mention that he was clearly very careful to keep his true thoughts, feelings, and intentions hidden during the entire Regency era. His true colors show at the end of the book, and they are not the ones of a guy who doesn't care about things. Mildly speaking. He sat there and had to watch his wife Daenaera and his great friend Gaemon Palehair (almost) die of poison. I'm sure the natural and totally rational way to deal with such things is to staff his court with and trust the folks who did everything they could to kill Aegon III, his brothers, his parents, and all his other relations. Equally, it is weird to assume that Viserys II didn't have similar feelings. Sure enough, he wasn't with his family from early 130 AC until his return. But that doesn't erase the earlier time he spend with his parents and brothers. More importantly, though, Viserys II made very bad experiences with the remaining Greens in the regency council - namely Unwin Peake, Marston Waters, and the other Peake gang while having no issues with the former Blacks at court (as we recall he was the one who realized that Thaddeus Rowan had been broken by torture). Most importantly, though, the scheming Peake gang greatly harmed his brothers-in-law and were likely one of the reasons why his marriage eventually failed and he lost his beloved Larra. I'm sure he just forgot about all that and made peace with the shitheads he would have deemed responsible.

The late 1990s are not the early 1990s when George first wrote AGoT. And the text as such indicates a full sibling relationship simply because we hear Rhaenyra was Aegon's sister. We don't assume half-sister when that word is used unless there is a good reason to do so. More importantly, Rhaenyra being one year older than Aegon makes it all but impossible that they are half-siblings unless we either assume polygamy for Viserys I with no good reason or a very hasty search for a new bride and immediate impregnation after the death of Rhaenyra's mother in childbirth. If Aegon is one year younger than Rhaenyra he would have to be conceived very shortly after Rhaenyra's birth, after all. George himself clearly did not consult the appendix or remember its contents when he crafted the family trees and decided to imagine Rhaenyra as Aegon's half-sister, ten years older rather than only one. In a sense the appendix can be read as silly Green propaganda in this regard rather than 'objective facts' as it falsely claims Rhaenyra challenged the rise of Aegon II when in fact, as we know now, Rhaenyra was the anointed heir of her father and Aegon II usurped the throne. That is true in a larger context but not in those appendices which are providing precise information on family matters and degree of kinship. We do learn, for instance, that Ned Stark has children by his wife Catelyn and another son by an unknown woman. Jon Snow is called 'brother' bis Cat's children ... but it is a rather crucial plot point that they aren't full siblings, right? We also don't view Aerys the Mad, being called 'only son of Jaehaerys I' as the latter's only adopted son, right? But he could be, as the English language usually has adoptive children refer to their adoptive parents as 'mother' or 'father'. Nor are we do assume that Rhaella and Aerys II or Naerys and the Dragonknight are only half-siblings in the very same appendix. Bottom line is, that this appendix is faulty and it is not very good reasoning to point towards it as authoritative source when it actually contradicts the narrative we are giving in the history book focusing on the Dance. But in general: Guys, just stop focusing so much on those legal arguments. The people in-universe don't even care half as much as we do. We just have to look at Viserys I who didn't think his decision for Rhaenyra undermined his own claim and standing as king, never mind that he would have never ruled had the Old King in 92 AC and the Great Council in 101 AC have had the same preferences as he had. And we see this in any other instances. George even makes fun of this whole thing in FaB with Rogar Baratheon first being a stalwart enemy of Dornish-style succession only to suddenly discover his love for ruling queens and dragonriding female regents when he starts to have issues with the king he made. And Jaehaerys I himself mocks the whole succession thing when he essentially brushes the attempted usurpation and Aerea's claim aside by simply pointing out that he, Jaehaerys, sits the Iron Throne. People in power wield and exercise power, they don't hide behind legal prattle. Not to mention that it is actually rather smart and responsible of a king or lord to not be a slave to primogeniture but also, you know, check if a scion of yours is actually mentally and physically qualified for the job. Eldest son or not, your successor should not be a drooling lackwit nor a sadistic psychopath. Also not the prisoner and pawn of your sworn enemy which is why King Robb seems to have cut his sister Sansa out of his will. That this happens with the Targaryens we see when Daemon is passed over in favor of Rhaenyra because the king himself and influential men at court deem him unfit to rule. And another example would be the Grand Maester observing the relationship of Aemon and Baelon to ensure no unhealthy rivalry develops. The Conqueror made the mistake to believe that Maegor and Visenya would be loyal to Aenys' bloodline ... but they weren't. George even makes fun of people who 'believe in the law' in this world, too, when he has Emmon Frey constantly bring up the signed and stamped decree of King Tommen making him Lord of Riverrun. That is just paper, signed and stamped by a puppet. The actual power is wielded by different people and they made Emmon a lord, not King Tommen. And Emmon is a fool if he thinks Tommen's decree plays into this in a meaningful sense. And as Stannis is constantly cited as an authority on the Rhaenyra issue: Even if we ignore House Baratheon's historical support of the Greens (which we shouldn't), the guy has no clear-cut legal view on succession, either. Not only did he support the usurpation of his elder brother - which, as we well know, was treason - but he also undermines Robert's own royal prerogatives of creating and naming lords by insisting he should be Lord of Storm's End rather than Renly ... while at the same insisting that he, as king, has the right and power to make new lords as he sees fit (and actually doing that with Davos). Even on the succession Stannis seems to be confused. If we were to follow the notion that women can't inherit then Shireen could never be Stannis' heir while there are other men of the royal family around ... yet during his talk with Renly he offers Renly to name him heir instead of Shireen - meaning that in Stannis' mind Shireen actually was Stannis' presumptive heir in the absence of a son. Also, of course, as Rhaenyra was - as we now know - named heir by her royal father declaring her a traitor means you actually undermine the very royal prerogative Stannis presumes to use himself - naming his own heir. If Rhaenyra was a traitor then Viserys I - the king - would have been a traitor, too, and that simply can't work. A similar thing is true for Myrcella. She seems to be under the impression that she is Tommen's presumptive heir, too, as she thinks Arianne is going to crown her queen because 'something happened to Tommen'. That only makes sense if Myrcella was brought up in the belief that if her two elder brothers were to predecease her without issue, then crown and throne would pass to her. The thing is - in worlds where something like Salic Law, etc. is actually a thing and part of the tradition ... nobody would raise or expect women to rule, period. It doesn't come up. But this is clearly not the world of Westeros. Not exactly, as coronations don't have to happen at a specific place. As I pointed out, Aenys and Maegor were crowned on Dragonstone not in KL ... but Rhaenyra was crowned on Dragonstone, too, yet Aegon II being crowned in KL and sitting the Iron Throne gave him a rather succinct advantage. The Iron Throne of Aegon the Conqueror symbolizes Targaryen (and later Baratheon) rule over the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. Whoever sits there is viewed as the legitimate monarch in the sense that they can lay claim to Aegon's Realm and legacy. Even no blood relation of Aegon would have that advantage. We see this kind of unfold during the Moon of Madness as the pretender Trystane Truefyre quickly becomes the most powerful one simply for the reason that he has the Iron Throne and the Red Keep. Coronations can happen anywhere - the Blackfyre pretenders were all crowned in Tyrosh or Essos, it seems. But only when you actually have the Iron Throne does a coronation carry real weight. This is why when there is a peaceful succession you can take your time and make it a really splendid ceremony. The earlier kings separated coronation/ascension of the Iron Throne and the anointing from the High Septon, but that slowly all fell into one as the High Septon eventually moved to KL. Aegon III is the first known king who was crowned and anointed by the High Septon in the very same ceremony (could also have happened for Viserys I, though, as we have no detailed report on his ascension). But the clear issue there is that the reason why our Aegon II is Aegon II rather than Aegon the Uncrowned is because George made it clear why history would not count that Aegon as a monarch. That he wasn't crowned is but one detail. He also never sat the Iron Throne, never ruled any part of the Seven Kingdoms, never had a huge number of followers, etc. But the Blackfyre pretenders all seem to have been crowned and the first Daemon even struck coins of his own. Yet they are still all pretenders ... presumably because neither of them actually sat the Iron Throne nor actually was acknowledged by a large percentage of lords and people as the actual king. But Rhaenyra fits effectively all criteria we can look for in a legitimate monarch. She is lacking nothing. And she has the added advantage that all subsequent Kings on the Iron Throne are descended from her and Daemon. Those are simply too many advantages to justify her being erased. The idea that Maegor - who was unable to father children meaning no future monarch had to care about him for the sake of the family, and who was despised to no end by Alyssa Velaryon, Rhaena, Jaehaerys, and Alysanne - would be counted as a ruling monarch but Rhaenyra would not is too hard to swallow. Which is why I say this is pretty much a phantom debate. Nobody in-universe actually says that there is a broad or overwhelming consensus that Rhaenyra was never a queen. That some people have that opinion - sure. The in-universe history books don't say Rhaenyra wasn't a queen, either - when in fact both Gyldayn and Yandel should go on and on about that as we would imagine both to be historians who were brought up in the 'women can't inherit' framework. In fact, they all style Rhaenyra as queen repeatedly, usually for the time after her coronation and especially when referring to events that happened during the time she sat on the Iron Throne. Any book about the Anarchy you read is very clear on the fact that Matilda was never Queen of the English. But Gyldayn certainly never says that Rhaenyra was never the Queen of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men (although she was apparently never 'Lord/Lady of the Seven Kingdoms' - that part of the title is omitted from Rhaenyra's coronation - and confirmed to have never been 'Protector of the Realm' - that title she gave to Daemon).

It is not easy to ignore if you are writing history. Which Gyldayn does and which is why he never says Rhaenyra wasn't a queen because she was - nor does he mention that later royal decrees 'legally unmade her queenship'. There was one such passage in the preliminary novella version of the Dance story, but that was not included in FaB. Which means it is about as canonical as a sample chapter which was later rewritten. There is a reason why George erased that. There are two dimensions to this thing. The value judgment whether Rhaenyra was 'a rightful monarch' and the factual question whether she actually did rule or not. And the latter is clear - she actually did rule for half year as a sitting monarch with all the symbols and trappings of legitimate power, and she did that after she formally deposed Aegon II who fled the Red Keep and went underground. All that is rather crucial symbolically. If Aegon II had been a monarch somewhere in the field, a man continuing the fight with a small army like Stannis is doing in the North in the book right now, we could see his formal kingship never ended, he merely made a tactical retreat for a time. Ditto with, say, Robb after 'he lost the North'. He was still in the field, still proclaimed the King in the North, so his claim to the kingship of the North only disappears with his death, not before. But that is not what happened with Aegon II and Rhaenyra. Aegon II disappeared, his government collapsed completely, and Rhaenyra took over. There was still some resistance in the Realm, etc. but neither the Greens in the Reach nor the later rioters in KL fought or cast down Rhaenyra in the name of the phantom Aegon II who was believed dead. Thus it is factual nonsense to say 'Aegon II ruled and reigned from 129-131 AC'. What is true is that Aegon II reigned from his coronation in early 129 AC until his deposition in early 130 AC (although he only ruled for a couple of months of 129 AC until the Prince Regent Aemond took over), then Queen Rhaenyra reigned and ruled for about six months, after which there was a chaotic interregnum for a couple of times. Aegon II was restored to power very late in 130 AC after his return to KL. His second reign would formally begin either with his return to KL. The time of his control of Dragonstone would make him merely a local war lord or at best the Prince of Dragonstone as his ability to exert and royal powers was non-existent until he made a deal with House Velaryon enabling him to leave the island and return to KL. If we go back to the former - whether Rhaenyra was a rightful queen - then there can't be a consensus on that question, as half the Realm or more supported her claim and her bloodline eventually triumphed, not Aegon's. That doesn't mean a guy like Stannis is not entitled to his opinion in-universe ... but it is just his opinion, not a consensus. The fact that later monarchs and councils did not support female inheritance and passed over certain women doesn't mean they post hoc ruled that their mother or grandmother wasn't a queen. And it is strikingly unlikely that Rhaenyra's own son would tolerate or even do something like that. All Viserys II and Baelor have to do to make Viserys king is declare that the imprisoned girls (the eldest of them a bastard-birthing slut) are unsuited to rule. Case closed. And that should have been very easy in Daena's case who was clearly fucked by Baelor throughout her life in the not pleasant way, not that hard in Rhaena's case who wanted to be or already was a septa by that time, leaving only Elaena who could be dismissed for some other made up reason. Youth, inexperience, the wish to actually not be queen (people do can waive their inheritance rights, after all), improper relations with Alyn Velaryon, etc. History is usually rather precise on who actually ruled a country. And there Rhaenyra would be numbered in any proper real world monarch list. Especially as both her and Aegon II's rule was equally contested throughout their entire reign. Aegon II never exerted more power in/over Westeros and its people than Rhaenyra and vice versa. What you reference means more about the tedious business about which rebel, pretender, or would-be emperor can actually be said to have ruled (over a portion of a kingdom or empire) for a time. In fact, George's new or final take on this thing is that neither Aegon II nor Rhaenyra were proper Targaryen monarchs as neither was actually anointed by a High Septon of the Faith - that is a very deliberate decision on George's part. Nor is Aegon II actually physically restored to the Iron Throne after his return to KL - sitting on the Iron Throne is of huge symbolic importance in this world, much more important than a proclamation or coronation. King Aenys is proclaimed and crowned on Dragonstone, but then he flies to KL to mount the Iron Throne in the half-finished Red Keep. King Maegor is proclaimed and crowned on Dragonstone, but then flies to KL to mount the Iron Throne in the same way. The reign of Jaehaerys I does not begin with his proclamation in Storm's End but his possession of the Red Keep and the Iron Throne once he gets there. Finally, neither pretender went with the actual Targaryen banner in red-and-black. Order and legitimacy return the Realm only when the banner of King Aegon III is raised at the very end of the war. This also hammers home the fact the Dance meant chaos and lack of legitimacy, while the rise of Aegon III brought back peace, stability, and order. If George had wanted Rhaenyra to be just another Aegon the Uncrowned she would have been Rhaenyra the Uncrowned - meaning lacking a coronation (like, for instance, Prince Aegon still does as per the end of ADwD). She could have also had as much success and support as Aegon the Uncrowned. Then she could have been historically truly irrelevant. But it turned out she wasn't so much. The fact Rhaenyra is not listed as a monarch in the appendix seems to be that George had kind of the English Anarchy in mind there as a setting - but then things start to go haywire when he actually writes out this story as the reason that Empress Matilda is not counted as an English Queen is that she actually never styled herself as such - nor did she formally depose her cousin King Stephen despite the fact that she had him imprisoned. It has nothing to do with propaganda of the winning side or misogyny, simply with the political facts. With Rhaenyra, though, George has her physically taking the throne, has Aegon II abandon his throne and people ... so it is quite different. He could have had it like Matilda easily enough within the same narrative framework. Have Rhaenyra and Daemon declare Rhaenyra will only go by the title of Princess until she has taken the Iron Throne. And then have her postpone her formal coronation - planned as a grand ceremony - until the war is over. Then we would have a Rhaenyra who history would not remember as a queen. It is actually rather striking we didn't get such a narrative as Rhaenyra's fall is very much based on Matilda's short stint in London, but instead of a lavish coronation - like the one Matilda seems to have planned for herself - George only gave Rhaenyra the plan to formally invest Joffrey as Prince of Dragonstone in a lavish ceremony. (With Matilda there is, of course, also the fact that she was a dowager empress and such not really in need of the title of queen, even more so that with medieval politics as they were she may have needed the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the papacy to actually formally unmake the kingship of Stephen and take the queenship for herself. She seems to have been fine to rule as domina angolorum/Lady of the English as this was actually the same thing. Nevertheless, King Stephen felt the need to be crowned again after his release, meaning he himself and his contemporaries felt he had been deposed and reinstated - very much like both Henry VI and Edward IV would later be in the Wars of the Roses.) That was the choice of the editors/authors, based on the list in the AGoT appendix. And in a way a not really elegant or fitting choice as quite a few of the chapters who claim to be about this or that king is about something else. Most notably, I'd say, the sections on Maekar, Aerys I, Viserys II, and, yes, also Aegon II. George himself didn't structure his 'sidebars' on the Targaryens as chapters/essays about specific kings, so the book drawing information from those should, perhaps, have followed his guidance there more. Especially once it was clear that the least important person of the reign of Aegon II was actually Aegon II. The Aegon II chapter should have been 'The Dance of the Dragons'. He also calls Viserys III Viserys III there - which is why I usually give him that numeral. But that doesn't make Viserys III an actual king, right? From what I remember about those portraits they had the idea to include all the known Targaryen kings in the artbook. But after folks and Amok liked portraits of Targaryen kings we got others, too, especially women. The Great Bastards, Baelor's sisters, Alysanne, and Rhaenyra. And she even got her father's crown there. That is a rather crucial question and one the people who think it makes sense to assume that Rhaenyra was never counted as a monarch fail to answer. In no medieval-style kingdom with a hereditary monarchy whose royal dynasty is worshipped as semi-divine would anyone ever want to undermine the semi-divine mother of such a king. Even more so one from whom all the later kings descent in direct line, Blackfyres and Targaryen-Baratheons included. Instead, we would actually expect singers and sycophants and, yes, even historians to praise Rhaenyra and Daemon rather than to throw dirt on them. Because that would be the way to carry royal favor. And that is what the people living during the reign of Rhaenyra's immediate descendants would want. At the latest after the death of Jaehaera Aegon II should rarely, if ever, be mentioned again in a positive manner. Even more so as it seems that in the end the government of Aegon III also did away with the last scion of the Green line, Aemond's son by Alys Rivers. Alys and her son are likely to try to gain the throne eventually, and if they do they will do so on the basis of Green ideology, namely that Alys' son is the trueborn son of Aemond Targaryen and as such the rightful king through unbroken male descent from Aegon the Conqueror. Aegon III cannot say that about himself, so if there is a conflict there Aegon III and his court can hardly defend his kingship by undermining or ignoring Rhaenyra's claim to throne. Because if the Greens had it, if their ideology had triumphed, then Aemond's son should be king for sure. And in relation to female succession the best way to stop that - if you want to - would be general misogyny and other precedents against. One would rather dance around the Rhaenyra issue, referring to it as 'a special case' which later kings technically could but should not repeat as it might cause trouble. But it wasn't. We have a detailed history of the Regency era and nowhere ever is it said that Rhaenyra's queenship was denied by king and court to placate Greens among their ranks. This is a non-existing problem. No, that is projection on your part. The Blacks defeated the last Green army, then effectively Aegon II's entire council (and court) turned against him, murdered him, and crowned Rhaenyra's son (who had been a hostage scheduled for disfigurement) to carry favor with the victors. The war didn't continue because the new king's government offered pardons and good terms to the former Green supporters which they accepted, and eventually it succeeded in convincing the extremists in their own ranks to not continue the war (Cregan Stark). There is no indication at all that Elenda Baratheon, Lyonel Hightower, and Johanna Lannister viewed Aegon III as the rightful heir of his uncle. That they bend the knee to him doesn't mean or entail that they liked this outcome. All we can say is that they preferred peace to a continuation of the war. What certainly seems to have helped to tie things together again - and I find this actually a great narrative twist by George - is the fact that we have the fervent Black Cregan Stark punish the murderers of Aegon II. That way the remaining Greens are freed for the duty to avenge their murdered king. Of course, Cregan didn't do this to placate any Greens - he felt cheated by the turncloak traitors - but the outcome is the same. You seem to forget the 10,000 Vale men which seem to have been fresh and well provisioned on their Braavosi galleys. The decision to share power with the Greens only came after Cregan had given power up again - and earlier Cregan had cast down both Larys and Corlys who certainly would have ran the government of Aegon III had Cregan not intervened. The joined regency council thing is decided much later. He doesn't have to vindicate it. He and Viserys are her sons. It would happen automatically. Also, he kind of does do just that, showing his true colors when he picks up a sword to defend his beloved mother (as a nine-year-old!), and then later when he make clear Torrhen Manderly faithfully served his mother - in capacity as queen and not as brigand warlord. You are conflating things there. Your ancestors and predecessors you honor and celebrate in such a setting. If Rhaenyra hadn't lived and hadn't fought for her crown, then Aegon III and Viserys II would neither be alive nor kings themselves. And neither would any of their descendants. The succession is a different matter. There any case is a special case, and there are many ways to get rid of Daena and her sisters. It is royal fiat. King Baelor names his heir, and he is bound by no law in his choice. He doesn't have to touch on his mother's case at all, he could simply cite Rhaenys vs. Baelon or Aerea vs. Jaehaerys I if he wanted to give legal justifications. Which he wouldn't even have to do. The can of Rhaenyra would also tarnish the memory of Viserys I as he named her heir. And no king would actually undermine the king's right to name his own heir, so that is not likely to happen, either. The very fact that Daena never became queen is enough to get rid of the Blackfyre issue you seem to see here. After all, Daeron II is the crowned and anointed king for twelve years by the time Daemon Blackfyre rebels. And no Blackfyre partisan ever cited the idea that Daena should have ruled as a reason why Daemon should be king. The justifications are 'he got the sword' and 'the man who is king for twelve years and who we all acknowledged as such throughout this time is a bastard born of the wrong kind of incest'. I mean, if you were viewing Daena as the rightful monarch then the king who gave Blackfyre to Daemon wouldn't have been a king, either, so the big argument of the Blackfyre partisans would be undermined. That is simply not true. The Greens are done. The Stormlords and Westermen are spent, that is explicitly in the text, while Aegon III's Black supporters gathered in KL number about 20,000 or more - we don't know the numbers of the Lads, but the Vale brought 10,000 men, and Cregan 8,000-20,000. Oldtown is viewed a potential looming threat, but the Hightowers are without a strong leader and they would have to assemble a new army. It is clear that the war could have continued, but it is equally clear who was king at that time and also which side would eventually destroy the other if the war had gone on. Shortly after Aegon II's death people from both sides still thought Tyland Lannister might be able to hire an army of sellswords ... but nothing came of that and this was already known by the time the regency government was set up. The Dance ends with one faction winning - and then we have a situation where the victors include members from the losing side into the new government. Like Alyssa Velaryon does with the regency government of Jaehaerys I. This is done in an attempt to create a lasting peace, to heal wounds, etc. But just as Jaehaerys I won and included some of Maegor's followers, for a time, into his government the victorious Blacks did the same with the Greens. And quite similarly events during the Regency era of Aegon III see to it that the government of Aegon III is cleansed of all Green influences by the time Aegon III reaches adulthood. The only remaining Green element on his council is Gedmund Peake - and we have no clue if the man even fought in the Dance. Of course, before that happens certain former Greens rose to great power but that, in turn, is only accidental as many people powerful people died before - Corlys of natural causes, many others of the Winter Fever. Unwin Peake only joins the regency council as a replacement, after all. Not to mention that by that time there are new alliances already made. Lady Sam was never a Green, and she wields tremendous influence in Oldtown - and from the time Alyn Velaryon and Lyonel Hightower are close friends we cannot really view the Hightowers as Greens or anti-Aegon III. Unwin Peake - a supposedly fervent Green - murdered the last surviving child of his king to strengthen his own position at court. Surely we cannot count him as 'a Green' by that time. And we also see this on the Black side, but less so. Torrhen Manderly becomes an enemy of Aegon III in the wake of his dismissal, despite the fact that he was a fervent Black before.

It is phantom debate, really. Some fandom guys pretend that in-universe the consensus in Westeros is that Rhaenyra never was a queen ... when that is never even said. The only flimsy textual support of such a reading is the faulty AGoT appendix which doesn't give the correct age difference of Rhaenyra-Aegon II, has them, apparently, as full siblings, and also implies that Aegon II was the anointed heir of Viserys I, not Rhaenyra.

See above. Something like that didn't actually happen - and it couldn't have happened in light of who Aegon III (and Viserys II) actually were. No courtier of theirs, not even during the Regency era, could have vilified or undermined their mother or their parents in general (Daemon was even worse of a traitor to Aegon II as Rhaenyra, considering he personally killed Aemond and arranged the murder of Aegon's heir). Anyone undermining Rhaenyra's claim would undermine the very king they made - Aegon III - in whose name the regency council and the Hands ruled. They would have undermined themselves. And that this didn't happen we see, for instance, in Tyland Lannister - likely one of Rhaenyra's worst enemies after she made him suffer so much - becoming a loyal servant of Aegon III. His own power as Hand hinges on the reputation and standing of his king. Tyland remains friendly to old Green colleagues like Orwyle and he uses his power as Hand to push back House Velaryon by strengthening the royal fleet ... but he doesn't undermine the king he is serving nor his late mother or father or elder brothers. If the Green cause had won then Aegon III couldn't have become king at all. He was of the poisoned, evil, attainted bloodline of the bitch queen. Both sides condemned each other as traitors, meaning no Black royal could be the heir of a Black pretender and vice versa. Hell, even the 'women can't inherit' narrative doesn't really fit with the fact that Aegon III was married to Jaehaera on his coronation day. If female claims are invalid then why would they force their king to marry the only surviving child of his hated uncle? Surely he has no use of an invalid female claim to strengthen his own. But obviously both Blacks and Greens were very aware of Jaehaera's claim - just think that Cregan Stark thought Lady Baratheon could crown her at Storm's End to challenge Aegon III in KL - and it was decided that young Aegon marry her so her independent claim was neutralized. I don't expect Rhaenyra's and Daemon's memory not being honored by their immediate descendants. They had no reason to do so, just as they had no reason to reopen the Dance issue as their elder children were all male. And when King Baelor's succession comes up decades later the Dance might come up more as the issue of Viserys I - who to name heir - rather than the war as such. Because when Baelor sets aside Daena and takes his septon's vows of celibacy he will have to name an heir. He will never have trueborn children of his own - unlike Viserys I who soon decided to remarry - so he definitely needs an Heir Apparent, not just a presumptive heir. His case is even clearer than that of King Aerys I who was married and might yet have children by Aelinor or a second wife. And I do imagine that Baelor's piety as well as his attitude towards his sisters and women in general - not only did he dissolve his marriage to Daena but he actually imprisoned all his sisters - will make sure that the only possible heir in his mind will be his uncle Viserys - and, perhaps, some male descendants of Baela and Rhaena, especially sons or grandsons of Alyn Velaryon. There just won't be any other choice. The very notion a sister of Baelor's could succeed him when the king actually imprisoned them is ludicrous. Royal favor is not expressed by imprisonment. Rhaenyra was not actually called 'Maegor with teats'. She has no official moniker like 'the Cruel' or 'the Conqueror. It is merely the way certain Kingslanders remember her for their own reasons - mostly to do with her exploitative tax policies which were, unfortunately, necessary for her government to survive. Referring that is about as relevant as Mace Tyrell's judgment of Daenerys Targaryen being 'as mad as her father' or the various insults laid at Tyrion's feet. The fact that the twisted little monkey demon is not going to win a popularity context doesn't tell us anything of his abilities as a ruler nor about the validity of the claims he might have.

That isn't actually the case. No historian ever calls Rhaenyra a pretender or not a queen. Gyldayn - who has written the only Targaryen history we actually read - doesn't take sides. To him, Rhaenyra is as much a queen as Aegon is a king. The idea that Westerosi history collectively denied Rhaenyra's queenship or erased her short reign from history is wrong. Rhaenyra did sit the Iron Throne for half a year after she formally deposed Aegon II. That is just a fact of history. Certain individuals in the books consider Rhaenyra a traitor and a pretender - but that doesn't make it so.

The war started with Rhaenyra leading her faction, but after her death it continued in the name of Aegon III ... and he and his faction won, and replaced Aegon II - who was murdered by his own court because he wouldn't admit defeat. Personally, Rhaenyra lost because she was killed ... but politically she won because she fought not only for herself but for her sons as well. And they eventually triumphed. Aegon II lost both personally and politically as his last surviving child did not succeed him but was instead the hostage-wife of Rhaenyra's son. Rhaenyra's line lived and thrived while Aegon's died out. Rhaenyra never fought for an abstraction like 'women's right to inherit' or other such nonsense. She was in the game as her father's chosen heir and she fought for herself and her children.

The latter point of view makes no sense in-universe as hereditary royalty and nobility always fights for family and bloodline, nothing else. How important family and legacy are is, for instance, hammered home by the importance of the Stark crypts and the comforting knowledge that one day Ned and his children will rest with their ancestors while another Stark rules Winterfell. How important the continuation of the bloodline is to the Targaryens we can deduce from the fact that fertility issues drove both Maegor and Aerys II over the edge (and forced many a Targaryen woman into an early grave). Not only did Maegor's infertility drive him into a second marriage which caused a war with the Faith, but his inability to father viable children eventually broke his resolve. This only makes sense if these people lived in a mental and social framework in which a lord or king was only truly proving himself if he had heirs of his own - if he had a child which could succeed him. These people view themselves as links in the long chain of their ancestral bloodline, so the worst defeat they can suffer if they can't continue the bloodline. And in this vital way Aegon II and his followers failed. Otto and Alicent made Aegon king for dynastic reasons - so that their blood can sit the Iron Throne rather than Aemma Arryn's. If the throne later passes to Rhaenyra's son because Alicent's bloodline dies out then Aegon II's entire cause is a failure. Aegon II's reign is then merely a short aberration - like Maegor's usurpation - after which the throne goes back to the rightful bloodline. For Alicent/Aegon it was even a crushing defeat that Jaehaera was passed over as heir and married as a broodmare to Rhaenyra's son. They did not want a reconciliation with the whore queen and her get, they wanted them destroyed. Jaehaera as queen consort is a defeat and a humiliation, but it would only have been slightly better if Jaehaera had been the queen regnant and her cousin her prince consort.

But Aegon II was scarred mentally and physically even more than Aegon III ... yet we are to believe that him killing Rhaenyra and him regaining the throne for a short while before he was, in turn, defeated, murdered and replaced by Rhaenyra's son means he 'won' in some sense? Privately both Aegons might have preferred it if they hadn't been made king, might have preferred it if they had lived a long and healthy life in peace ... but once the dice were cast it was clear what they had to do. Aegon III's determination as king we see at the end of the Regency era, finally, but his allegiance and loyalty we knew from the moment when he picked up a sword as a nine-year-old to defend his mother.

Of course, the true victor of the Dance is the king at the end, Aegon III, and to a lesser (or higher) degree his younger brother Viserys. They control the throne, the government, and the Realm now, something they would have never done if there had been no war. Just as Jaehaerys I was the eventual benefactor of Maegor's usurpation as it brought him to power - something that would have never happened had Aegon and Rhaena ruled and had Viserys lived to father children of his own. Sure, it was bittersweet for both as they lost beloved family members and lived through very bad times, but if you view it from a political point of view - with the political interests of the princes involved in mind - then Aegon III and Viserys definitely won. That they lost most of the dragons and many family members on the road is not really that important - the dragons could have multiplied again, just as Aegon III and Viserys produced new Targaryen princes. That they didn't for some reason is something that only happened years after the war - and might actually be something that may have happened without a Dance ... assuming that Aegon III himself didn't poison any dragons but that there was a different Citadel-run conspiracy. Sure enough, there were a lot of healthy dragons in 129 AC, but also many old(er) ones. Vhagar and Dreamfyre and Vermithor and Silverwing could have been poisoned in a way that indicated natural death, and eventually they could have killed the others in a similar manner. It would have taken longer and may have been harder to accomplish, but it could have been done. The Dance killed a lot of dragons, but it didn't extinguish them. When Aegon III takes the throne there are more dragons in Westeros than there were when the Conqueror started his Conquest (Aegon I had three as far as we know, in 131 AC there were four). And again in relation to succession: People here still seem to fail to understand that the king or lord - the guy in charge - names the successor (if one is named), not some teethless legal prattle. There are traditions, yes, people expect you to make your eldest son your heir and successor ... but there are no authorities that can force you to do this. What makes your own people and subjects accept and treat your chosen heir and successor as this person is if you declare and treat them as such - if they are formally anointed, if they are known by your lords and people. This is what made Aenys the Conqueror's successor rather than Maegor. And it is what ensured that the imp Tyrion is not, in fact, heir to Casterly Rock despite the fact that technically Lord Tywin should have named him so. If this was a society ruled by laws and lawyers, a society where people had 'rights' they could argue and fight for in courts of law, etc. then it would different. To a point a passed over lordly heir can petition the king to intervene on his behalf to 'defend his rights' but if something ever came out of this that would be up to the king. Such a passed over heir would have no right to break the King's Peace and try to start a private war of succession without the leave of the king. We see how even the great houses should resolve their succession problems with the Vale succession war during the Regency era. The Iron Throne rules and the subjects obey. That is the way how things go. With the royal succession the only authority is the king himself. He names or acknowledges an heir and successor, and no one else. If he doesn't or if the succession is contested then swords will decide who has 'the right to rule', nothing else. And in a succession or civil war the 'right to succession' or 'right to rule' is just one of many arguments, justifications and means to convince people and gain followers. How flimsy such arguments and justifications can be we see with Aegon I's 'reason' to invade all of Westeros (kind of okay for the Stormlands, but not even a flimsy pretext for the rest), Robert's buddies making him king, or the delusions of the followers of Daemon Blackfyre and his sons. The funny thing about the Dance is that the only Targaryen-made law touching on Targaryen succession was actually the Jaehaerys-made Widow's Law which effectively reaffirms Rhaenyra's status as Heir Apparent as it specifically forbids the disinheritance of the children from a first marriage in favor of those from a second. As Rhaenyra was named heir before Viserys I remarried and before he had a son, she would have to be disinherited if Aegon were to be named heir in her place. As this part of the book is written after the Dance story we can interpret it as a final and rather subtle commentary that Viserys I naming Rhaenyra heir in 105 AC is actually something he could (or should) not take back or change on a whim as there was actually a major law issued by his royal grandfather strengthening Rhaenyra's position.

We don't know, which is reason enough to not speculate in the dark. If such things had happened then, well, it would have been important enough, historically, to warrant mention in the book. You made used words like 'natural' which imply that people have no other choice but to do X or Y because that is how they are wired. And that is just nonsense in that context. This is an incestuous dynasty. Had they gotten along they could have found ways to make things work, to share power or to include the other branch of the family into the royal bloodline. This is what Viserys I did with the Velaryons. For them, it seems, you don't deem it 'natural' that Corlys throw all his wealth and the power that came with it against Baelon's brood (just two princes) to see his wife or son sit the throne. Why did he and Rhaenys accept the Great Council and not insist on war? Hell, why did they end up backing Rhaenyra rather than opening a third front in 129 AC to finally see Rhaenys ascend to her rightful place? Wouldn't that be 'natural'? She was cheated and had a better claim! Why didn't Corlys hire some Faceless Men to do away with Viserys and his family? He was the richest man in Westeros, after all. The crucial issue is that Alicent and her children hated Rhaenyra and her children while Rhaenys and Corlys didn't hate Baelon and Viserys and Daemon. The latter case was a more or less abstract issue in the royal family - true enough, feelings were hurt and resentment existed ... but it didn't devolve to the level of personal loathing and hatred. That is why there was no war and that is why Viserys I could eventually heal the rift between himself and Rhaenys/Corlys - just as he was also able to heal the rift between himself and his brother, repeatedly. All that shows us that such succession/civil wars within a royal family are never inevitable - they can be avoided if the people involved know how to do it. With the Blacks and the Greens it was personal. And that is why there was war. Not because of silly abstract nonsense like who has the right to succeed ... there weren't even laws regulating this, just precedents, so whatever maesters and scholars said would be window-dressing and afterthoughts for the royals vying for power. And the way Alicent and Rhaenyra are presented is that the seeds of the future war don't go back to abstract succession issues, but the personal rivalry and beef of those two women. The classic bitch fight about who is more beautiful, who takes precedent at court (think about how all goes back to two dresses of different colors!), who is more virtuous. Alicent is very much like Snow White's stepmother, unable to suffer a rival who might outshine her. Rhaenyra is first and foremost a pain in Alicent's ass, not Aegon's. The latter comes much, much later. Alicent and Rhaenyra get along at first ... until they don't, because Alicent can apparently not suffer that another woman is as important to Viserys as she herself (or even more important). I'm not saying ambition for Aegon played no part, but we have no idea how crucial it was nor can we say war was inevitable because the king had more children. It wasn't inevitable in 101-103 AC, so it wasn't in 129 AC, either.

That is not really the case. Just as it wasn't the case that Dornish succession law had to change to favor equal primogeniture - Nymeria could have named her son by Davos Dayne her heir if she had wanted to, just as Davos and his son could have staged a coup to install him as the new Prince of Dorne. Such things happen if there are dysfunctional families and key players who cannot control their ambition. Renly and Stannis are full brothers yet they ended up turning against each other, not to mention Euron Greyjoy. We see a similar thing with the Blackfyre Rebellion which is not something etched in stone when Aegon IV dies and Daeron II takes the throne. Vice versa, Maegor and Visenya accepted the rise of Aenys and Duncan Targaryen seems to have been fine with being supplanted by his younger brother. You have to want to be king to be king or want that your child takes the throne. Alicent Hightower was free to accept the fact that her king already had an anointed Heir Apparent by the time he married her. It is not 'natural' to demand that your child be the next monarch just because you are queen consort. And as we have no idea about Alicent's actual character it makes no sense to assume her motivation revolved around 'defending the rights of her son(s)' - if you look at her toxic remarks towards Rhaenyra and the general description of their rivalry the impression we get is that this was a bitch fight, a rivalry of royal women revolving more around alleged slutty behavior, body size after pregnancies, and the naming of royal princes than the succession issue. It is easily imaginable that Alicent Hightower ended up propping up her son as king as a means to destroy her hated rival and not so much because she felt her son had to be king. That is not really the story of the Dance, as book Rhaenyra is more a nominal leader, possibly even pudding in the hands of Daemon and Jace, just as book Alicent is simply a crucial catalyst starting the war. Neither woman is a matriarch in a meaningful sense. The women do play a role to a point, but their rivalry is mostly backstory and buildup, not part of the war as such. That then falls to the men of both faction - and their very own ambitions and goals. And Rhaenyra even has the grace to let bygones be bygones, sparing the lives of Helaena and Alicent. The show pushing Alicent out of formal power/influence very much reflects how the patriarchy also works with Alicent in the book. She is just the womb who gave birth to the king - as such she might be honored, but not as a politician or formal leader. FaB finely illustrates this by keeping Alicent out of the blood oath of the Green Council. Whenever Alicent kind of takes charge it happens in the absence of men. It is wrong for a woman to rule but it has to happen when there is no man around. And Alicent embodies that, only coming to the fore when she has to, and stepping into the shadows where she belongs when her men are back in charge.

You should really drop this Jeyne-Cregan obsession. They are not important characters in the Dance, nor is their backstory. Jeyne Arryn did literally nothing to help Rhaenyra, and Cregan showed up way too late, too. They could have broadened the conflict by having fighting between Greens and Blacks in the Vale and the North, too, and expanded their roles that way, but they chose not to - and that is fine as there are many other characters who are more important. Jeyne Arryn's curt ways with Rhaena fit perfectly well with Jeyne's strictly nominal support of Rhaenyra until after her death. She sent her no soldiers, didn't do anything to help her to take or hold her throne. She had the grace to finally got her ass moving after Rhaenyra was driven out of the city, but that was kind of too late. If anything then Jeyne is the Black version of Borros Baratheon. Removing Cregan from the finale montage was also a great decision as this allows them to give us Roddy the Ruin as the big Northman character next season - and he is going to fight in a number of battles so he should be pretty prominent. Ditto with many other Riverlander characters. They fight a number of battles together, not just the Fishfeed, so we should see them doing that. Jeyne Arryn and Cregan Stark just sit on their hands. We should see some more of them in the final season of the show when they finally get their act together and do something, but not before. Because before other characters deserve the spotlight, especially the main characters. Or rather ... perhaps we see Rhaena pulling a Visenya with Jeyne if/when she claims her dragon, making it very clear to her that they will be back, personally, with fire and blood if those 15,000 Vale men are not marching soon. They might have written their exchanges with the intention of having such a confrontation eventually. So far Rhaenyra's good cousin seems to have been talk only, not summoning her banners, making no intention to actually send any soldiers. Yes, it was a crucial mistake of season 2 to not bother with Jace's trip to the Vale and the North, especially as there was slow pacing which could have made this trip very interesting - much more than the silly way in which Daemon 'subdued' the Riverlands - but without that there is literally no point to Jeyne Arryn or Cregan Stark. They do nothing. So why show them? The show's depiction of Jeyne actually fits better with her book actions than the silly speeches the sources invented for her there - women banding together, etc. Jeyne didn't help Rhaenyra, so she wasn't exactly very loyal to her nor much invested in her cause.

That is not going off the deep end, it is actually doing what you have to when you want to be a monarch. And unless they invent nonsense we know she will never kill innocents or commit atrocities ... because she never does in the book. Killing a bunch of traitors is not evil. And even that might not really happen so much in the show as Otto and Tyland might never actually end up in her clutches. I'd have liked her to be a bit Maegor with Teats. But all she is is Aenys without a Moustache. And the show version will never be either because she is too smart for both. Hell, if they play out an arc then Rhaenyra's show end might be her walking away from power like Alicent did this season. She is in no position to do so now, but perhaps after she paid to steep a price to cling to power. When Alicent goes on about going away, living the simple life, being not remembered, etc. you see a longing there. And they gave Daemon the line 'to death or the end of our story'. What is that supposed to mean aside from possibly foreshadowing future developments like 'well, we think they are dead, but unofficially the story of Rhaenyra/Daemon ended because one faked his death and joined the Green Men, while the other faked her death and lived out her life in peaceful anonymity in a house with a red door in Braavos.'

Yes, no chance that Aemond being allowed to live can be an option. His beef with Rhaenyra is personal, and Wall or not, while Vhagar yet lives he would remain a potential danger. She could order to kill Vhagar but that would be silly, too, when the rider is the real problem. When rewatching the scene it seems clear that Emma plays the scene as if Rhaenyra simply cannot believe the shit Alicent is saying there. There is the moment before the Aegon question comes up when she mutters something inaudible which the subtitles give as 'Right' ... and then she tests Alicent's sincerity by way of bringing up Aegon. She confronts Alicent with her own earlier narrative that Aegon had to be king because he was the living challenge to Rhaenyra and she would have to kill him to secure her throne to see an honest reaction. The whole thing is a test. It might very well be that Rhaenyra might still feel the need to kill Aegon anyway once she had him ... but if Sunfyre were truly dead in the show (not chance he is, I think) then Aegon would be a joke as a pretender. He is crippled and unlikely to ever be able to claim another adult dragon, much less ride one, so he could be put in a tower cell or sent to the Wall. Sparing his life could be a sign of good will and mercy from a position of strength. Something that won't come as Aegon won't be in KL when Rhaenyra shows up. With Myrcella this is true. With an adult pretender capable of abdicating publicly it is somewhat different. We see that Aegon II had that option himself at the end when the Blacks were closing in on the city. He could have abdicated in favor of Aegon III, taking the black. He chose not to and died.

I don't think he is. He is doing horrible things, but as he himself it is so that he and his family/loved ones can survive. He is not wrong that, if they view this as a total war, they are one step away from the abyss. And while Helaena accuses him quite correctly of horrible things ... she doesn't know his heart. Did he deliberately intend to kill Aegon or did he just end up not caring if he lived or died? We don't know. I think killing Aegon was more important for him than to kill Luke, but that one opened the door ... and then he went through another time and felt not so bad about it after all. That said - with their version of Alys Rivers and how she obviously helped Daemon to understand himself and the bigger picture, and the romance waiting for them both, I daresay Aemond is the show character on a straight road to redemption, never mind what he still does to the Strongs and some peasants in the Riverlands. It is also quite clear that the Battle Above the Gods Eye can't be a political or even personal thing in the show. It is too big, and both know they will die if they go there already. So why do it? Obviously there is another layer to all that, even more so with a Green Man actually making an appearance. You have to rewatch things. Baela blabbers about 'innocents', Rhaenyra says Oldtown, Lannisport and their armies have to be subdued. She doesn't say 'kill them all'. They might have to burn some people if they are stupid enough to fight on in the face of a supreme dragon advantage ... but that would be badly written nonsense like GoT Tarly.

The wooden throne is the chair Aegon II will sit on after his restoration, after his injuries are so bad that he can no longer mount the Iron Throne. They clearly intend to go with the book symbology that Aegon III will come after Rhaenyra on the Iron Throne - or perhaps after Trystane Truefyre, if they will include him - whereas Aegon II will be no complete or proper king after his return as he can no longer mount the symbol of Targaryen royal power.

If Larys had Otto we should have seen him in the carriage he is with Aegon. No point of keeping that a secret. But the montage doesn't even show him before or after Larys/Aegon.

Alan Beesbury would be possible, but less likely as Honeyholt is south of Oldtown. If he was given Otto's travel plans by spies, etc. we could see him being waylaid before he got to Highgarden or Oldtown, for sure. But as Alicent told Otto to go to Highgarden (first) rather than Oldtown, I think Bitterbridge might be more likely, as Otto had Lord Caswell hanged and I daresay that Lady Caswell might have a thing or two to say about that. Interesting question is now if Otto will be publicly executed in Rhaenyra's name by Lady Caswell, or whether she is going to send him as a gift to Rhaenyra at KL (or still on Dragonstone). Less likely options would be the Tyrells themselves (to safeguard/enforce their neutrality), the Tarlys or the Rowans in the wake of them declaring for Rhaenyra. They certainly botched that, but the conversation is more a loyalty test than the confirmation that Rhaenyra has to execute Aegon. It is the kind of badly refined dialogue we also get with Baela talking about 'killing thousands of innocents' when Rhaenyra's point was to subdue Oldtown and Lannisport, not burn them to the ground with no chance of surrender. Being pissed, yes, but rage...? Why? Aegon is a broken ruin, dragonless (possibly for good), and in exile. No need to start raging. That is likely to start when Aemond starts to ravage the Riverlands, making her look like an impotent fool, never mind the numbers of her dragons I think Jace's death might add to her decision to execute Green leaders at court and hand Tyland over to the torturers. The decision to make the (former) Master of Ships an actual admiral in the show was one of their better ideas, by the way.

I'm sure this will eventually cause complications further down the road. But we can agree that Rhaenyra only wants to see Aemond and, perhaps, Aegon dead at this point (as I said above, to me it seems her insistence there was a loyalty test to Alicent - she could just as well send him to the Wall). But to be sure - Daeron is a distant and almost non-existent son to her. Not exactly the kind of person that is on the forefront of Alicent's mind. Alicent turns on Aemond there for a bundle of reasons. First him wanting to force his sister - the queen! - to do something she doesn't want, but also because she views Aegon's and Aemond's cause - the Green cause - as the wrong cause at this point. She doesn't say that outright, but it is what she now believes. And it is, overall, consistent with the show character who didn't make Aegon king for her own selfish desires. That strikes me as a big red herring. Aegon believes Sunfyre is dead because that is what people told him. The idea that riders feel when they dragons die is not something show or books have established so far. Dragons seem to feel the death of their riders (like Dreamfyre does with Helaena) but not the reverse. Larys' Braavos plan seems to be a rather clever way of the show to give Aegon a preliminary exile which gets them around having him disappear from the show for a season or more if his appearance on Dragonstone is to be a surprising twist in the book. And with them having wealth and coin in Dragonstone we could even see a Rhaenyra-Aegon confrontation at the Sealord's court next season, with her demanding he be handed over to him, the Sealord refusing, etc. We could also see Aegon having ready coin available being used as a way to destabilize Rhaenyra's reign from afar. Helaena does indeed look as if she could be pregnant by now, and I do expect if they go with that plot line - which they seem to be intending - that the prospect of Helaena having another son by Aegon and his eventual birth will become a huge issue of contention between Rhaenyra and Alicent next season. What to do with him? Jaehaera they can and already might betroth to Aegon the Younger, but a male heir for Aegon II could grow into a pretender eventually. To me it would look like 5 seasons, especially if next season wouldn't have full 10 episodes, either. Next season would have the rise of Rhaenyra to power and her first victories plus Reach and Daeron stuff, Ironborn plotline, etc., followed by season 4 showing her downfall which might end with her death or only her flight from the city. Then season 5 would wrap things up. I also do have the feeling that Alicent's speech about feeling free, wanting to go away could be mirrored by Rhaenyra's last conversation with her if they were pulling a Laenor on her death and have her survive.

She can. Like any bad parent would. Alicent didn't enter into a mother of the year contest, or did she? Her sons are grown-up men who make their own choices. She did not turn them into sadist loose cannons and rapists. That they did on their own. Mind you, not saying this is super writing or the Alicent I wanted. But it is consistent with the show character. In fact, it would be odd for this Alicent to defend her sons at this point. Could change in the future, though. Last time I looked Alicent never commanded Aegon to, you know, rape his wife. Her being diagusted by Aegon and Aemond makes sense, though. Would you love and defend those pricks?

It is modernity. And a real thing that happens more often than people care to admit. Tywin's problem isn't a lack of love, but direct and repeated monstrous abuse. With Alicent I'd not say that there is no love for her children ... but she cares much more for Rhaenyra, for good or ill, and, since quite recently, for herself. Which is actually good for her. She sold out the lecherous rapist and the one-eyed lunatic. Good riddance. I mean, seriously, would you love those brats? I would not even try.

She was pushed by her dad and thought her king and husband wanted it. She protected Aegon when she yet thought he should rule. That changed. And Aemond's injury is a means to punish and hurt Rhaenyra. She loathes her bastards and wants to make her suffer. This is about them, not Aemond. She never cared about Aemond as her permitting Aegon to bully him emphasizes. And, well, not every mother loves her children. Especially mothers in arranged marriages living a life of privilege. They can afford to avoid or ignore them. As a writing decision this is rather courageous. And not even at odds with book Alicent so much about whose inner feelings we know nothing. Sure, that one hated Rhaenyra ... but that doesn't mean she loved her children.

Regarding the Alicent thing ... guys, the insistence on Aegon's execution is a loyalty test, like Rhaenyra did earlier with Alfred Broom. She wanted to know how far Alicent would go. That is why Rhaenyra has teary eyes afterwards, too. This Alicent has nothing in common with the book version ... but then, the show version might just do something like that. She. Never. Liked. Her. Sons. And she always knew Rhaenyra would be a good queen, even after they were no longer friends. Her being treated like shit by Aemond plus her own view of Aegon and his qualities makes this certainly something that can make sense. There are interesting ways to go from there. Really hated whiney Alyn and heartless Corlys. The richest man in Westeros lets his sons starve. What an utter disgrace. Looking forward to the burning of High Tide now. Ulf, Tyland and Sharako are high points. I guess my idea that the Triarchy will remain in the Gullet after the battle is pretty likely, allowing them to eventually capture Aegon and Viserys.