Lord Varys

When reading up on modern Chinese history recently, I actually stumbled on the claim that in the Republic/Warlord era many 'soldiers' in various Chinese armies were chained together for battle. Some things are so silly you think George made them up ... but they might not be, after all. I honestly think the bigger worldbuilding joke is the longevity of the feudal society of Westeros, the fact that it remained as static as it appears to be, on every level, is just not believable. It is painstakingly obvious in retrospect that the world has no historical depth at all when you reread AGoT these days. Biggest legacy of that is the fact that George has, so far, not fleshed out the reign and court of Robert Baratheon. We do have background for plot relevant stuff like the reign of Aerys II and even earlier things ... but Robert's reign is very much irrelevant plot-wise, aside from Littlefinger's rise, so we know effectively nothing about that. But, in fact, in the real world and a realistic setting the ambitions and feuds of Robert's courtiers would (likely) play a bigger role in political schemes than the old revenge plots from 1-2 generations ago everybody seems to care so much about. Think about it - who are Littlefinger's predecessors as Master of Coin? If they were sacked aren't they or their families pissed? And who was passed over for the social climber Petyr Baelish? Aren't they pissed, too? Or whoever hoped to gain Renly's office? The lack of bureaucracy is a narrative problem as we don't see the members of that class as part of the political schemes we see depicted on other levels. And its lack in depiction makes it utterly ridiculous that anyone north of the Neck, south of the Mander, or east of the Mountains of the Moon would give a damn about what some king in KL said - because those kings never had nor do they have the power depicted they would need to show to wield the kind of authority they do. It just doesn't work. And sadly, it also doesn't work in the dragon age - there it gets much worse with dragonless Viserys I being the most powerful Targaryen king. This monarchy wouldn't work work without some kind of standing army and a royal bureaucracy watching the dealings of all the lords throughout the Realm. Without that, it is utter insanity that anyone ever actually does pay any taxes.

Barristan saved Aerys' life in a most stunning feat and was thus in a unique position to ask him for favor. There is no indication that anyone at Aerys' court was in a similar position in 282 AC nor does it make sense anyone at his court would have wanted to speak for Ethan Glover of all people. Ethan wouldn't have been too young as Aerys fine with killing children as shown, for instance, at Duskendale. The best explanation we have still is that Aerys got from Ethan what he wanted, either a testimony or confession he liked, or his services in some other capacity. He could have acted as an envoy telling Lord Rickard he should present his ass at court, for instance.

Aerys wouldn't have cared about any of that. If Brandon's companions are as guilty of his crime(s), then the same should also be true for his squire. Ethan seems to have been pretty old, too, as he was old enough to count as a proper fighter at the tower of joy. That means he may been pretty close in age to Ned, perhaps only 1-2 years younger. Not all squires are children. That means Ethan must have done something that spared him from Aerys' wrath. And the only thing that makes sense is him giving a testimony or confession the king wanted to hear. Perhaps only after threats or torture. Ned may have also not dragged Ethan with him to the tower of joy because he was his late brother's former squire or some die-hard Stark loyalist ... but simply somebody who knew where Lyanna (likely) was from his time at the Targaryen court. Ethan could have remained a prisoner at the Red Keep until the Sack, learning about Lyanna's whereabouts from Rhaegar himself. Hell, if Brandon and Rhaegar had conspiracy talks with each other at Harrenhal Ethan attended then Rhaegar may have definitely wanted to search out Ethan to explain what went wrong with the whole Lyanna situation. If Harrenhal was intended as a front for a covert Great Council to depose or restrict the power of Aerys II then it also makes a lot of sense that Rhaegar may have reached out to Rickard Stark as a potential ally as he had ways to approach Hoster Tully, Jon Arryn, and Robert Baratheon clandestinely about their takes on this sensitive issue. The betrothals and Ned being Jon's former ward put him a in unique position to address such dangerous topics. It would not surprise me if Brandon came to Harrenhal expecting to back Rhaegar against Aerys only to meet prince who was too afraid to actually move against his father now that he had shown up personally. That could even feature into his anger over Rhaegar in wake of the coronation as Brandon wouldn't be the type of guy who likes a craven to court his sister. We know a loot happened at Harrenhal, and the question whether the obviously mad Mad King was yet fit to rule would have been a question that would have been definitely discussed by a number of people.

I imagine that Ethan gave in and confirmed whatever suspicions Aerys II had about both Rickard and Brandon, giving the Mad King an incriminating testimony. Say, confirming that Rhaegar and the Starks were actually plotting against Aerys. And he could actually have overheard something of the kind if Rhaegar reached out to Brandon or Rickard at Harrenhal before the coronation of Lyanna. As Brandon's squire he could have been privy to things he was not supposed to hear.

Pretty much that. Tyrion's positive qualities up until the loss of his nose and him being framed for Joff's murder are his loyalty to his family and his (somewhat) genuine attempts to be a good and just ruler within the framework of his society where family loyalty must come first. His bad deeds usually happen in context of him being mistreated or threatened. Things get worse with him when he - correctly - feels overlooked and humiliated in the wake of the Blackwater. He did what he could to save Joff's crown and the Lannister cause but nobody in his immediate family treats him well for that. Of course, the abuse he suffered from his (alleged) father warped him to such a degree that he is unable to empathize with Shae or put himself into her shoes, causing him to do what he does. Mentally, Tyrion is Tywin's creature, he himself understands that even if he cannot change it (yet). It is Tywin's son who threatens Tommen, Tywin's son who has the blackmailing singer murdered, and Tywin's son who murders both Shae and Tywin himself. Tyrion acts there like he thinks Tywin would. Tywin, on the other hand, would likely never threaten to harm his nephew to defend a filthy whore, of course, but Tyrion thinks he would because Tyrion only got shit from his 'father'. Tysha's husband is the guy who hurts Jaime. In ADwD Tyrion is pretty much done with his family and the world. He is not sure if he wants to live ... but when he decides he wants to live, after all, he doesn't live for good reasons. He wants to use Varys and Illyrio's plans to punish his family and, presumably, the rest of Westeros, too. As he told them in the speech during his trial. Him torturing people weaker than him fall in that framework - and are part of the fact that he feels completely helpless while in Illyrio's, Connington's, and Jorah's power. It may be that his experiences with Penny change that outlook to a point, as might his interactions with Daenerys, but if he were to become a dragonrider or an otherwise powerful general in Dany's armies I very much doubt he is going to take a positive view on his family and the Westerosi people upon his return. Him wanting Casterly Rock isn't a positive desire, but the desire of man who wants power to punish and perhaps even destroy his family. And, of course, also the memory of his 'father'.

To be sure, personal threats to Aegon and his family also shouldn't hold much water. Why would he believe such threats? Why isn't he arrogant or confident enough to counter them or protect, say, Aenys from assassins? The guy rules almost an entire continent and Dorne is done. Bottom line is - this whole thing is just lazy writing on George's part. Good writing would actual give us the real reason for the peace (there is no need to make this a secret) or there would be a number of plausible answers to this question. None we are given make much sense, and the ones the readership came up are even worse. The whole thing might have worked better if Aegon's losses had been greater in the army/economy department and if the personal losses hadn't been that great (i.e. no dead Rhaenys in Dorne). Obviously, the best realistic take on the end of the war could have been that rebellions were brewing elsewhere in the Realm while the Targaryens wasted so much time and effort on Dorne while Meria showed all of Westeros that the dragons were not miracle weapons and resistance and rebellion were possible. Thus Aegon could have stopped the war because the Lannisters, Arryns, and/or Starks were pondering taking up their crowns again. In fact, something like that should have happened after Aegon let Nymor and Deria off the hook so easily. Resistance was possible, after all, the Dornish proved it, so why didn't anybody follow their example? Just 14 years passed since the Conquest, Aegon and Visenya were growing old, and they were down to but two dragons.

Any 'dragonslaying with magic' theories are utter nonsense simply for the fact that Aegon just received A STUPID LETTER! You can write anything in a letter, true things or false things, not to mention that Aegon himself lived a hundred years after the Doom and should have had no clue about genuine anti-dragon magics. Meaning something like that would never have caused him to behave the way he actually did. The only thing that makes even remotely sense is that Aegon is personally affected or threatened in a way that he knew was real. Else he would have reacted very differently. Magic talk doesn't even remotely fall into that category.

Actually, I think that letter thing is just a pretty bad plot device George came up to 'explain' why Aegon the Conqueror (and his successors) didn't crush Dorne after the death of Rhaenys and Meraxes. It explains nothing and it is a pretty bad mystery as even the most informed reader of the ASoIaF texts cannot come up with an even remotely plausible or convincing idea about the contents for that letter. Any suggestions I have read or come up with myself so far are pretty bad and wouldn't make much sense in a realistic scenario. (And even less so the scenario that Aegon could force through a peace agreement without explanation! Especially after what happened to Orys Baratheon's hand and Queen Rhaenys.) In fact, the best 'explanation' is actually the silly idea the letter successfully bewitched Aegon. Personal issues aside, Aegon's resources were far from spent as there is no indication any of his campaigns throughout the Dornish War even involved men from the West, the Riverlands, the Vale, or the North. Thus too much loss of life or resources on his side couldn't have possibly convinced him that the war wasn't worth the effort. And if we consider personal issues then the death of Rhaenys and the loss of Meraxes as well as the mutilation of Orys alone are slights he could hardly let stand without losing face with his lords. This is hardly something he could or would let go. We can almost say that a Red Wedding stands between the Targaryens and the Martells in 14 AC, and thus there is little chance for a peace without submission. Aegon does have all the cards, and nothing the Martells can do or say should be able to change that. Which is why the letter is a pretty bad plot device. A good one would allow us to come up with a number of convincing theories to fill the blanks. But here there just are no convincing theories.

Nobody using the name Viserys is indeed kind of odd as Viserys II is the great patriarch of his branch of the royal family. Aerys is a traditional Targaryen name. There was a Lord of Dragonstone of that name from whom Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters are descended. Rhaegel and Maekar might be new names or new variations (Maekar could be a play on the Maegor/Maegon name). That Daeron II named his second son Aerys indicates Rhaegel and Maekar may also be named after famous ancestors from Dragonstone or Valyria. The names of Baelor Breakspear's sons actually makes one wish George would retcon Jena Dondarrion into another Velaryon bride (a granddaughter of Alyn, say) or have her descended from a daughter of Alyn and Baela as the name Matarys especially is kind of reminiscent of some of the Velaryon Valyrian names (Monterys, say). I doubt those names are new. Valarr could actually turn out to be a Dornish name. Yes, the Young Dragon is likely named after Daenaera Velaryon's father rather than Alicent's Daeron. And, of course, Aegon III may have also named him that way to make a statement that his son would be a real Daeron Targaryen, unlike the fakes which seem to have troubled his reign. Baelor the Blessed seems to have been named after Baela, Daena after her mother Daenaera, Rhaena after Rhaena, and Elaena got a traditional name. But thinking about things George should give Daenaera more children who were stillborn or cradle deaths, her first pregnancy resulting being a boy as it seems obvious that Aegon III would want to name his firstborn son after his beloved brother Viserys, just as Viserys named his firstborn son after the king. It might also be not so bad to give them a stillborn daughter they named after Rhaenyra. Alternatively, Rhaena or Baela could have used the names Rhaenyra, Daemon, and Viserys for some of their children.

Daeron is indeed the eldest grandchild of Daeron II. Aerion and Valarr are about the same age, but Daeron is two years older. And all three were conceived before the Blackfyre Rebellion. I imagine that all matches for the four boys were made around the same time, early during the reign of Daeron II. Aerys I would have never been married off after Maekar and Baelor and Rhaegel had produced children of their own, in light of his character and interest, so it stands to reason the guy was betrothed at a time when he couldn't or wouldn't object all that much and the king and queen thought their second son should give them grandchildren. I think once we get there it might turn out that the matches Egg and Betha try to make for the children sort of mirror the matches made for the sons of Daeron and Myriah. While I think that Jena Dondarrion is as much a cousin on the Targaryen side of the family as Aelinor Penrose (a descendant of Baela and/or Rhaena), Alys Arryn and Dyanna Dayne might have been total political matches. The Arryns are, perhaps, the most prestigious Andal house, and the Daynes could have played a crucial role in the preparation/negotiation of the union with Dorne. Rhaegel taking as long as did might have to do with his madness causing him to be in a state of mind for months or years where he is not exactly interested in intercourse with his wife (or she with him). By the time of TSS and TMK Aelor and Aelora are yet deemed children (indicating they might be about Egg's age or slightly older) and Daenora hasn't been born yet, apparently. Well, Baelor was born while Baelor the Blessed yet ruled, and Aerys I may have been born during the short reign of Viserys II. The name Aegon actually seems to have fallen out of favor at that time, at least for the Targaryens. Which is hardly a surprise as Daeron II would likely have never intended to give the impression to honor his father by giving a son of his the name Aegon. It is quite striking that Maekar only gives the name to his youngest son and Baelor and Rhaegel don't use it at all. I think he doesn't like the complications coming from this, although it is a bad take on royal politics. Lords and noblemen he just mentions or doesn't flesh out tend to remarry all the time, think about Jasper Wylde, Cassandra Baratheon's husband, Jon Arryn, Roose Bolton, Walder Frey and many of his sons, etc. Hoster Tully not remarrying is also quite silly, even more so in light of his attitude towards his brother. Alyssa-Rogar are poorly fleshed out, in part because we have no clue there where she and the children stayed when they fled Dragonstone with the dragons. If they were at Storm's End for all those years or otherwise under Rogar's protection then we would have a more complex story there, with Rogar actually being more of a stepfather/mentor to Jaehaerys than it is later painted. It is completely ridiculous that they could hide two huge dragons from Maegor's spies for four years, but it would be even harder to swallow that Alyssa could go to Storm's End with the dragons and her children without already knowing that Rogar would take her in/protect her. FaB glosses over and ignores the four years from 44-48 AC for Alyssa and the children, so the notion that the subsequent marriage is some kind of strange romance/power grab thing developing in 48-49 AC isn't really convincing. Realistically we would expect that a romance was going on between the two while they were hiding with Rogar and/or Alyssa's hand in marriage was the price she (and Jaehaerys) had to pay for Baratheon support against Maegor. In fact, we hear that Alyssa had been in contact with the great lords as early as 43 AC when she was trying to marshal support for Aegon the Uncrowned. Could be that her romantic/political link to Rogar Baratheon goes back to those days. The guy could have acted as envoy of his father, then still the Lord of Storm's End, perhaps. In that sense we should, perhaps, better assume that things were actually pretty fine between Jaehaerys, his mother, and Rogar until after the Golden Wedding and their opposition to the marriage of Jaehaerys and Alysanne. Gyldayn's sources may have gotten things wrong there. We don't know much, but in light of the closeness of Jaehaerys and Alysanne they learning that their mother was fine with marrying Alysanne to Rogar's little brother might have hurt them very much.

Falling of uncomplicated young girls always helps with the conscience of old men, so that is not really a big issue here. The narrative reason why I might want to cut the Nettles thing is for what it does to Rhaenyra. It turns her into a jealous and merciless madwoman over a completely trivial issue. You couldn't give that episode to the woman they have in HotD. It would have to be changed considerably to even remotely make sense. Ditto with Mysaria. She wouldn't act the way she does in FaB in HotD. But I doubt she is cut. She could easily enough be postponed to season 3, entering the fray only after Jace's death. No Daeron showing up is odd, as scenes at Oldtown would have been in order by that time. But he could just as well only show up in season 3.

He did change quite a lot of things, not just the marriage crisis stuff and the birth order of the children but also the entire Faith-Iron Throne with the Doctrine of Exceptionalism. That was all new. It greatly fits with things implicitly, of course, but it is all new invention. You know more about the working process, of course ... but you should keep in mind that George will actually write a history if or when he does work on FaB II. And writing a story is (or can be) different from year-by-notes for background information to keep family trees and ages straight and fix dates for historical events you plan to reference in later novellas or novels. He might want to produce an actual history book with some narrative lines and actual plots, not so much the kind of broad and superficial overview we get for some of the kings in FaB. Sure enough - if he just wants to throw some badly fitting piece he could just write out the notes he still have. But one hopes he won't take that road, no? Nor is that the kind of thing he likes to do. And, no, nobody insists he will or has introduce new queens. We just point out that it would sense to consider something. If you read some of my stuff on the topic my issue mostly is with there being no betrothal made for the Young Dragon. I don't say he should be married, although I certainly admit that I like that change. Ditto for the second Viserys and, especially, Maekar. George actually keeps dropping the ball with his own incestuous family there. We should know why Viserys I and Rhaenys didn't marry each other, we should learn why Naerys is paired with Aegon rather than Daeron I, and we should definitely get explanation why young men and middle-aged kings didn't remarry when the dynasty's future was depending on the fertility of a spindly book worm married to a Dornishwoman. Those are real political issues if you look at things in detail. People see this. It is okay that Viserys as Hand and Maekar as a lord with six children didn't remarry. But for Viserys things change when Baelor sells Viserys' grandson to Dorne and ensures he would never have sons of his own. If you look at it the entire peace treaty is rotten and should have caused major problems after Baelor took his septon's vows. 1-2 years before those Dornish assholes murdered the Young Dragon in cold blood and insulted the Iron Throne and the dynasty by throwing off the Targaryen yoke. If King Baelor never has children the throne will inevitably pass to or through Daeron's children by Myriah. Unless Baelor's sisters were real options as heirs. The realistic prospect of a Queen Myriah Martell as early as 162-163 AC is very hard to swallow unless the people at court are to be imagined all as sheep who like to do everything Baelor says. This is like Joffrey Baratheon marrying Sansa Stark to Tommen, then taking a septon's vows so everybody knows that one day Sansa or her kin and children would wield a lot of influence at court. After the war that just happened this kind of favoritism is insane. For Maekar things change when he becomes king. Widowed king are unusual and stupid in any case, but widowers becoming king would simply marry. There is no reason not to, as marriage means not only more heirs - which is something Maekar could use as he is down to three sons to succeed him, anyway - but also to form an alliance, to have a woman at his side to do the queenly things. Viserys II should and may have thought about another wife without going through with it before his death. But Maekar ruled for 12 years, he has no excuse at all. And I don't think he had issues with women. He fathered six children on his late wife and the only good reason for him to not remarry would be to honor her memory.

We are not talking as if the information we have are thorough or complete. FaB showed that George feels free to expand on or change the TWoIaF material as well as on earlier novella versions of his own material (TSotD). We could have said that it was 'canon' that Alysanne and Jaehaerys married each other peaceful and quiet and in accord with Alyssa Velaryon and Rogar Baratheon because that is certainly what TWoIaF implied. But they didn't. The way to discuss this thing is not 'find out a way how George will keep the things intact we think we know' but rather: 'What makes for an interesting story in the scenario of a very pious childless king who takes a septon's vow and imprisons all his sisters, including his former sister-wife.' The idea that the obvious succession issue will glossed over in a detailed history of his reign is very unlikely. The scenario of no named heir is not completely impossible but could only work in a 'Baelor was really and totally nuts' scenario ... which I actually don't think George is aiming for. Baelor the Blessed has extreme tendencies, but he was an effective and visionary king if he took charge, not somebody who lost the grip on reality. Even his choices for High Septon are not that bad - within a religious framework innocence and natural piety can be good qualities. And High Septons that could easily serve as puppets or figureheads for the Crown are not so bad, either. House Targaryen faces considerable succession trouble in those years. The dynasty is weak. First the dragons all die, then Aegon III dies early in his thirties, handing the throne to a mere boy, bringing back the specter of Aegon III's lousy Regency era. Daeron I rises to the challenge, of course, but then he, too, dies far too early after a devastating war which House Targaryen lost spectacularly in the end. His successor is but a brother, not a son, not an ideal case ... and the new childless king divorces his sister-wife and takes a septon's way, literally causing a future succession issue very early in his reign. This is a big and glaring political problem. It could only be mended if Baelor's succession was clear from the start. At least technically by way of Baelor naming an heir. If that heir would then succeed smoothly would depend on other circumstances. For a Targaryen, feeling tempted by a sister or thinking a sister is out there to seduce and having sex with you can be seen as pretty normal or at least not totally unusual. You are right about the bastard thing. To make things interesting, George could have Baelor name Daena his successor early on his reign when takes his septon's vows only to disinherit her specifically after the birth of Daemon Blackfyre. I don't think that is very likely, but it would be a possible scenario. Aegon IV could even seduce Daena because he expected her to be queen one day (or soon, if he thought Baelor wouldn't live much longer). There is certainly some story to the romance/affair of Aegon and Daena as Daena later refuses to name the father of her bastard. Why would she do that but to spare Aegon from Baelor's wrath? Again, that is you not getting the chronology straight. Baelor's weird 'appointments' of High Septons took place very late in his reign - earlier the then-ruling High Septon grew ever more powerful at court, influencing Baelor. The succession question would have come up in the beginning at least thrice. When Baelor left for Dorne, when Baelor nearly died, when Baelor set aside Daena and took a septon's vow. Back then nobody would have thought Baelor would name some orphan or stone mason his successor. And they might not even have thought that at the end of his reign - as Baelor was, in the end, still a Targaryen and a king. Not somebody who gave up his crown to live in a hut to raise a street urchin to the seat of Aegon the Conqueror. That makes things look too easy. The Great Council made male succession look as the way to go in the eyes of many, yes ... but then Viserys I named Rhaenyra his heir and Aegon II was succeeded by Rhaenyra's eldest surviving son. The royal family wouldn't care much about the Great Council of 101 AC when the succession of Rhaenyra's sons and grandchildren were concerned. They would look back to Rhaenyra and Daemon, their parents/grandparents, and they definitely wouldn't view themselves as 'the rightful heirs and successors' of the bloody usurper and murderer Aegon II. Aegon III got the throne by way of a Black coup. Aegon II was defeated in the field and then murdered by his own court and council. They propped up Rhaenyra's son as new king to placate the Lads, Cregan Stark, and Jeyne Arryn. Had the Greens beaten the Blacks in the field and Aegon II had died in the fighting or of natural causes they would have killed Aegon III and Daemon's daughter and they would have propped up Queen Jaehaera as new monarch and married her to a fervent Green loyalist or his heir. It was certainly convenient that Aegon III was male and thus acceptable for such (former) Greens who went Green because of male chauvinism rather than for loyalty to Alicent, Otto, and their bloodline. Ditto due to Larys Strong's earlier machinations which resulted in the betrothal of Aegon and Jaehaera and them being named joint presumptive heirs. But for true followers of Aegon II and his bloodline Jaehaera was the rightful monarch, not Aegon III. That her claim was the stronger is even mentioned when the regency council discusses Aegon III succession. Obviously such a decree wouldn't be binding. But having Baelor name Viserys his heir backed, perhaps, by a religious sermon why women shouldn't rule could very well help further establish why Targaryen women shouldn't succeed to the throne - especially in the aftermath of the Dance and Aegon III and Viserys II being both the children of a woman, inheriting their claim from her. Moreover, though, Viserys was much older than Baelor. The chances that he actually expected to succeed to the throne are quite small. Daeron and Baelor should have both outlived him. He might have expected Baelor to die close to the end of his reign when his fasting became extreme (or if he then decided to poison him because his rule was becoming too erratic) ... but he clearly didn't plan to become king one day when his own brother died early in 157 AC. If he had, Daeron and Baelor had died much earlier, one imagines. That age gap problem actually makes Aegon IV and Daeron II the likelier heirs of Baelor - and that causes other problems as chances are very low that Baelor would have wanted to see his abusive and impious cousin soil his throne. In fact, if you think along those lines we could see Baelor as not naming an heir if his presumptive male heir would be Aegon. But it never was, it was uncle Viserys. Sure. We would have to assume that if there are children of Daeron I they will be added in FaB II like the first Daenerys was added to FaB. However, minor claimants etc. can be added easily. The obscure claimants of the Great Council also were added on a whim in FaB. However, TWoIaF is a very brief summary excluding a lot of details in many instances. Remember, the book doesn't even mention the death of Queen Alicent! In that sense, George could have technically written a long manuscript about a succession struggle after Baelor's death involving not only Viserys II and Daena, but also a posthumous daughter (or even a son) of Daeron I and perhaps even Alyn Velaryon and Baela Targaryen and their children vying for the throne. The fact that we don't read anything about that in TWoIaF wouldn't mean anything. Thinking more about things it might also go very well if Viserys II rises to the throne by way of marrying or promising to marry Daena. He is a widower since Larra's death in Lys years before, and him not taking a second wife is just stupid from a dynastic point of view. The wedding might not happen since Viserys dies early, or it might happen but there might be no children. Or there could even be children there, too. They would not mess with the family tree much. More over, Viserys II being smart should have known that his freed nieces would retain their claims and might take other, dangerous husbands in due time if they weren't controlled. As Hand he would have an excuse to not marry - huge workload, etc. - but as king he would need a queen.

Could be, but those people don't strike me as people who are after power. Even guys like Qyburn are after knowledge not after political power. They want people to finance and protect them, they don't want to run things. Again, I think the Dance made it crystal clear why too many dragonriders are a problem, so they might have decided to reduce their numbers. Perhaps they wanted to eradicate them completely, perhaps not. At the end of FaB there are still three large adult dragons out there - Silverwing, the Cannibal, and Sheepstealer - and one healthy young drake in Morning. That number is more managable. Also, Aegon III really did hate those beasts. We shouldn't dismiss the possibility that he sent out dragonslayers to kill any dragons going wild (Silverwing apparently did). Not to mention that the maesters at his court could have poisoned any young dragons with his silent permission. Obviously, yes. I imagine they might have gone out after the Doom. Founding a bank doesn't mean you are rich all of a sudden. And while some Westerosi lords lost money to the Rogares, certainly not 'most of them'. I start to get annoyed by the cop-out argument that Baelor was (partially) nuts, so he might have (not) done this or that. We don't know to what degree he was 'insane', but what we do know is that he had a lot of power to push through his queer ideas. And nothing in what he did indicates he believed he didn't need a royal successor. You are right about the explanation as to why Baelor imprisoned his sisters according to the history books. But in what scenario does imprisoning close family members means you view them as your (potential) successors? If Baelor had been a usurper he might have imprisoned relations with a better claim, but imprisoning his little sisters while keeping his dear uncle as second most powerful man in the Realm sends a clear message. Even if Baelor had said that Daena would succeed him - him imprisoning her would have undermined that even if he had started every prayer with a confirmation that his sister would be queen one day. We don't know yet if Maekar named an heir after Aerion's death. As I said, he could have ... or not. But his case is quite different from Baelor's as has been pointed out now repeatedly. Daena was queen until she was set aside. And that was actually quite some time. Please do reread things before you partake in such a detailed discussion. Baelor sets aside Daena after his trip to Dorne - which, in total, might have taken a year or more if you consider the time he needed to recover from the snake pit experience. The succession of King Baelor is on the table when the Dragonknight drags out his cousin out of the pit and he is close to death. Then the court has to consider who would succeed him should the Stranger carry him away. And that should have led to factionalism at that time. The hawks at court, for instance, could have backed Daena as she wanted to avenge her brother Daeron. And, no, Viserys II ascension is not a given in case of a provision as there is no binding law and Viserys' own claim goes through his mother. I don't think such speculation holds much water as them being such close relations should make them more prominent at court - and both with Renly and Stannis. Also, of course, technically the next in line after Shireen/Myrcella/Renly would not be some obscure Baratheon cousin but some Targaryen cousin - a descendant of Duncan's, Maegor's, Vaella's, or Egg's sisters if such people were around. Steffon Baratheon is the only descendant of Rhaelle Targaryen and Ormund Baratheon, and Steffon only had the three sons we know. Some Baratheon cousin might be able to put forth a claim to Storm's End but not to the Iron Throne. In most modern societies there are laws regulating inheritance in the absence of a will. But not in the fantasy feudal world of Westeros. They were powerful during the reign of Viserys I due to Otto and Alicent. But not after the Dance. There Lyonel Hightower was, perhaps, strongarmed into submission by Lady Tyrell threatening to kill his brother Garmund. The Hightowers lost a lot of prestige and troops during the Dance while the Tyrells lost nothing because they remained neutral. They gained, the Hightowers lost. They are clearly not done, but there is no indication anyone thought the king was in need to keep them sweet by marrying his younger widowed half-sister to the youngest brother of Lord Hightower.

I honestly don't think the Martells nor Aegon would have cared about things like that. Threatening to kill Aenys via Faceless Men, sure, that would have had some teeth. Spreading rumors and waving allegedly letters not so much. Who would judge if some letter, even one written in Rhaenys' hand, was genuine or containing true statements? The public opinion of Westeros? Also - who would care about rumors spread by singers? Such rumors already existed, they didn't stop Aenys from becoming king. They weren't even enough for Visenya to push Aenys aside to make Maegor king in his stead. No, he wasn't. That is why the earliest manuscript of the reign of Aegon already mentions the number of all Targaryen kings as well as that they were overthrown. It seems the Gyldayn as a Summerhall maester was a later or parallel idea by Ran/Linda that never played a role for George's sidebar writing when he did that. And that is the basis for FaB, not anything they talked about in the editing process for TWoIaF - as George shows by finishing and expanding on the 'sidebar manuscript' when he prepared FaB for publication. He didn't, we know that.

The only evidence for that is Marwyn's claim so far. Doesn't change the fact that both are not exactly prestigious match by birth. You do have a point there, but all they feel is a change of the weather. The freak seasons are more and there is no evidence that animals have a deeper insight into the magical stuff that caused them. The changing of seasons is determined by many investigations and factors some of which might include natural behavior of animals. But the maesters are not 'told' them by the white ravens they themselves breed. I daresay that this comparison is way off as the Grand Maester is elected by an assembly of university department heads, basically. That is more my point than yours as I think if there is a conspiracy against dragons and, perhaps, also certain types of magic connected to them, it is the a pragmatic view of those magical animals being too dangerous than the idea that magic itself is dangerous or problematic. Magic is natural in this world and thus part of the things the Citadel studies and researches. The maesters could do this as well if they followed in the footsteps of the Valyrians. They were not super humans or anything like that. Also, they might actually have a lot of Valyrian magical knowledge, anyway. They do have lots of Valyrian scrolls, etc. Can you give any examples for that? Sure enough, they did the incest thing. But that is a private thing. Aegon and Jaehaerys don't use their dragons to get what they want all the time. Neither does Viserys I. Don't think the earlier kings succeeded at that. The King's Peace is something Aegon I enforced. The earlier kings may not have had that. We are told that the Targaryens had to end small civil wars and blood feuds among lords in the kingdoms they conquered. That is only the case because the kings before them either couldn't or didn't try. Before the Conquest the kings would have even been more figureheads than the dragonless Targaryens are. Especially the kings controlling vast domains. Even under the Iron Throne a lord like Roose Bolton is almost a king in his own domains, doing what he wants, and ensuring the guys above him doesn't interfere with his crimes. That would have been much worse under the Stark kings - after all, even while the Starks finally brought the Boltons to heel they could never attaint them nor eradicate that rotten bloodline. Gardener power might have been similarly limited. The kings controlling smaller domains like the Arryns might have had more direct control. The alchemists were influential enough during the Targaryen era to build a huge guildhall in the new Targaryen capital. True enough, but he could only name a presumptive heir once he becomes lord. And that is in ASoS shortly before he gets captured at his wedding. Not just that, but every Targaryen king or Iron Throne king we know of named an heir. Why on earth shouldn't Baelor do that if he ensured he would never have a trueborn child? That has nothing to do with him not naming an heir. My entire point is, as I have laid out earlier when this thing came up in the past, that Baelor imprisoning his sisters is a pretty glaring indication that he wasn't in favor of female rule and most definitely did not want or think Daena, Rhaena, or Elaena could succeed him. You don't imprison someone you think could rule after you. Renly was pretty much an irresponsible moron. I agree with you there, but unlike with Baelor - where we don't know if he named an heir since no textual evidence states he never named an heir - we know that Renly didn't name an heir. In his defense you can say he postponed that until after he had taken the throne ... or until his new wife had given him a child. Aerea only becomes Jaehaerys I's presumptive heir after Maegor is gone and Jaehaerys safely on the throne. He doesn't have an heir between his proclamation at Storm's End and his uncle's sudden and unexpected death. However, the fact that neither the Lannisters nor Stannis bother checking who would come after Myrcella or Shireen were they to die early is a strong indication that House Baratheon is pretty much in the same situation right now as House Targaryen after the Dance - then there were Aegon III and his half-sisters (and Viserys who nobody knew was still alive) and after them literally nobody else. If Robert Baratheon had any second or third cousins they should have come out of the wood works as early as Robert becoming king - and especially during the War of the Five Kings. Those are academic issues as Robb's kingdom is independent of the Iron Throne and Sansa seems to disinherited by Robb's will. That might include her claims to Riverrun. Robb leaves trusted men in charge of Riverrun and until the Blackfish and Edmure hand it to Jaime it remains in Tully control even after the Red Wedding. And again - the case is not the same as Baelor's. Baelor won't ever have a child, Edmure and Renly do intend to have children (or at least send the message by taking a wife). Because it defies convention. Presumptive heirs to the Iron Throne are named by all kings before and after Baelor, just as Heirs Apparent are and Princes of Dragonstone are created by royal decree. Also, thanks to the trouble Targaryen succession before Prince Viserys is not, in fact, the heir presumptive by convention during Baelor's reign - especially not while Daena was not just Baelor's younger sister but also his sister-wife and thus the queen. That is all true, but I assume most of those people aren't feudal monarchs nor heads/owners of international companies. Such people do have to name heirs, the very system they live in demands that. I mean - as I keep saying: George can make it so that Baelor didn't name an heir and his entire court and Realm accepted that for some silly reason. But I don't think it likely that George himself, when writing Baelor's reign in detail, will want to do that as the circumstances we know make it so that only a court of morons would accept and go along with that. The best informal scenario we can think of is that Viserys was viewed as effectively the heir by everybody at court, even if Baelor never specified it (although there is no reason why he should not). But we can't go with a scenario where his succession was an open question or one where he was leaning towards somebody else - a sister, some cousin through Baela or Rhaena - because that would have made Viserys' ascension harder. I think the scenario George will go with when writing a proper history is that Baelor named Viserys his heir, and after Baelor's death some dissenters championed Daena's claim and were quickly pushed aside because it was hopeless. We have no reason to assume that Martyn was close in age to Lyonel, either, so he could have been younger, too. The Hightowers ended up stealing and squandering the quarter of the Targaryen treasury the Greens entrusted them with. That might mean trouble for them now that Aegon III rules in his own right. And you are missing the point: House Tyrells is stronger than House Hightower and House Targaryen would be better off with ties to it if they wanted to check the Hightowers. The Hightowers only are as prominent in that era as they are because of Otto and Alicent's lofty positions. But they are gone at that point.

Renly had yet to take the throne. Renly also has no heir to name. He is the last of his line as far as we know. He can't legitimize Edric Storm without undermining his own 'claim' to the throne, nor could he seriously consider Stannis or Shireen. But who else is there he could possibly name? His case is completely different from Baelor's who effectively drowns in potential heirs - especially if we also consider his six female cousins from aunty Rhaena. The problem in Baelor's case simply is that silence on this matter should destabilize his reign. If the king is silent, then everybody's claim is fair game. If Viserys was not the anointed heir then his ascension would be more usurpation/coup than rightful inheritance as he could not say that his succession was in accord with the wishes of the late king. Juggling precedents would, of course, not help very much as Aegon III and Viserys both inherited their claims from their mother Rhaenyra. Why Viserys, Rhaenyra's son, and not, say, X Velaryon, eldest son of Baela and Alyn? He would be a man, too. Edmure Tully barely is a lord by the time his father-in-law captures him. And his presumptive heir would be his sister Catelyn in any case, the mother of his king. Tywin explicitly plays the long game of formally restoring Jaime as his heir. He never acknowledges that he can't succeed him as a KG, and ASoS makes it clear that he always wanted Jaime to succeed him. Maekar may have named an heir, too. He could have named little Maegor, say. The problem of Maegor's succession then would have rested with Maekar's sudden and premature death, causing people to loathe the idea of an infant king with a regency government lasting for about 15 years. And, of course, some time can pass between you gaining a lordship or throne and you formally anointing a (presumptive) heir. But not ten years. So Maekar is off the hook since Aerion - who may have been Heir Apparent and Prince of Dragonstone after Daeron's death - died about a year, perhaps only some months before Maekar. Viserys I was forced to name an heir three years after his ascension. Why would we believe Baelor somehow never ruled on his succession when it was much more fucked up than that of Viserys I ever was? And why the hell should the Unworthy name Daeron his heir and even make him Prince of Dragonstone when he could have refused to do that, following the example of Blessed Baelor? Hell, did Viserys II ever name or acknowledge Aegon as heir? We don't know that, either. Chances are actually quite good that the second Viserys actually never named an heir or created a Prince of Dragonstone because he died before he could do that. That argument doesn't carry much weight as crazy Baelor seems to have been a phenomenon of his later reign. Technically Baelor should have named a presumptive heir at the very beginning of his reign when he left for Dorne - as he could have never returned to KL alive. Neither he nor his court would have been stupid enough to not see this danger. We can also expect that Daeron I named Baelor his presumptive heir (until such a time he had a child or son of his own) when he first went to war. Anything else is stupid. Bran is formally presumptive heir of Winterfell after Ned's death, for instance. Such an heir would then have been temporary until such a time as Baelor and Daena would produce a proper Heir Apparent. But more over, the pious king did almost die in Dorne. So the need to name a successor would have been an even bigger concern when Baelor had sufficiently recovered to rule again. The question who would succeed the ailing king were he to die - the uncle or the (then) queen - would have been out in the open. There would have been factions, one imagines. Hell, there might have even been a formal regency while Baelor was in Dorne (kings usually appoint regents when they travel abroad) or at least while he was incapacitated for months. The Greens named a regent just because Aegon II had some broken bones. And as I said - Baelor was pious and humble. He knew he was not immortal. He knew he would die and somebody would have to succeed him. So he himself would have thought and ruled on his succession, with or without consultation of the court. Even more so when he set aside his sister-wife early on in his reign and took a septon's vows, making it clear to the world he would never marry again, would never father trueborn heirs. Hence the need for him to rule on his succession then and there. It is inconceivable that he didn't think about that. Viserys I could have rejected Otto's Rhaenyra plan on the basis that he was young still and might/would remarry in due time, fathering sons on a second wife. Ditto with Aerys I who could have told Bloodraven and his court until the day of his death that Queen Aelinor might give birth to a son in the future (assuming Aelinor outlived her husband). Baelor could not have postponed a binding succession ruling as he could never told anyone that he might have trueborn sons or daughters. His septon's vows made that very clear. If Viserys feared Baelor would name some freak heir, he should have long ago resigned or killed himself as this would have also meant he thought Baelor could replace him, Viserys, as Hand for some illiterate stone mason on a whim. Yet he continued to serve him.

Really don't think any of the Nymor letter theories there make sense. 'Hey, Aegon, we tortured your sister-wife into submission and now she calls you a cuckold like certain people at your own court, too.' Big deal. I can almost see why Aegon would clutch at such a letter so strongly that he would bleed... I don't think Gyldayn believes anything like that. If he did, he would have made things more explicit. Aegon Targaryen is long dead and his 'sons' are, too, so their true parentage is only an academic question. Even more so now that Robert Baratheon sits the Iron Throne - which he does during the writing of the first volume, at least. But you are quite right that there are hints in the writing that imply that Aegon is, especially, not the father of Aenys. But those are hints by George himself, not by the voice of Gyldayn. Gyldayn doesn't want us to connect Aenys' great singing voice to the rumor about singers, mummers, and mimes. That is George having fun. He put that there for us to connect the dots. Gyldayn did it unintentionally. Ditto with Visenya being a sorceress. That is mentioned in a portrayal of her character, not in connection with Maegor's conception and birth, but Maegor's conception is the best (and I think only) event in Visenya's career where she may have worked some magic. Just as King Aenys' death may have been the event where she used the poisons she supposedly played with. In-universe we can say that Sharra Arryn likely believed Aegon had trouble having children of his own as she asked him to name her eldest son Ronnel his heir should he take her as a third wife. She was giving Aegon a way to have a son without fathering one. As a man with two wives it is quite odd already that there are no pregnancies nor children by the time of the Conquest, much less later. The rumors about Rhaenys we also have to take more seriously, I think, as Aegon and his sister-wives did not only live apart quite regularly (progresses, Aegon living between Dragonstone and KL, Dornish campaigns) but that the Aegonfort was effectively a castle with little to no chance of privacy. The place started with a wooden keep which was eventually replaced by a stone keep. While there would have been royal apartments somewhere in that complex, they wouldn't be as private as the royal apartments in Maegor's Holdfast or the citadel of Dragonstone are. If Rhaenys wanted to spend time with her favorites or entertain them in the evening/at night (say, when Aegon was with Visenya on Dragonstone or in Dorne or on a progress or somewhere else in the Aegonfort) then it would have been very hard for her to do that secretly. And considering the status of Aegon's sister-wives as co-conquerors and co-rulers (and Rhaenys' as Aegon's favorite wife and sister) they could have gone on about (seemingly) having lovers more openly than other royal women. Even more so if both women were actually told to do this by Aegon or did it with his blessing because Aegon desperately needed an heir to continue the dynasty. Also, of course, the siblings could have had their own modus vivendi for Aegon's unusual polygamy. He was dependent on his sister-wives and their dragons, so if he could fuck them both, Rhaenys and/or Visenya could have certainly forced him to accept that they weren't completely faithful to him, either. Even before the lack of a child made it rather imperative that they try to give Aegon a son in an unusual way.

Considering that Martyn Hightower was still a squire on the Arbor in 131 AC it is not exactly likely he was already married by the time Rhaena got widowed. A third son is insignificant by definition. And a younger half-sister, too, by the way. But then, of course, Rhaena was half-sister to a king and perhaps still a dragonrider by the time of her second marriage (although that's not confirmed). Just think how pissed Tywin and Genna were when she was betrothed to Walder Frey's second son. The idea that this is a great match just doesn't hold much water. If the Targaryens want ties to the Tyrells they should have married Rhaena to some Tyrell. Garmund Hightower doesn't give them an actual link to Highgarden. There is evidence for an anti-dragon conspiracy ... but not so much for an anti-magic conspiracy. If there was a 'pro magic faction' strong enough to elect their candidate Grand Maester then an anti-magic faction cannot have been particularly strong or prevalent. Which is why I think if there were maesters who poisoned the dragons they did that for pragmatic reasons rather than some obscure ideological belief. It is no coincidence it happened after the Dance. Up until then the dragons flourished and multiplied. And a lot of people were steeped in and interested in magic, too. Which seemed to work rather well in those days, too. The glass candles are human made magical artifacts. They are certainly explainable and lighting them is also not impossible. The very fact that they are at the center of the maester oath ceremony makes it clear magic once was at the center of it, too. Which means the current decline of the Higher Mysteries might have more to do with them actually not working so well since the Doom and the later death of the dragons than an inherent opposition in the people running the Citadel. That seems to be conspiracy territory. The ravens are birds. They know nothing. In ancient times they didn't know anything, either, they were simply used as pawns and pieces by greenseers and skinchangers. And quite likely by the early maesters, too. The rule of law established and enforced, if necessary, with dragonflame by Aegon I and Jaehaerys I is still the rule of law and not arbitrary rule. Dragons are both instruments and symbols of royal power in this world, and their absence weakened that power. The Crownlands are far too weak to help a central power to enforce the King's Peace. And the Citadel rose in influence with the Targaryen dragon power. After the dragons were gone they didn't become more influential. Aerys was pretty powerful still, but only because he wasn't challenging the lords or royal cousins until after Duskendale. Aegon V shows how weak the kings were, being unable to push through apparently reasonable reforms curtailing the powers of the lords and strengthening the common people. But we don't know what kind of specialists and professionals of their own, say, the Kings of the Rock had before the Conquest. We do know that the Citadel undermined and eventually replaced other scholarly institutions like, for instance, the alchemists.

There certainly is evidence for conspiracies, but if there is an an anti-magic conspiracy going on at the Citadel right now it clearly is not very influential or else Marwyn and Qyburn would be dead rather than alive and kicking ... and if that gang had had any influence in the past there would no longer be an archmaester for the Higher Mysteries. Instead, it is more likely that the Citadel is more like a university with many different disciplines and the natural scientists and the sorcerers (which might be akin to theologians in a modern university context) don't have much to say to each other. Decades after the death of the last dragon we do have a Grand Maester allegedly as interested in sorcery as King Aerys I and Bloodraven. It is rather curious that such a guy would be elected Grand Maester if the Citadel establishment was anti-magic. Magic is studied and taught at the Citadel since ancient times. Its understanding and control is what you learn when you study the Higher Mysteries. It is also part of the entire framework of the maester oath, etc. as the glass candle ritual shows. White ravens don't know winter, the maesters determine the changing of seasons with their arts. They use the white ravens to tell the Westerosi about the changing of seasons. They are used not just to announce winter but spring, summer, and autumn, too. My point is that Renly's many followers shit and piss on the rule of law by making Robert's youngest brother their 'king'. Renly's popularity shows how little the law mattered to his supporters. It shows the decline of the rule of law as established by Aegon I and Jaehaerys I since the death of the dragons. If you reread my comments then I said that the loss of the dragons caused a decline in central power. If didn't say that this would have happened overnight or in 1-2 generations. And I said it connection with the idea that the maesters killed the dragons during the reign of Aegon III. Those guys are scholars and the Citadel spreads law and reasons. They are not stupid. So they would have known what they were doing if they had killed all the Targaryen dragons. They would have known what effects that would have in the future, how it would gradually strengthen the position of the lords in a struggle with the Iron Throne and how royal power and authority would be more dependent on personal charisma and ability and less on the throne as an institution. While we have some evidence that maesters were in service outside the Reach before the Conquest, it stands to reason that the current system only works in a united Realm. Lord Manderly does have a Lannister maester right now - because that was the guy the Citadel sent him when he requested one. Before the Conquest - and after a future fragmentation of the Realm - we can, perhaps, expect Northmen or Vale men or Westerlanders to go to Oldtown to study at the Citadel if their lords and kings think that a guy and offer them employment upon return. But then only such men would be accepted as maesters by their respective lords and kings - not foreigners from other kingdoms their lords and kings might be at war with right now or in the future. Also, of course, the popularity of maester since the Conquest could very motivate a Lannister king, say, to establish his own Citadel at Lannisport. They have more than enough money to do that. Yeah, that is how the story is told in TWoIaF. And I don't doubt that Daena had some supporters and some people did challenge Viserys' ascension. But my point is that the implication that Baelor's succession was first or only ruled upon after the king's early death must be wrong. Every childless king named or acknowledged an heir - Maegor his niece Aerea, Jaehaerys Aerea and then Daenerys before the birth of his son Aemon, Aerys I named Rhaegel, Aelor, Aelora, and eventually Maekar his heir in place of the son he never had, etc. The idea that divorced septon-king Baelor was free to never name an heir is just not very likely. It would even be hard to imagine how the king could never name an heir. He was pious and knew he would not live forever. My point is that I think it will turn out in FaB II that Baelor did name an heir - his uncle Viserys - and that thus his succession was quite clear. That doesn't mean, however, that Daena didn't have some friends and followers who unsuccessfully tried to challenge her uncle's ascension. It only means that court and Realm and royal family didn't wait until Baelor's death to think about his succession. That would depend on who and what she was, of course. But as I said - she would have been passed over already for Baelor, so her claim would be viewed as pretty weak. Her only family at that time might be Daeron's widow if she was still alive since she would be too young to be married yet. That is quite unlikely as he kept Viserys on as Hand and had him rule the Realm effectively as king while he walked to Dorne and prayed and fasted behind closed doors. If Baelor wanted somebody else to succeed him such a potential heir should have had an equally prestigious position. Mind you, it is clear that Baelor was a very popular and powerful king whenever he bothered to take charge ... but the time of him ruling actively and starting initiatives like the building of his Great Sept or his charity work has to be measured against the times when he did nothing, focusing on his own sins, etc. Again, you made the point that some regents thinking Baela shouldn't succeed her brother in the early 130s had any bearing on Aegon III and his Velaryon queen no considering it a great idea to marry their eldest son to a daughter of Baela and Alyn. And that just makes no sense as Daenaera Velaryon was the foster child of Baela and Alyn when she married Aegon III. We have no indication to believe that Alyn Velaryon ever fell out favor with Aegon III while there is evidence that Rhaena already did. The king also quarreled with Viserys over his dragon egg but they reconciled - Aegon and his half-sister don't in FaB. Alyn is Master of Ships when Daeron I take the throne, so chances are that he was always in good standing with Aegon III. He might even have been one of Viserys' predecessors as Hand. We know Alyn has to make his six voyages and it seems clear that the second and perhaps some others do take place during the reign of the Dragonbane ... Alyn will live a long life and could make some of his later voyages during the later reign of Daeron I and/or that of Baelor the Blessed. As you might have realized, I never said that a potential betrothed or bride of Daeron I could not be a daughter of Rhaena and Garmund. I just deem it more likely that Queen Daenaera, Aegon III himself, and Alyn/Baela would all prefer a Velaryon bride if a daughter of Baela and Alyn was available. If no such daughter is available - say, because the second Laena is their only daughter - then a daughter of Rhaena and Garmund would be the next obvious choice. Although the daughter of a landless third son is clearly a less prestigious future queen than a daughter of the Lord of Driftmark. Even more so in light of the fact that Daeron does have three sisters and a first female cousin on the Targaryen side of the family. Pretty sure many former Greens will eventually declare for Aemond's son and/or follow the banner of one of the fake Daerons. Without them those people would not become a threat to the Iron Throne. Garmund Hightower is pretty much a non-entity. If made as a political match to unite Oldtown and the Iron Throne some more then both a third son and the youngest half-sister of the king are bad choices. Rhaena is a secondary member of the royal family not to mention a widow already, and Garmund isn't a prominent Hightower. Neither represents the Crown or their house in a crucial manner. I think chances are much better that this is a weird love match or some other strange arrangement. If Aegon III wanted to have closer ties with Oldtown he would have betrothed one of his own children with a Hightower - or he would have commanded his widowed younger brother to make the sister or a close cousin of Lyonel Hightower his second wife.

Any such offspring could have been long dead by then. And if they were girls then they would have gone the same way as Baelor's sisters, even more so since they would have already been passed over for Baelor when he took the throne. Though, of course, if George were to add such offspring and they would still be alive they might come up again as claimants after Baelor's death. But that would be a minor thing which might only involve a 9-10-year-old girl (say, if Daeron were to have posthumous daughter). But I actually don't think there will be a succession crisis in 171 AC. Baelor was unmarried, childless, and a septon for most of his reign. It was crystal clear that he would never father a child, male or female. Which means he would have named an Heir Apparent - not a presumptive heir but the guy who definitely follow him on the throne unless he predeceased him. And that person would obviously have been his uncle Viserys. There can't be any doubt about that. Baelor divorced his sister-wife, and imprisoned her and all his other sisters. There is no chance he would have wanted a queen he discarded or a sister he imprisoned to actually rule after his death. That Baelor must have ruled on his own succession is also quite clear from the fact that both his elder brother Daeron as well as his father Aegon III died pretty early - and he himself nearly died early in his reign. It may be that there were a few people at court who pushed for Daena's succession in spite of Viserys being the clear heir and successor, but that would be independent from Baelor naming Viserys his heir. The idea that half-mad, physically weak king who nearly did in his first year on the throne would rule for ten years without naming a successor is ludicrous. That couldn't work.

No such country teaches Marxism the way it was taught or is taught in socialist states, i.e. as a scientific method or the prevailing political/economical ideology. The impression we have is that the Higher Mysteries fell out of favor in the Citadel not because of 'a conspiracy' but because the majority opinion is that they no longer work the way they did. But if the whole 'anti-magic thing' is something that went on for a long time, stretching back the death of the dragons 150 years ago, then it is quite odd that they would still have archmaesters for a subject they loathe ... or suffer a Lord of Oldtown who is into magic (which Lord Leyton and his daughter the Mad Maid apparently is). In that sense it is more likely it was just a limited campaign against the dragons which magic in general being more something that is distrusted or avoided, not actively fought. Not that I know of, or does the current Brazilian government actually properly 'rule' or 'control' the territory they claim belongs to their state? The point is more that the rule of law needs a big stick to enforce said rule. Without it, in world such as Westeros the law would have no teeth at all. And we see it ... or do you remember a maester speaking up against Renly's treasonous power grab? Do Pylos or Cressen actively oppose Stannis' attempted usurpation? Is Luwin chastising Robb in letters for his treasonous separatism? Do the maesters in the Riverlands try to dissuade the Riverlords from their treason? Nope. But it is clear what the Citadel wants is the rule of law and reason, i.e. less feudalism and a stronger monarchy. It is just an example. Reason and law didn't stop Euron's original usurpation. Religions, superstition and Ironborn tradition got Aeron to call a Kingsmoot ... and there Euron triumphed with magic, yes. But he seized the Seastone Chair earlier with brute force. And obviously dragons were symbols of royal power from the first Aegon to the third in this world. It is not I who made them this, it is George. And it does strike me as odd that the Citadel would want to weaken the central power they are dependent on. If the Realm was to fracture chances are good that maesters wouldn't be so welcome in whatever independent kingdoms might be formed. Other citadels might be founded, etc.

The same year is quite unlikely as a guy of the same age as Rhaena isn't likely to serve as a page and cupbearer in 131 AC. Chances are pretty good that the age gap between Rhaena and Garmund is similar to that of Larra and Viserys. They are not necessarily 'anti-magic' as the Higher Mysteries are openly studied and taught at the Citadel and even current members of House Hightower are rumored to practice magic. They are skeptical about magic in the hands of 'the people' and, one imagines, also of magic as an instrument of the rulers. If there was a conspiracy then it was anti-dragon, not anti-magic in general. If the latter was the case Marwyn would have never be made Archmaester for the Higher Mysteries. Instead, the office would have been vacant for decades or centuries, and magical research at the Citadel would be banned. Thus it strikes me more likely certain crucial figures at the Citadel looked at the Dance and the devastation that happened - and considered what could have happened had the dragons been unleashed against Oldtown, Lannisport, or King's Landing - and then decided to ensure that this would not happen again, even if there was another succession war. As I said, perhaps they didn't want to kill them all but merely stop their multiplication so the Targaryens were stuck with 1-2 big ones. That would have ensured stability like it did during the era of the Conqueror and the Old King. A strong central power without dragons is an illusion in such a large realm spanning a continent. Without the dragons central power would slowly erode, the lords would get stronger and the rule of law as established by Aegon I and Jaehaerys I would decline - and with that also whatever the maesters want to accomplish. You see how helpless the maester of the Goodbrothers is in AFfC when he wants to challenge Euron's power grab with legal talk.

Sheepstealer will likely die in the Mountains of the Moon without ever being involved in anything, and there are hints Silverwing might suffer a similar fate. The Cannibal might yet gain a rider, though. There is about zero chance of that. Aemond's son (we don't know if he was his bastard) might already have a dragon if the reports from Harrenhal can be believed. Could easily be the case as Vhagar was a she-dragon and might have produced some more eggs before her death. But, of course, if there is another and final dragon battle involving Aemond's son then we would have him and his dragon on the one side, and (at least) Rhaena's Morning on the other. Of the remaining Targaryens at the end of the Regency Baela and Viserys are both candidates to claim the Cannibal, Silverwing or any other dragons that might yet hatch. Baela, especially, seems pissed that she lacks a dragon, while Viserys longs for a dragon, too, holding on to his dragon egg. But it seems just as likely that we will only see Aemond's boy with his dragon going against Rhaena and her Morning, with both killing each other at Harrenhal. In fact, having the last healthy Targaryen dragon dying a sudden and violent death at Harrenhal would have made both the deaths of the last two she-dragons soon thereafter a really pressing concern. If there were 'dragon sicknesses' affecting and killing young drakes and hatchlings throughout the 130s and 140s while there was one strong and healthy dragon left with Rhaena the dragon power of House Targaryen was not yet completely gone, and Aegon III could afford to ignore the problem. I do expect the 'Citadel conspiracy' or 'dragon poisoning plot' being enacted very subtly, targeting only dragon eggs and hatchlings, thus cutting off the new generation of Targaryens from cradle dragons, while the last adult dragons were not targeted in the same way. In fact, I doubt that the Citadel wanted to get rid of all the dragons but rather intended to severely limit their numbers. If the king retained 1-2 dragons for himself and his heir, say, central power would be strengthened, the succession secured, and a succession/civil war like the Dance of the Dragons permanently avoided. The dragons were a problem only if there were too many, not when they were just 2-3, and all of those under the firm control of the king. The Citadel and the maester system have no intrinsic interest in eroding central power as the rule of law and reason they care about cannot be enforced if the Realm were to fracture again or if local lords would once again grow into petty kings in all but name.

Sterile, not impotent. I'm sure Aegon could perform in bed. But his seed was useless. I don't think Aegon or anyone would care about such claims as the Martells or Ullers could torture Rhaenys into confessing everything they wanted her to say. The idea would be either some secret lover of Visenya's (Maegor's early master-at-arms, Gowen Corbray, springs to mind) or, more interesting, Maegor could be a male clone of Visenya's created by magic. It is quite odd that we hear Visenya was into magic yet there is no indication that she ever crafted any spells. Her interest in poisons may have affected history when she poisoned her nephew King Aenys, but so far no cases of her doing sorcery are confirmed. The claim that she was into magic does kind of hangs in the air ... and is also quite odd for a female warrior. But I don't think it is there by accident or just for window-dressing. Also, of course, George does has an eccentric female character create a male clone of herself in his novella 'Nightflyers'. Makes it very likely that the idea that Visenya may have done something similar is clearly not 'out there'. It is quite obvious that Aenys is a dialed-up, male version of Rhaenys, just as Maegor is a dialed-up, male version of Visenya. Both inherited the more problematic, more extreme traits of their respective mothers. And neither Aenys nor Maegor have much (or anything) in common with Aegon the Conqueror.