Was Daeron II really the Dragonknight's son?

[Lord Varys]

Well, that depends. Viserys was their father and the Hand, and he had an authority over them both that did only end with their death. Not to mention that Aegon III was also still alive at that time. Viserys clearly wanted grandchildren, else he would not have married Aegon to Naerys, and he would thus have not taken Naerys' side over Aegon's.

[Winterfell is Burning]

With Aegon being such a dick who loves the ladies, one has to wonder why did Viserys forced the marriage in the first place. Wouldn't it be better if he had made a political match?

[Colonel Green]

Well, that depends. Viserys was their father and the Hand, and he had an authority over them both that did only end with their death. Not to mention that Aegon III was also still alive at that time. Viserys clearly wanted grandchildren, else he would not have married Aegon to Naerys, and he would thus have not taken Naerys' side over Aegon's.

I'm not clear what you're saying here. Viserys can't make them have sex, and if Aegon and Naerys had said her health made it too dangerous, it would have been hard to argue otherwise.

[Lord Varys]

I'm saying that Viserys and Aegon III could have put an end to the marital sex between Aegon and Naerys if they had wanted to. But they clearly did not. Baelor had not the authority a father has over his children over Aegon and Naerys, and he would also have considered their union legitimate, since they had a son. Thus he did not go for an annulment - perhaps also because he knew Viserys would oppose such an idea - but simply sent Aegon away.

Aegon and Naerys was a political match. It was, most likely, a sign to the Realm that the Targaryens were still the Targaryens and continued to marry each other, dragons or not. Not to mention that the Dance and the Regency should have made it perfectly clear to everyone that nothing causes as much trouble as intermarrying with the own subjects, especially if the spouses are the scions of powerful and wealthy families.

[complexphoenix]

It's probably one of those things that are never going to be answered and we'll be left to draw our own conclusions.

Ugh. And now I really, really want it even more to be true that Naerys and Aemon were lovers. I wanted it even before, because otherwise their lives were just too sad and it's all incredibly unjust. But now you're making me want it really badly, because I so, so hate this attitude that "a good woman who is married against her will to an asshole who doesn't care for her and had sex with everyone will never have an affair with someone she actually loves unless she is SELFISH AND PETTY" and "a virtuous man who thinks about consequences would never stand between a good woman who was married against her will and her asshole husband". :bang:

I don't know if Naerys and Aemon were sleeping together, but I sure hope they were. But in any case, the realm would've been much better off if Naerys had arranged a little accident for her husband, maybe the Iron Throne could 'mysteriously' 'kill him' like Maegor; or at least if Aemon left the Toynes to give Aegon his very deserved death, rather than giving his life for his asshole of a brother. If only Aemon had really thought about consequences, he should have left them kill him. Daeron succeeds the throne, everyone is much happier, all the women of the kingdom can breathe more easily... and, though no one would have known that at the time Aegon doesn't get to legitimize Daemon so the Blackfyre rebellion never happens. (And how good for the Targaryens and everyone would it have been if Rhaella had arranged a little accident for Aerys... Sometimes 'doing your duty' and accepting your shitty fate like a "good woman" has just as bad consequences for the world as being like Cersei.)

I was writing about the specific case of Aemon and Naerys, and contrasting it with the specific example of Jaime and Cersei, yet you write as though I made a sweeping generalization about all people who do and don't commit adultery.

In arguing that Aemon and Naerys would not commit adultery, I did not cite the fact that they were good, I cited the fact that she was pious and he was honorable. Those word choices were deliberate and intentional, and it annoys me greatly that you ignored them. Surely you can see that, regardless of what you think a good man and woman would or would not do, a pious woman and an honorable man would not commit adultery.

By the same token, not every adulterous couple matches the exact profile of Jaime and Cersei, and I never claimed that they did, only contrasted the adulterous couple in the novels with Aemon and Naerys to reinforce my point that they weren't that sort.

I can agree with you on a couple of things: Aemon and Naerys deserved better, way better, than they got. But they didn't. They swore oaths that obligated them to serve Aegon, Aemon as a knight of the Kingsguard, Naerys as his wife. They died keeping those oaths, and Aegon never thanked them for it. Life isn't fair.

You are indeed correct that keeping oaths and doing one's duty isn't always the best thing to do. The realm would indeed have been better off if Aegon had died sooner. Piety and honor can be faults as well as virtues, as we see in the cases of Ned, Baelor the Blessed, and others.

(Final quibble: Rhaella was not in a position to cause Aerys to have an "accident", since he kept her confined and under the supervision of a knight of the Kingsguard 24/7 to ensure she didn't cheat on him.)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I personally doubt that there is even a little truth to the rumours.

Daeron was born in 153 AC. Naerys and Aegon had been married for less than a year by then. Naerys seems to have had every hope that she would be released from her wedding vows. According to an older SSM, she wanted to join the Faith. Thus, Naerys had every believe that Aegon would agree and let her be for the rest of her life. It seems..

But Aegon did not agree, and Naerys was forced to remain his lawful wife. What happened after that is that Aegon quarreled with Aemon, apparently regularly, slighted both Aemon and Naerys whenever the oppertunity presented itself. Next, Daeron grew old enough to "voice his own opinions", and then arrived the last straw...

Daeron and Aegon argued about Aegon's plan to invade Dorne.. Daeron especially would have been strongly against that, after all that happened during the Conquest of Dorne, and the Rebellion that eventually resulted from that Conquest, with Daeron I, Baelor and his almost-death, Aemon's own near-death experiences, the 50.000 men who died (these were all people fighting for the Iron Throne, I presume?) .. and the peace that had been formed by wedding Mariah to Daeron. Going to war against the family of your daughter-in-law, for no reason other than because you felt like it... not a good plan, it would seem.

Only after this plan was made, and argued against by Daeron, did Aegon begin to say that Daeron was not his.. Had Daeron agreed with Aegon, Aegon would probably never have said such a thing about him..

And Aegon seems to have not dared say such things out loud himself whilst Aemon and Naerys lived, whilst he would have had every right to do so, had he suspected it even for a second. Aegon was King, neither Naerys nor Aemon could go against him. Had Aegon truly believed that Daeron wasn't his, he could have had his marriage to Naerys undone, wed another, father a son on that (poor) girl, and present "proof" of Naerys' adultery. If Aegon had any proof whatsoever about the relationship between Naerys and Aemon, not even the Dornish would have had ground to stand on (and the dornish would have wanted to keep Daeron heir, as that would lead to a half-dornish King in the long run).

Out of the two children Aegon had by Naerys, who would have the biggest chance to have been born out of an affair? Daeron, who was born within a year of the marriage, at a time where Naerys seemed to have been fully convinced to be allowed to go free after giving birth? Or Daenerys, who was conceived when Aegon was busy with his newest mistress, after years of having verbally abused Naerys, and after she almost died trying to birth Aegon more children? I'd say the answer is Daenerys, yet no word is ever spoken about Daenerys being falseborn. No, it is always Daeron, whilst the chances of Daeron having been falseborn seem to be lowest.

Which should show how political the rumours about Daeron were...

[Daemon Blackfyre IV]

I just don't understand why Aegon didn't make Daemon his heir and rid the realm of all the trouble.

[glamourweaver]

I just don't understand why Aegon didn't make Daemon his heir and rid the realm of all the trouble.

Possibly because he wanted the war that ambiguity would bring because he was an asshole. Like Alexander the Great leaving his Empire "to the strongest."

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

I just don't understand why Aegon didn't make Daemon his heir and rid the realm of all the trouble.

You really think that Aegon naming his 14 year old illegitimate son as heir over his older legitimate son wouldn't have caused the realm any trouble?

[glamourweaver]

Trying to name one's own heir over the accepted laws of succession did work out so well when Viscerys I tried it after all...

[Fae Boleyn]

Possibly because he wanted the war that ambiguity would bring because he was an asshole. Like Alexander the Great leaving his Empire "to the strongest."

In all honesty this is probably the closest to the truth we'll get regarding motivations. Though in Aegon's case, the fact that we know he was a court wit would suggest to him it was probably more some kind of bitter joke (considering what killed him, bitterness would make sense; I mean even he didn't deserve that horror jfc) than a "to the strongest". And perhaps some revenge - in the end being king and having it all destroyed him, well, he gets the last laugh. Or, y'know, just revenge on Daeron because he doesn't like him and hopes this will cause him trouble.

As for Aemon and Naerys, we can't conclusively say Daeron could not possibly have been theirs, but I do think it's highly unlikely, especially given Naerys' health. Aemon loved her, we know this, though we don't know the precise nature of that love, and thus would not have wanted her life at risk. Which, you know, it would be twice over, as adultery was treason for her as well as pregnancy being a potential death sentence. So I would say it's very near certain that they never had a sexual relationship. Which, you know, doesn't preclude romance happening, as romantic love does not require sex. It's usually a factor. But it's not absolutely required, which no one seems to have noted here, either saying they were having an affair or their affections were that of platonic siblings as if those are the only possible options ever. (Between siblings one would hope platonic is the only option, but these are Targaryens, so...) I could definitely see a non-sexual romance behind the scenes there. Or platonic love. Really, either is equally possible, because again, Targaryens.

Daeron may well have considered Aemon more of a father figure than Aegon, and who could blame him, but it's all but certain Aegon was the sperm donor. Which is good, because it makes Daeron king (well, ok, mostly good for this reason) and bad, because Aegon was an asshole. One wonders how he tended to treat his bastards that weren't Daemon, actually... Oh wait, he banished Aegor because the Brackens pissed him off, and Brynden was clear only because people like Aemon and Naerys really liked his mother, no mention of how Aegon treated him. Or his full sisters. Or Shiera. And oh yes, one of his mistresses might have been his daughter which is creepy even by Targaryen standards. We also don't know how he treated Princess Daenerys. But I suspect the overall answer, aside from Daemon, is probably "not well".

[sertravisredbeard]

From the WOIAF, we know that Aegon IV didn't bring that up until after Naerys and the Dragonknight were both dead. Any credence to the rumor of Daeron the Good being the Dragonknight's should have ended there. Before reading the WOIAF, I always thought that the Daeron being a bastard thing was just an excuse Daemon's supporters thought up for rebelling. But with the late accusations from the Unworthy, now I definitely don't agree with the bastard theories. Aegon IV was an asshole that did what he wanted. He could have set aside Naerys and disowned his son while alive anytime he wanted to. But he didn't, knowing the Dragonknight wouldn't stand for it.

[Lord_Pepsi_Cupps]

TWOIAF clearly pushes the "it was all a rumour" line, which is not unexpected. The Targs beat the Blackfyres, so the Targs got to write the history.

If Daemon had beaten Daeron, there'd be a different version passed down as the "official" story - something like "Aegon IV could not bring himself to disinherit Daeron outright for he had raised him as a son, but all signs pointed to him being Aemon's son, and Aegon died of heartbreak over it". Instead we get a version in which the Blackfyres should never even raised their hands, because Daeron was clearly legit - how unsurprising that the Targ maesters would set it down like that.

But that's not to say there's anything to the story. Just that we're getting someone's version of the past, and we'll likely never know for sure who fathered Daeron.

Nothing about Aemon and Naerys suggests they would ever break their vows; but (this is a story) how easy is it to believe that anyone can slip once, which is all that plausibility requires.

[Lord Varys]

Well, the Blackfyres apparently would really have to rewrite a lot of history to make Daeron II a bastard, since Aegon IV apparently earned the nickname 'the Unworthy' for a pretty good reason, and whatever story they could come up with to explain why the hell Aegon IV did not name Daemon his heir if he wanted to, or disinherited/exposed Daeron would have to explain a lot of things away.

[Lord_Pepsi_Cupps]

Well, the Blackfyres apparently would really have to rewrite a lot of history to make Daeron II a bastard, since Aegon IV apparently earned the nickname 'the Unworthy' for a pretty good reason, and whatever story they could come up with to explain why the hell Aegon IV did not name Daemon his heir if he wanted to, or disinherited/exposed Daeron would have to explain a lot of things away.

My point was that the size of the things you need to explain away doesn't matter if you win. If you lose, the most solid, unassailable, cogent story can be unpicked to make you look really bad.

If Aegon fights Dany, he will make a thing of how she killed her brother, her husband, her child and Quentyn Martell, all because she is power-mad. "Daenerys the Destroyer" is a more fitting name for her.

And if they sell their story, no one would be the wiser, and generations to come would see how it all makes sense that she planned it all that way.

[Lord Varys]

Well, I'm not sure whether Daemon's pet historians would really go down try to rewrite Daeron's past and reign, and not rather praise and glorify Daemon. I imagine some would try to paint Daeron is a bad light, but it would be really difficult to do so. They could go with the 'Daeron was trying to sell us out to Dorne' angle, but that would have been dangerous. He was not a warrior, but besides that he did not have any bad quality we know of, and he clearly did not kill anyone we know of, nor does his reign/life seem to be marked by tragedies that could be misconstrued to paint him as a villain.

And by the way, there is a pretty good chance that a Blackfyre victory would have soon led to a fragmentation of the Realm, as Dorne most likely would not have remained in the Realm under a Blackfyre king, not to mention the dangerous precedent the successful coup of a (bastard born) younger brother over his elder would have set for the succession.

The dynasty would have not survived until 283 AC.

[KingBlackfyre]

Well, I'm not sure whether Daemon's pet historians would really go down try to rewrite Daeron's past and reign, and not rather praise and glorify Daemon. I imagine some would try to paint Daeron is a bad light, but it would be really difficult to do so. They could go with the 'Daeron was trying to sell us out to Dorne' angle, but that would have been dangerous. He was not a warrior, but besides that he did not have any bad quality we know of, and he clearly did not kill anyone we know of, nor does his reign/life seem to be marked by tragedies that could be misconstrued to paint him as a villain.

And by the way, there is a pretty good chance that a Blackfyre victory would have soon led to a fragmentation of the Realm, as Dorne most likely would not have remained in the Realm under a Blackfyre king, not to mention the dangerous precedent the successful coup of a (bastard born) younger brother over his elder would have set for the succession.

The dynasty would have not survived until 283 AC.

You forget a lot of the second most powerful houses rode with daemon and if successful would have replaced The Lord paramount ie yronwood in dorne and reyne in the westerlands plus the fact that daemon is beyond charismatic would have helped matters.

[Winterfell is Burning]

You forget a lot of the second most powerful houses rode with daemon and if successful would have replaced The Lord paramount ie yronwood in dorne and reyne in the westerlands plus the fact that daemon is beyond charismatic would have helped matters.

The fact that many of the ruling houses would be replaced is a cause for more chaos and a bigger chance of the realms splitting, not less.

[Ash Kumar]

I was always confused by this whole rumor that Daeron was the dragon knight's bastard because he was bookish and not warrior like. Wasn't aemon basically the most chivalrous and badass knight in history ... Or atleast in the top 5 post conquest. It seems it would make more sense that the rumors would be that daemon was the dragon knights progeny

[Annara Snow]

I was always confused by this whole rumor that Daeron was the dragon knight's bastard because he was bookish and not warrior like. Wasn't aemon basically the most chivalrous and badass knight in history ... Or atleast in the top 5 post conquest. It seems it would make more sense that the rumors would be that daemon was the dragon knights progeny

They did not claim that he was a bastard because he was bookish and not warrior-like. (Even if people inherited their interests from their fathers, Daeron's would point neither here nor there, since Aegon was not bookish either.) They claimed that he was a bastard, to justify Daemon's claim to the throne. They also claimed that Aegon wanted Daemon to be the heir and that this is why he gave him Blackfyre. At the same time, many people - like Ser Eustace, he of the giant man-crush on Daemon - supported Daemon because he was a badass warrior, and didn't like Daeron because he was bookish, not a warrior, and listened to the counsel of Dornishmen, women and maesters. But those are two completely separate things.