Confused about (f?)aegon...

[lyannaisalive]

It is believed (by most) that (f?)aegon is a blackfyre. But IIRC (I am pretty sure but cant be 100%) Martin was quoted saying there is going to be another dance of the dragons. Wasn't that a civil war between two full blooded Targaryens? Wouldn't that suggest that Aegon is the true Aegon and not a blackfyre because then it would be another blackfyre rebellion?

[ezra stone]

I think blackfyres are targaryens, because Daemon was legitimized by Aegon IV. But, following the theory, Aegon wouldn't be a real Blackfyre because he would be a Blackfyre descendent through the female line, and thus, may come from a different family through the male line.

[Mladen]

If he claims that he is a Targaryen, public will see it as Dance too. Not to mention that Blackfyres are being literally "black dragons". Basically, Second Dance won't be exactly the same as the First one, but I do believe that Second Dance will be Blackfyre rebellion tied with Dance of dragons.

[Dorian Martell]

It is believed (by most) that (f?)aegon is a blackfyre.

Some, not most

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

My response to this got wiped out in the rollback.

But the point was that I think the Dany-Aegon conflict will be a hybrid of both the Dance of the Dragons and the Blackfyre Rebellion. So a second Dance doesn't have to imply anything about Aegon being real.

[ezra stone]

I think it just implies a battle with dragons on both sides

[Consigliere]

Blackyres are Targaryens. Daemon was Targaryen on both sides and was legitimised. He just took the name Blackfyre.

[Dorian Martell]

And once again, the last male descendant of Daemon Blackfyre died some 40 years before the books so even if (F)Aegon is descended from them, he would not be one

[LordStoneheart]

The first Dance probably wasn't called so during the war, only afterwards. So the second, if it gets the same name, would be named retrospectively. Whether Aegon is real or not, it will be a battle between two proclaiming themselves as Targaryens, and if he is a Blackfyre and that's revealed it will be a black vs red dragon battle.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

And once again, the last male descendant of Daemon Blackfyre died some 40 years before the books so even if (F)Aegon is descended from them, he would not be one

Then Doran Martell isn't actually a Martell. Unless every single noble house has been unbroken in the male line for the entirety of its existence, then there are female-line houses in the modern day, that nonetheless go by the patriarchal family name. This "He isn't really a Blackfyre" thing doesn't make any sense.

[Dorian Martell]

Then Doran Martell isn't actually a Martell. Unless every single noble house has been unbroken in the male line for the entirety of its existence, then there are female-line houses in the modern day, that nonetheless go by the patriarchal family name. This "He isn't really a Backfire" thing doesn't make any sense.

Wrongo mongo, as Dornish Law and tradition gives inheritance to the first born regardless or gender which is oft stated as very different from the rest of westerosi tradition. If Dornish law was applicable outside of Dorne then Cersei would have crowned Myrcella instead to Tommen. You argument would hold water if the bastardfyres had fled to Dorne, but they did not.

Houses carrying on through a female descendant require an act of a liege lord or a king in the case of major lords to confer the names of a house on the descendants from a female line according to westerosi tradition.

If the last member of a house is female, and she has a child out of wedlock then the child is a bastard with a bastard name and no claim to the house or land. The liege lord can confer a house name on a bastard, like bran wanted to do to the late lord Hornwood's bastard son. If that same female descendant was to marry, her children would carry the name of her husband, as westerosi tradition dictates. They would still be lord or whatever land but they would not carry their mothers house name unless it was conferred on them by their liege or king.

So, if Maelys had a sister or a daughter and they married, their children would by westerosi law carry their fathers name. And I know, if the BFs still consider themselves queens then they have the power to confer their house name on the female descendants blah blah blah but they are not kings/Queens, and never were, legally. They never held the throne, or the crown.

Now, all of that being said, If Juan Con has been truly fooled and (f)Aegon Mopatis(?) wins the crown, He can declare himself a Blackfyre, and will be one, as is his right as a king, but until then, he is not

[UnmaskedLurker]

Wrongo mongo, as Dornish Law and tradition gives inheritance to the first born regardless or gender which is oft stated as very different from the rest of westerosi tradition. If Dornish law was applicable outside of Dorne then Cersei would have crowned Myrcella instead to Tommen. You argument would hold water if the bastardfyres had fled to Dorne, but they did not.

Houses carrying on through a female descendant require an act of a liege lord or a king in the case of major lords to confer the names of a house on the descendants from a female line according to westerosi tradition.

If the last member of a house is female, and she has a child out of wedlock then the child is a bastard with a bastard name and no claim to the house or land. The liege lord can confer a house name on a bastard, like bran wanted to do to the late lord Hornwood's bastard son. If that same female descendant was to marry, her children would carry the name of her husband, as westerosi tradition dictates. They would still be lord or whatever land but they would not carry their mothers house name unless it was conferred on them by their liege or king.

So, if Maelys had a sister or a daughter and they married, their children would by westerosi law carry their fathers name. And I know, if the BFs still consider themselves queens then they have the power to confer their house name on the female descendants blah blah blah but they are not kings/Queens, and never were, legally. They never held the throne, or the crown.

Now, all of that being said, If Juan Con has been truly fooled and (f)Aegon Mopatis(?) wins the crown, He can declare himself a Blackfyre, and will be one, as is his right as a king, but until then, he is not

I think when people say (f)Aegon is a Blackfyre, they mean a Blackfyre descendant--not someone who is technically a "Blackfyre" by last name (by which I know would mean that his father's, father's, father's, etc. is Daemon Blackfyre). So while the Blackfyre name is clearly being used loosely here--no need to devolve into a semantics arguments--the substantive question is whether Aegon is the son of Rhaegar and Elia or is really a descendant of the Blackfyre line. Of course, Aegon would have two parents, and the other line could be a descendant of Brightflame (or possibly Bittersteel), so it is possible that Aegon, even if fake, has Targ blood on both sides. The point is that Aegon would not be from the Targ line that last held the throne but an offshoot and competing line.

[Dorian Martell]

I have no opinion on his fakeness or realness, but the claim that he is a Blackfyre, specifically the semantics are important. Direct Relation is what is important to the claim of the throne.

[UnmaskedLurker]

I have no opinion on his fakeness or realness, but the claim that he is a Blackfyre, specifically the semantics are important. Direct Relation is what is important to the claim of the throne.

But even assuming Aegon is fake and even assuming Aegon is a Blackfyre descendant, Aegon is not claiming the throne through any Blackfyre heritage, but rather through the lie that Aegon is the son of Rhaegar and Elia. The Blackfyre connection would be the motivation for Illyrio and Varys, perhaps, but would not be the basis for any claim to the throne. Has anyone made the argument that Aegon will press his claim as a Blackfyre? I don't think so. I think virtually everyone agrees--whether they personally think Aegon is real or fake--that if it turns out that Aegon is fake--he does not know it.

[Dorian Martell]

Many an argument has been made about the house carrying on through the female line, claim and all for 40 years. Semantics are everything

[Crowford]

Once again, people confusing the traditional system of law in Westeros (power is solely derived from the top-liege downward, who can be deposed, but per definition never act "unlawful") with a civil law system of modernity.

I feel silly having to even point this out, but there is no constitution or independent court of law in Westeros (strangely, the Faith is what probably comes closest, but this is another matter). Dorne has a system of absolute primogeniture, because proponents of that system have consistently held greater power there than it's opponents. And the longer a traditional law is implicitly followed, the less likely it is to be disputed unless special circumstances arise - but this doesn't change the fact that such circumstances DO arise. That sometimes people think they stand to gain enough that they disregard a traditional law and rally enough holders of power to their cause. Sometimes this stays peaceful, because opponents of the new system are in a position where they can't or won't risk a confrontation. Sometimes it has led to war. Robert's Rebellion was one such occurrence in recent times - there was no way to justify Robert's ascension to the throne with the traditional law in Westeros in place since Aegon's conquest. He had that flimsy relation to the Targaryans, but by any metric, there would have been several people above him in line.

So what I am saying is that there is nothing, I repeat, nothing, inherently barring Aegon from calling himself Blackfyre through the female line. Or calling himself Grand Vizier of the Clowns, for that matter. Aegon is currently pressing claim for the Iron Throne - therefore, he is per definition not subject to any liege and therefore any laws. What he can convince a plurality of power of, he can do.

And no, he won't call himself a Blackfyre, because why would he? It would ruin pretty much everything.

[UnmaskedLurker]

So what I am saying is that there is nothing, I repeat, nothing, inherently barring Aegon from calling himself Blackfyre through the female line. Or calling himself Grand Vizier of the Clowns, for that matter. Aegon is currently pressing claim for the Iron Throne - therefore, he is per definition not subject to any liege and therefore any laws. What he can convince a plurality of power of, he can do.

And no, he won't call himself a Blackfyre, because why would he? It would ruin pretty much everything.

THIS. Aegon almost certainly will never claim that he has the right to rule as a Blackfyre. But if I am wrong and he secretly has been told that he is the restoration of the Blackfyre rule through some female Blackfyre ancestor, then he is a Blackfyre for all practical purposes. He either wins the throne and can call himself anything he wants or he loses and it does not matter what he called himself.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

<snip

Or calling himself Grand Vizier of the Clowns, for that matter.

And no, he won't call himself a Blackfyre, because why would he? It would ruin pretty much everything.

I want to see this office established in Westeros!

Well yeah, that and the fact that he believes he's Rhaegar and Elia's son so he wouldn't even think to call himself a Blackfyre.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I want to see this office established in Westeros!

Well yeah, that and the fact that he believes he's Rhaegar and Elia's son so he wouldn't even think to call himself a Blackfyre.

Indeed. Aegon believes himself to be Rhaegar and Elia's son.. a Targaryen.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Many an argument has been made about the house carrying on through the female line, claim and all for 40 years. Semantics are everything

It is hilarious to me that someone who uses the name Martell as part of his screen name is so averse to the idea of female-line inheritance.