Maid So Fair Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 One thing I am struggling to understand - from the WOIAF it seems that ultimately, when all was said and done, the Blacks won the Dance of Dragons and several of Rheanyra's sons ended up sitting the IT as perfectly legitimate Kings of Westeros. Yet, no one seems to ever list Rheanyra as a rightful Queen, despite the fact that she had the best claim, actually sat the IT in KL for a period of time wearing her father's crown, and her side won the war of succession that was started to settle the matter. Yet, we get Aegon II and then Aegon III rather than Rheanyra I followed by Aegon II with Aegon (the Elder) being denounced as a usurper. What am I missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Proabaly because the matter didn't really end with a daughter could rule, but instead a son of a uncle. Plenty daughters have been passed on since. The precedent that put Aegon and Visery respectively on the throne. Claiming their mother was a queen points a finger on their claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I don't fully understand it either. Were I Aegon III or Viserys II, I would want my mother to be recorded as the rightful Queen, and Aegon II as the usurper.Maybe they did, and public opinion was just too hostile to Rhaenyra for it to stand.I think Rhaenyra is one of the most tragic figures in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Dermett Corbray Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 History is written by the winners, I guess. Unless a pretender can solely take the throne then those who record history will never include them in the written histories of Westeros. Or something. We never hear of Daemon I either, even though Daemon called himself a King and had supporters. But then his son is referred to as Daemon II. Hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrich Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Aegon II won the Dance by all accounts, even though he died not long after Rhaenyra did, and supporters of Aegon the younger were still fighting for him. Aegon III succeeded his uncle as the King, not his mother, and so was accepted by all the lords. When Cregan's Stark Hour of the wolf was taking the place, he was punishing people responsible for the death of a KIng. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I don't fully understand it either. Were I Aegon III or Viserys II, I would want my mother to be recorded as the rightful Queen, and Aegon II as the usurper.Agreed, seems odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Aegon III's claim comes from being Aegon II's nephew, not his mother's son. If Aegon II had died without kids, and he had gotten a brother marrying some random lady, and those two people have sired Aegon III and then died, and no war had happened, Young Aegon still would be Aegon II's heir if no other Targaryen is around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pizza Roll Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 It's possible important for the plot that Aegon II was the rightful king ... Aemond's bastard :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Leftwich Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 The spirit of the decision of the Great Council of 101 was that a female could not inherit. Aegon III was deriving his claim from being eldest male Targ around, not son of a never-quite-really a queen. Best not to piss of the vast majority of lords in Westeros, lest they rebell against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 The spirit of the decision of the Great Council of 101 was that a female could not inherit. Aegon III was deriving his claim from being eldest male Targ around, not son of a never-quite-really a queen. Best not to piss of the vast majority of lords in Westeros, lest they rebell against you.Aegon III was a minor, up till 136, and was just shattered by what he'd had to endure. I don't think he had the spirit left to argue the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 For much the same reason Matilda I is never really found in English histories. It was because she proved a terrible Queen that no one wished to claim that she was rightfully Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The hairy bear Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 I don't fully understand it either. Were I Aegon III or Viserys II, I would want my mother to be recorded as the rightful Queen, and Aegon II as the usurper. There's a good reason for Viserys II, at least. If he named had her mother the rightful queen, then he should have renounced the kingship and crown his niece Daena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lojzelote Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Aegon III's claim comes from being Aegon II's nephew, not his mother's son. If Aegon II had died without kids, and he had gotten a brother marrying some random lady, and those two people have sired Aegon III and then died, and no war had happened, Young Aegon still would be Aegon II's heir if no other Targaryen is around. Nah, the Aegons being uncle and nephew played no role whatsoever. The blacks actively fought against Aegon II, and the greens ended up betraying him. Also there's nothing what would suggest that Aegon 2 considered the other Aegon his heir - he wanted to remarry, and he was about to have little A's ear cut off - not exactly the way you treat your chosen heir, is it? The answer to the titular question is IMHO part misogyny, part the fact that Aegon was the one annointed by the High Septon IIRC. Also, the maesters probably like to have everything sorted out and orderly - and two monarchs at the same time is messy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 For much the same reason Matilda I is never really found in English histories. It was because she proved a terrible Queen that no one wished to claim that she was rightfully Queen. And Aegon II was a good king that people wished to claim was rightfully King? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 Nah, the Aegons being uncle and nephew played no role whatsoever. The blacks actively fought against Aegon II, and the greens ended up betraying him. Also there's nothing what would suggest that Aegon 2 considered the other Aegon his heir - he wanted to remarry, and he was about to have little A's ear cut off - not exactly the way you treat your chosen heir, is it? The answer to the titular question is IMHO part misogyny, part the fact that Aegon was the one annointed by the High Septon IIRC. Also, the maesters probably like to have everything sorted out and orderly - and two monarchs at the same time is messy. But that didn't stop him from being his heir. Not only they ingore her queenship, but most of Westeros and the Targs themselves. If Rhaenyra was ever saw as a true queen, Daena by right was queen of Westeros, but they followed the precedent of 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkingWITHcersei Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 If i understand the text it seems like the only reason AegonII failed in the end was the death of Lord Baratheon as he was headed to KL to secure the city. Seems like he had the force to do it and once that army lost its head the blacks "won" by default. Interesting question is what would Cregan Stark have done if he arrived in KL and AegonII was still alive? Probably executed him anyhow but properly not by poison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annara Snow Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 But that didn't stop him from being his heir. Not only they ingore her queenship, but most of Westeros and the Targs themselves. If Rhaenyra was ever saw as a true queen, Daena by right was queen of Westeros, but they followed the precedent of 101.No, not really. Rhaenyra was made heir by her father, which was the actual precedent earlier set by Jahaerys: the king chooses who is to succeed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 It does seem odd, but it could be because at the time, Jaehaera was Aegon II's only surviving child. If Rhaenyra was the legitimate queen, then that could open the door to Jaehaera, or Daena down the line. So in the interest of stability for Aegon III and Viserys II, Rhaenyra had to be an also-ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 No, not really. Rhaenyra was made heir by her father, which was the actual precedent earlier set by Jahaerys: the king chooses who is to succeed him. Of which became nothing, she died. Jaeherys choice and 101 has been seen as such: No girl if a male heir exit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 what happens to Aegons son tho he still had the youngest one and unless I missed it in the world book I can t figure out why he didn't become king Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.