Stenkarazine

Can't they somehow merge Daeron's actions into Aemond's, and have the latter fly on his dragon (ie. at the speed of the plot) from the Riverlands to the Reach just in time for the battle of Honeywine, do all the slaughter there is to do in the Reach (ie. Bitterbridge)... then leave (for instance because he got wind of Daemon's whereabouts) just before the second battle of Tumbleton, to go back to the Riverlands and die there ? I mean of course I would be saddened if they leave Daeron out, but it seems more or less doable plot-wise.

Inevitably. There always will be seditious lords, malcontents, plotters and would-be rebels, even if Rhaenyra makes a decent job of ruling. There is an argument going like this: "well, yes, malcontent lords could gather around Aegon's claim, but he can just say no". Except it doesn't work like that. Even if Aegon remains steadfastly loyal, he will not cease to be a potential rallying point for all and sundry, whether he wants it or not. Do we really think that dear uncle Daemon would not have thought about that? He would probably have had his nephews gelded and thrown into a black cell at the first whiff of rebellion in the Realm.

That would be playing it on the defense, and a very powerless defense at that, always at the mercy of the Queen's change of mind or of court politics. Surest way to get the princes out of harm's way is to get them on the throne. As I said several times in Episode 6's thread, Aegon and his brothers are not some random cousins or nephews. They might be the rightful heirs to the Iron throne. No way any smart ruler would allow them to remain at liberty for ever.

Well, it seems to me since Episode 6 that the show portrays the bastardy as: - Something that is an open secret, known (or strongly suspected) by virtually everyone at Court: this was confirmed in this episode by Aegon's line and the total lack of reaction from either Viserys or anyone in the room (they all know); - Something that nobody really cares about except Alicent (thus hammering to modern viewers that she is very mean and petty or something). I believe these two treatments are mutually exclusive: - Either you portray the Velaryons' bastardy as something that only us viewers know for certain, and only some characters suspect, more or less vaguely: then you can indeed portray Alicent's accusations as irresponsible or scandalous, as was argued by many people in Episode 6's thread; - Or you portray this bastardy as an open secret: then, in any realistic medieval setting (or Westerosi, for that matter), it should be seen as a major embarrassment for Rhaenyra and her would-be partisans; a source of endless gossip and outrage (sincere or not) at Court, in the streets of King's Landing (imagine the songs they would make of this in Flea Bottom) and in every castle across the land; a looming crisis waiting to explode (this could actually have explained nicely her hasty departure to Dragonstone). In this situation, it would necessarily impact Viserys: even if he himself does not care about the issue (because the children are Targaryen from their mother side, it is all that matters), he surely cares about his heir's standing, which would be seriously eroded. In short, I feel the show tried to have their cake and eat it: they wanted to lay the bastardy in the open while at the same time giving us more reasons to hate Alicent without handicapping too much Rhaenyra. It does not work, at least for me.

Aegon's answer to his father ("everyone knows") and the absolute lack of outrage (even feigned) to it confirms that in the show the Velaryons' bastardy is treated as an open secret, known by virtually everyone at Court. As said in the previous thread, I find this utterly ridiculous and unrealistic. Aemond's sequence was amazing. He has shown himself to be the most Targaryen of them all. This is probably why Dameon didn't intervene in the matter and seemed to smile approvingly (the idea that Aemond should have asked Laena's family permission before trying to tame this monster of a dragon is, I am sorry, really ridiculous). Viserys should have bowed to Aemond's sheer badassery on the spot and named him his new heir right there and then. There you go, Dance of Dragons averted.

It is a matter for the reader's taste. Now that you mention it, I find quite entertaining the idea of Joffrey as a decent kid, pursued by the righteous yet murderous vendetta of Stannis. Edit: Just remembered all these memes about Good King Joffrey.

Yes, that is why I said elsewhere that as a reader/viewer steeped in modern times I sympathize with Rhaenyra's arc. But it seems to me we were discussing the issue in regard to the values of the fictional universe in which it takes place. I believe this is the only way of understanding the characters' motivations, but of course one can also judge said characters through the lens of our own values.

In a any pre-French revolution society (or their fantasy equivalent) precedent, custom, tradition, become law, eventually. So precedent is binding, in a way. Are the laws of Westeros codified somewhere ? Barring a few exceptions (Maegor's laws etc.), no, they are customs, beliefs, precedents that slowly accrue strength through practice. And the rule that son goes before daughter seems, as far as we know, an universal law of all the Kingdoms north of the Dornish marches since time immemorial. We can usefully use reductio ad absurdum to illustrate this: - Can the King disinherit his children and give the throne to Daemon ? There is no law against that. - Can the King disinherit his relatives and give the throne to a random peasant he just met ? There is no law against that. By your reasoning, this random dude would be the "rightful king" and the whole house of Targaryen would be wanna-be usurpers.

Not really. Greens vs. Blacks is a case of competing legitimacies (legitimacy having been fragmented by the idiotic decisions of King Visery to: a) appoint Rhanerya heir, b) remarry and father sons). You can decide to give more weigh to one claim over the other, but it would be disingenuous to deny wholesale the other claim. Ie., you can prefer Rhaenyra's claim (because you think that the king can alter the laws of succession as he sees fit - this in itself is an interesting topic to discuss), but it would be dishonest to shrug off Aegon's claim as baseless usurpation. In Joffrey's case, we the readers/viewers know that he has no right to the throne whatsoever. Stannis has the only serious claim* * Which admittedly doesn't amount to much since he derives said claim for his brother's usurpation - that's why I always found Stannis' soliloquies to ring hollow. If Stannis and Eddard Stark cared so much about legitimacy and honour, they should have insisted on the accession of young Viserys III.

She isn't, though.

This is spot on. Only caveat about how Alicent should have been eager to accept the Jace-Helaena marriage: if she accepts this, she basically loses the bastardy weapon which, while unsuccessful at the moment, can still resurface at some point. Indeed, if she was a cautious operator, she could accept the match and refocus her efforts on bolstering the claims of Aegon (whose birthright is not affected by her sister marriage to Jace). But I guess this scene was used to cement her portrayal as unrelenting and uncompromising. There is also this whole simmering resentment at Rhaenyra for having enjoyed life (and sex) while she joylessly performed her duties to an increasingly old and repugnant husband. Jace and his brothers are the living embodiment of those love and pleasure that have been denied to Alicent. The hate against the "bastards" stems in large part from this. Truly, the only match which could have really averted the war was the one suggested by Otto Hightower (and scoffed at by the King): Rhaenyra and Aegon the Conqueror-Babe. This would have reconciled the two competing legitimacies (designated heir for ten years vs. first-born son) which led to the civil war. This could have worked, provided Aegon had been content with the role of king consort (a big "if", admittedly, but Alicent's influence could have been curtailed). If Rhaenyra and Aegon had children, their competing legitimacies would have been united in their child, even if it were a daughter (the appointment of Rhaenyra working as a precedent) . If (entirely possible given the age difference) they didn't produce any children, well, no problem, the crown would then pass to Aemond, in clear and uncontested succession.

This discussion about the Velaryon princes' bastardy being obvious or not leads me to another question: In the show, how is treated the fact that Lord Corlys and his children are, well, black ? It is something that is supposed to be invisible to everyone in-universe, or is it acknowledged (Summer Isles' blood or such) ? If the former, then indeed the appearance of the princes can be ascribed to Baratheon genes or whatever and their bastardy remains not too obvious - but this creates a dissonance in that we viewers see something (African phenotype) that characters in-universe do not see (meaning that as far as they are concerned, Corlys and Laenor look like any other Targaryen). If the latter, then the fact that these children do not proceed from Laenor should be painfully obvious. Generally speaking I am not too fond of the editorial decision to ignore or hand waive phenotype. If you want to have a diverse cast, then you should stand by it and translate it into the work. Otherwise there is no point in having a diverse cast.

You are right, bastards can rise to greatness, but it remains highly exceptional that they are taken into account in the line of succession, unless there is no legitimate alternative. In any case I believe here the situation is quite different. A better parallel would be: how would people have reacted if Mathilda would have started to pop children who, rightly so or not, are widely rumoured to be the sons of a random knight rather than Plantagenet's ? I am not saying this invalidate her claim or whatever, certainly not, but it would be a source of considerable embarrassment.

The arguments deployed in this thread about the Strong bastards not being that big of a deal are really not holding any water. Most are based on - selective - ignorance of the setting (not only Medieval Europe, but also Westeros proper), or absurd legalese ("the king implicitly legitimated the bastards by turning a blind eye so it is all good"). It feels that these arguments stem from, either a desire to wash the Blacks from all responsibility and put the entire blame on the Greens, or a desire to shoehorn modern sensibilities in a medieval setting. But this is partly the show's fault: there is no ambiguity whatsoever about the parentage of the princes, the bastardy is portrayed as an open secret that everyone knows but nobody cares about except Alicent because she is stuck-up and nasty or whatever. This is of course designed to appeal to modern audiences who naturally do not see where the problem is. But this is entirely unrealistic for Westeros. If really the illegitimate birth of the three princes was so obvious to the Court, this should be portrayed as a looming crisis, a source of endless mockery in the common people, a cause of disaffection for would-be Black supporters, and a massive problem coming up for Rhaenyra as soon as Viserys (who is willing to go along with the charade) bites the dust. This would actually explain nicely her decision to leave for Dragonstone.

1/ Your statement is correct but we need to go further than that. Why was kinslaying and more generally dynastic infighting less common in Medieval Western Europe than in, say, Hellenistic times, Imperial Rome, Ottoman Turkey or Medieval Russ' ? Was it because Medieval Europeans were gentler or less ambitious than their forebears or than their Eastern counterparts ? Surely no. Was it then because of Christianity's soothing influence ? The bloody court politics of Late Roman and Byzantine times would beg to disagree (unless we consider the Byzantine practice of mutilation more humane than plain old execution). I believe it was so for a simple reason: because generally speaking rules of succession were clearer, stricter and stronger in Medieval Europe than they were in other times or parts of the world. Male primogeniture was widely respected and enforced. This made usurpation more costly, and legitimization thereof more difficult to attain. Whenever these rules would weaken, then Medieval men would happily go at each other throat. See for instance Peter the Cruel and his half-brother Henry of Trastamara who famously solved their quarrel with daggers. 2/ As I wrote earlier, I am not necessarily talking about murder. Imprisoning a relative or a competitor in a dungeon and throwing away the key was quite popular in the Middle Ages. There is also the possibility of (more or less) forced exile. 3/ Many of the responses on this issue rest on a moralistic or idealistic stance: it all comes down to Aegon and his brothers not being dicks about their rights to the throne and all would be well. This infers that every pretender in History is just a wicked guy. This is an absurdly moralistic view. Lack of strict and clear rules of succession create ambitious men who believe they have a right to the throne, not the other way around. 4/ It is true that GRRM based Westeros on Medieval Western Europe, but I would say that he made sure to include in his setting the most ruthless aspects of our Middle Ages. In many ways, it could be argued that Westeros is even a slightly more ruthless version of our Middle Ages. We have several stories of entire bloodlines being deliberately wiped out (something that very rarely occurred in our Middle Ages); we have a king ordering the cruel and summary execution of one of his greatest lords; we have a king prosecuting a murderous religious war; a pretender assassinating his brother by sorcerous means; a noble house famed for skinning alive their opponents, etc., etc. 5/ If Westeros if clearly mostly Medieval Western Europe in inspiration, I contend the same is not true for the Targaryens: who are not mere fantasy Plantagenets or Capetians. To me at least, they also have strong Hellenistic vibes: coming from a superior civilisation, they swiftly invaded and subjugated barbarian kingdoms with superior warfare; lording over those people while trying to preserve their racial distinctness; practicing incest; trying their hand at bigamy; regularly believing themselves to be closer to gods than to the people they rule over. This feels heavily like the Seleucids or the Lagids, who didn't take too long to fall the slippery slope of internecine fighting. I might be pushing it too far, but Targaryens could be seen as basically Byzantine or Hellenistic princes ruling a Medieval kingdom.

Indeed then he can easily spin it as sacrificing himself for the good of the Realm or whatever. Then Edric Storm* rises against him as the heir to good king Robert and defeats the conniving bastard on the field. * or the other one that they kept in GoT.

The most ridiculous part of this ending is the fact that Snow managed to escape punishment scot-free. If the dragon did not immediately incinerate him on the spot, the Unsullied should have slaughtered him to pieces.

I totally agree. I contend that Otto's fear is not unfounded, but in the reverse scenario, Rhaenyra, having been the official heir for more than ten years (and supported by the powerful House of Velaryon), would have even less chance to preserve her life or at least her freedom. Basically my point comes down to the fact that, thanks to the idiotic decisions of Viserys, there is no way that this does not end up in a more or less violent power struggle, and so it is a bit unfair to portray Alicent's fear as unfounded or just a pretext for scheming. As someone wrote earlier in this thread, Viserys could name his daughter heir, or remarry and father boys, but he could not have both. And therefore he will have war on his deathbed.

To me, the fact that they are dragonriders is an added element weighing in favour of neutralizing them. Imagine the threat if but one of the brothers decided to press his claim.

See my previous answer which addresses this. You are referring to scenarii where the rules of succession are not uncertain or contested. The key here is uncertainty, which can impact existing practices quite quickly. A key example is the Seleucids: during the first half of their reign, the succession was pretty much peaceful and ordained. Yes, some of them got murdered by traitors or mobs, but there was no family infighting. So a man living in Antioch around 175 BC would contend that dynastic infighting is not in any way the norm of the Seleucid Empire. Then, from 170 BC to their end a century later, the Seleucids spent their time in endless infighting between cousins, brothers, etc, forever rising against each other and murdering each other with abandon. What had changed ? The succession had become uncertain, because after the death of Seleucus IV, his brother Antiochus took power, usurping the line of Seleucus. Even if Seleucus' son Demetrius ended up on the throne after the demise of Antiochus' line, this created a new dynamic (one could say a new "norm") of usurpation.

What you say is true: having more than one heir does not automatically lead up to civil war. In the huge majority of cases, it does not, provided the rules of succession are clear enough and generally accepted. But I am saying that, whenever there is an element of uncertainty or ambiguity in a royal succession, then the odds of a brutal resolution of said uncertainty rise dramatically. This is why the Roman Empire's succession was so rife with murder during the Julio-Claudian era: because, being a de facto monarchy under the guise of a salvaged republican system, there could be no clear rule of succession. Same for the Ottomans: no clear primogeniture amongst the (typically many) sons of the Sultan: that is why for a while they made a habit of automatically strangling all male siblings of the new Sultan. Your example about Eustace is telling, because, yes, Eustache was basically bought out of his pretensions, but this happened after a civil war (between Stephen and Mathilda) had erupted, and after Eustache had suffered many setbacks, at a point when Mathilda's faction had clearly gotten the upper hand. Your example would be more convincing if this strategy had been used (successfully) in dissuading Stephen from pressing his claims before the war started in earnest. (One could make the case that, without Aemond killing the Velaryon prince and the Blood&Cheese business, the Dance of Dragons could have resolved in such relatively peaceful manner). In our case, the element of uncertainty is obvious, even if it seems unfair or trivial to us modern audience: Rhaenyra is a woman, and her inheriting the throne goes against the customs of Westeros and the precedent set by the Great Council of Jaeharys. In this case this is particularly problematic because the alternative heir is not an uncle or, say, a bastard, but a legitimate brother. Even if most of the Kingdom accepts peacefully Rhaenyra's proclamation, and even if Aegon and his brothers keep a low profile, there will be people who will try to weaponize them against the Queen, sooner or later (basically as soon as she takes some unpopular decision or offends an ambitious lord or whatever). In a nutshell: buying off Aegon and his brothers with the Sept or the Watch could work reasonably well if Rhaenyra was a man. In this situation, it is not enough. We can find this unfair but this is so. Hence the only logical step for the Queen is to neutralize her half-brothers as soon as she ascends the throne. She might of course do the human thing and confine them to a relatively decent captivity somewhere in the countryside, under heavy but discrete guard, but even that would be tempting fate. Again, I am not saying that Rhaenyra and her faction are already thinking about that. It is just that this will impose itself upon them once they are in power, almost irrepressibly. So Otto and Alicent are warranted in seeing the upcoming succession as a matter of life and death. They are all playing the game of thrones, even if they don't want to.

My main problem with this episode is the fact that Daeron has not been mentioned and thus I fear he has been cut entirely from the show. I have read somewhere that he could appear in Season 2 à la Stannis, but running against this hypothese is the fact that the episode had many opportunities (dialogue between Alicent and Aegon; or maybe a throwaway line by Visery while watching his sons training in the yard) to mention him, even in passing, and did not.

This bugs me a little. The fact that Otto's and Alicent's fears are treated as delusional or manipulative is not very realistic. Our own Ancient and Medieval times are rife with brothers, nephews, cousins, offing each other at the first opportunity or the merest uncertainty about the succession, so we can assume the same in the setting of Westeros. The fact that Rhaenyra has never given any indication that she would murder her half-brothers on the first day of her reign does not dispel the possibility. I don't think that, to cite but one instance among countless others, Antiochus IV announced to all and sundry that he would liquidate his young nephew as soon as he got a son of his own. Maybe the thought didn't even occur to him before the uncertainty (ie., having a son of his own) occurred. No matter what Rhaenyra says or thinks now, the possibility that she (or her partisans) would execute, imprison or at least confine her half-brothers once Viserys dies is very real, and actually highly probable. Simply because she (and her family) have every interest to do so, in the same way that Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV, Caligula, the Ottoman Sultans, Catherine the Great and countless others had every interest to do so. Unless somehow Westeros, a realistic Medieval setting in almost every way, verges on idealism on this one particular point.