Lord Varys Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 I was always putting a huge question mark on the consensus that Maekar and Bloodraven were something like 'arch-enemies'. However, my point there had little to do with personal animosity but more with the fact that Aerys and Maekar had very difficult personalities, and it is easily imaginable that Bloodraven would have not gotten along with Maekar's ruling style. I imagine Aerys I did not really attend many council session, and I'd be very surprised if he ever to preside over a court session - that would have mostly be done by Bloodraven. Now, Maekar would be a much more active king, taking charge, deciding everything for himself, reducing his Hand to little more than one of many advisers. It would only be natural if both Bloodraven and Maekar had to learn to work together, and thus Bloodraven could have resigned (or Maekar could have chosen another Hand). In fact, I expected Maekar to name one (or multiple) of his sons to office to see how they can rule/prepare them for the throne. The whole thing about Maekar calling all his sons to court seemed to suggest something like that. And if we think about that - we don't really know whether Bloodraven served throughout Maekar's reign as Hand. All we know for certainty is that he was Hand in 233 AC when Maekar died. It could be that Daeron and Aerion both served as Hands, and Bloodraven was only reappointed after Aerion's death in 232 AC. The tidbit from Maekar's section about Daeron and Aerion causing trouble has to refer to something. Two royal princes without any real part in the governance of the Realm (that is actual direct power and influence) could not cause all that much trouble... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 If Bittersteel honors the laws of succession, then Daemon II was his rightful king, and he should have been given 'the sword of kings' when he came of age. Daemon should not have been forced to go to him to beg for it. One can - and I do - construe Bittersteel's reluctance to give the sword to him as unseemly hubris ('I decide who becomes king' of 'I decide when you are ready'), perhaps even treason. And I don't think it is a coincidence that Bittersteel founded the Golden Company scarcely a year later. My impression of Bittersteel is the idea of Daemon being the "rightful" king is something he'd laugh off. Bittersteel seems perfectly aware that Daemon I had no real title to the throne of Westeros but was someone who would become King because his brother was unpopular and they had a pretext for it. He didn't make Daemon II "king" because Daemon II was exactly the sort of person he despised in the king he first revolted against, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 Could be that Bittersteel was cynical enough for that. I think he was more of hypocrite of the type of Gormon Peake. Knowing that his pretender had no real claim to the Iron Throne, but pretending that he did (Peake is a hypocrite in regards to the bastard thing - yeah, right Glendon and Bittersteel one cannot be trusted because they are bastard-born, but Daemon I he could trust!). However, when Bittersteel began championing the cause of Daemon's sons - and he clearly did that - the pretext for Daemon II, Haegon and Daemon III having a claim in the first place is the fact that they are the sons and grandson of the rightful king, the King Who Should Have Been, Daemon I Blackfyre. Bittersteel thus would have been forced to pay lip service to 'the law', even if he did not belong in it. And I think he was not as cynical as you think, as he would then have gotten rid of Daemon's brats and claimed the Iron Throne in his own name, as a son of Aegon IV Targaryen and the captain-general of the Golden Company (or in the name of his children or grandchildren by Calla Blackfyre). Nothing suggests that he ever did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemond's Eye Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I think there was some loyalty, along with pragmatism, in regards to Bittersteel supporting Daemon's line. But I'm not convinced that he truly did think Daeron II bastard born, rather than him instead holding a grudge. He'd have been brought up being told how Daeron and Lord Commander Aemon forced Aegon IV to send he and his mother away - it's possible that Bethany therefore indirectly blames them for Barba's and their father's death. Combine that with Bittersteel's rivalry with Bloodraven - Bracken/Blackwood animosity and jealousy over Shiera - and I think that Aegor would have been whispering in Daemon's ear regardless of whether he believed Daeron to be a bastard. Of course, he may also have been brought up by his mother to believe that Daeron genuinely was Aemon's natural son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 And I think he was not as cynical as you think, as he would then have gotten rid of Daemon's brats and claimed the Iron Throne in his own name, as a son of Aegon IV Targaryen and the captain-general of the Golden Company (or in the name of his children or grandchildren by Calla Blackfyre). Nothing suggests that he ever did that. He already pledged himself to the cause of his eldest brother who was a full-blooded Targaryen. Daemon was oldest and, technically, the heir if his brother Daeron was a bastard (which we know was a lie).Aegon also "chose" him to be heir.Bittersteel doesn't have those pretexts. He'd hitched his wagon to the Blackfyres, probably because he thought he could control them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 The point there is that it would be only one small step for Bittersteel from being the guy who judges which son of Daemon I is worthy to bear Blackfyre/be king to the guy who states: 'Hey, wait a moment. You are all unworthy. I'm a son of a Aegon IV, and your father lost his war. I won't. Now I will claim the Iron Throne for myself!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The point there is that it would be only one small step for Bittersteel from being the guy who judges which son of Daemon I is worthy to bear Blackfyre/be king to the guy who states: 'Hey, wait a moment. You are all unworthy. I'm a son of a Aegon IV, and your father lost his war. I won't. Now I will claim the Iron Throne for myself!' You're right but I guess what I'm saying is that by that time, the Blackfyre cause was hanging by a thread. Trying to do it himself would likely not even get the original Blackfyre holdouts. As it wouldn't have even the pretext of legitimacy. And pretexts are all that keeps the system in Westeros going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The point there is that it would be only one small step for Bittersteel from being the guy who judges which son of Daemon I is worthy to bear Blackfyre/be king to the guy who states: 'Hey, wait a moment. You are all unworthy. I'm a son of a Aegon IV, and your father lost his war. I won't. Now I will claim the Iron Throne for myself!' Perhaps he did not do this because Daemon I had a rather amount of followers, followers who would keep inheritance laws in mind, and think of Daemon's sons and grandsons, before thinking about Daemon's brothers. If Aegor knew he would have a hard time getting followers for himself, but would have it easier (however slightly) to get followers for a Blackfyre, he might have simply decided to stick with the whole Blackfyre plan. In any case, would Aegor succeed in getting a Blackfyre on the throne, no matter which Blackfyre, he would be certain of a position of high power.. Possibly (and perhaps probably) even Hand. With his marriage to Calla, he could have daughters who he planned to wed to the King (in the case of Daemon I's sons). As to why Aegor never chose to help Daemon II... Daemon choose to make his crossing in 211 AC, when Aegor did not yet have his own army lined up. The Golden Company was formed in only 212 AC, after all. In fact, it is possible that Daemon II's failure might have in part inspired Aegor to form the GC.. Daemon II trusted on the power of the lords in Westeros, but these lords weren't capable of defending their king, nor in starting a rebellion.. If Aegor thought that a military base needed to be present in order to get a good rebellion, his GC would be perfect for that. And, let's not forget, lords would be more willing to join a Pretender if the Pretender already has an army of his own, because the force is then already bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 The official story is that Bittersteel founded the Golden Company 'to keep the exiles together'. Daemon II was backed by pardoned lords who remained in Westeros and were free to act after most of the hostages they were forced to give died in the spring. He was not supported by any of the lords/knights who were actually exiled, and whose ranks would soon form the Golden Company. Clearly it was Bittersteel's influence which prevented them from joining Daemon II. Daemon II/Bittersteel had a potential army already, although not yet in the shape of a free company. The question about Bittersteel's own ambitions was purely academic. My point was only that House Blackfyre (i.e. Rohanne, Haegon, Aenys, the other brothers, perhaps even Calla) may have looked not all that kindly on Bittersteel's inaction during the Second Rebellion. But then, Daemon II was not accompanied by Haegon or any other sibling, suggesting that his family may also have considered him to be a lost cause. That's hard to determine. Although Bloodraven talking about Daemon's weeping should Aerys kill him could suggest that Rohanne was not happy with Daemon getting caught. It also seems to be that Bittersteel eventually grows into the man who keeps the Blackfyre cause alive (or is this guy from the start). He has tremendous weight even with Peake and his cronies, as many people seem to take it as a bad sign that neither Blackfyre nor Bittersteel is with them at Whitewalls. For Daemon's sons the Lords in Westeros may still rise, but I very much doubt many lords would even have considered to rise for Daemon's grandsons, who were not even born in Westeros and, most likely, completely unknown to anyone. Yet Bittersteel could still arrange the Fourth Rebellion in 236 AC, which is an accomplishment in itself, although the whole enterprise completely sucked, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhaenys_Targaryen Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Even if his mother and sisters did not support his rebellion, they could still mourn Daemon. I find t more it more interesting that Bloodraven only speaks of Daemons brothers as in 'Bittersteel will crown another', and not as in 'they will want to take revenge'. Of course Bittersteel will crown another. By shouldn't revenge be mentioned second of Daemon and his brothers were still on good terms? Or Bloodraven focussing only on what Bittersteel will do is a show of the Bracken/Blackwood rivalry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.