Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

dantares83

Aegon II and Aegon III

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it certainly puts into perspective how weak Aegon II was after his restoration in spite of the support of Lord Borros. And somehow I'd wager much money on the idea that even one Velaryon man-at-arms ever died in the service of Aegon II.

If Aegon II was forced to proclaim Aegon the Younger his definite heir and even named him Prince of Dragonstone then he was really in a very bad position.

But this makes the Dance resemble the Anarchy even more considering that King Stephen was eventually forced to accept Matilda's son Henry II as his heir, too. The only difference there is that - assuming Aegon II could still father children - Aegon II (unlike Stephen) intended to take a new wife and thus could have had more sons.

Ironically Aegon II would thus have been in the very same position his own father had been had he lived longer. He may have had a bunch of sons from his second wife he would like to follow him on the throne but his legal heirs were his daughter from his first wife and his hated nephew who had been married to his daughter.

One assumes that the fact that there was only a betrothal can be interpreted as a sign that both Alicent and Aegon II hoped they could dissolve the betrothal once they had won the war and rid themselves of Aegon the Younger after old Lord Corlys had died. The man would not live forever, after all.

 

I'd like to say that no, its very likely that few Velyaron men-at-arms died for the king given that first there was a land battle, and the capital city still needed to be defended from the rebels and rather fast the war was over.

A note should be made of the magnanimous nature of Aegon II, contrary to the besmirching of his name that takes place in certain places. First he offers Rhaenyra a peaceful resolution to the inheritance crisis, then he refuses to kill Prince Aegon and honored brave Ser Marston Waters for protecting Baela Targaryen despite the fact that Sunfyre's death and thus the loss in the war can be placed at her feet, then he pardoned Corlys Velyaron despite the grevious acts of treachery he had done against his king and accepted to unite his daughter and the prince he had show mercy for. I call it less desperation and more honor.

In light of this I'd say its far, far more likely that Corlys had the peace of the realm at large in mind and had accepted his pardon seeing that Aegon II was the rightful king and a king would have been better than the chaos of no king, as shown in the regency. My main argument is that if Corlys had killed Aegon with poison, why would he just accept a resignation to the Wall? Why didn't he even try to defend himself in that he was also a fellow Black who had aided the rebellious cause? There were many alternatives in order to betray the king and he could never trust that other loyalists, like Alicent would not take command and use Aegon the Younger as a hostage instead, or even kill the lad if the rebels would not relent. If Corlys plan was to save Aegon and destroy the line of king, then Corlys was twice a fool. A fool for killing King Aegon without securing Prince Aegon, and another time a fool for causing the chaos of the Regency.

I am however forced to say that you are greviously mistaken in regards to Aegon II's legal heirs. If he had more sons then those would come before Jaehaera, and his nephew as well regardless of all other things. Although I think that further down the line there would have been a new civil war if Prince Aegon had lived given that several branches with claims to the throne usually don't work out very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

 

I'd like to say that no, its very likely that few Velyaron men-at-arms died for the king given that first there was a land battle, and the capital city still needed to be defended from the rebels and rather fast the war was over.

A note should be made of the magnanimous nature of Aegon II, contrary to the besmirching of his name that takes place in certain places. First he offers Rhaenyra a peaceful resolution to the inheritance crisis, then he refuses to kill Prince Aegon and honored brave Ser Marston Waters for protecting Baela Targaryen despite the fact that Sunfyre's death and thus the loss in the war can be placed at her feet, then he pardoned Corlys Velyaron despite the grevious acts of treachery he had done against his king and accepted to unite his daughter and the prince he had show mercy for. I call it less desperation and more honor.

In light of this I'd say its far, far more likely that Corlys had the peace of the realm at large in mind and had accepted his pardon seeing that Aegon II was the rightful king and a king would have been better than the chaos of no king, as shown in the regency. My main argument is that if Corlys had killed Aegon with poison, why would he just accept a resignation to the Wall? Why didn't he even try to defend himself in that he was also a fellow Black who had aided the rebellious cause? There were many alternatives in order to betray the king and he could never trust that other loyalists, like Alicent would not take command and use Aegon the Younger as a hostage instead, or even kill the lad if the rebels would not relent. If Corlys plan was to save Aegon and destroy the line of king, then Corlys was twice a fool. A fool for killing King Aegon without securing Prince Aegon, and another time a fool for causing the chaos of the Regency.

I am however forced to say that you are greviously mistaken in regards to Aegon II's legal heirs. If he had more sons then those would come before Jaehaera, and his nephew as well regardless of all other things. Although I think that further down the line there would have been a new civil war if Prince Aegon had lived given that several branches with claims to the throne usually don't work out very well.

Well, we now know that Corlys only joined Aegon II after Borros Baratheon had taken KL from Trystane Truefyre and Aegon II had returned to the capital (the fact that Alicent was included into those deliberations confirms that - Corlys, Aegon II, and Alicent were physically in the same room). Considering that Ran told us Aegon II hoped Corlys would raise men to his cause such a hypothetical Velaryon army would be in the future. We know the Velaryon men back in KL left the city during the riots/around the time Corlys was arrested by Rhaenyra.

We know that Aegon II and Alicent both were against the idea of letting Aegon the Younger live and make him Aegon II's heir. That's not magnanimous, that's just biting the bullet because you have to. And by the way - Ser Marston Waters rise to the Kingsguard had nothing to do with what he did or did not to Baela Targaryen. He protected Aegon II throughout his worst hours and deserved some reward regardless how his conduct was. 

You seem to confuse things here. Corlys Velaryon was most likely ideally position to take charge of the entire kingdom after the sudden death of Aegon II because he was a very respected man that even Aegon II needed if he wanted to keep his throne. And by enforcing not only that Aegon the Younger wasn't executed but also installed as co-heir of Aegon II he also tried to push Aegon II closer to making a peace. There was a not so bad chance that the remaining Blacks could make a peace with Aegon II on the condition that Aegon III would rule after him - that's essentially the connection to ending of the Anarchy on which the Dance is based. After the death of Stephen's son the future Henry II forced Stephen to accept him as his successor.

But Aegon II was apparently not willing to compromise in the end (hence the command to mutilate Prince Aegon) nor were the victorious Blacks willing to suffer the idea that Aegon II remained on the throne. One assumes that Corlys tried to convince Aegon II to try to sue for a peace with the Riverlords and perhaps even Lord Stark prior to the Battle on the Kingsroad when he would have still been able to negotiate from a position of relative strength (thanks to the Baratheon army). But afterwards that chance was over.

We know that Alicent was imprisoned for life after Aegon II's death so whoever poisoned Aegon II and seized power at court after his death had sufficient support to neutralize Alicent and any other die-hard remaining Greens. Unfortunately we don't know any details there but it is entirely possible that some people aside from Aegon II had to be killed at that point.

In general, I'm not saying Corlys always had the plan to murder Aegon II - I'm saying he was prepared to do that if the man wasn't seeing reason in a hopeless situation. If that hadn't occurred I don't think Corlys had killed him. He wanted to create a peace, not continue the war or kill pointlessly.

Well, if there had been a peace treaty between the Greens and the Blacks sealed by the marriage between Aegon the Younger and Jaehaera and the public recognition of all parties involved - not just Aegon II but also all the major lords involved in the war and the peace treaty - then one would assume that such a treaty would have had a similar effect that the lords swearing obeisance to Princess Rhaenyra in 105 AC. The succession would have been set in stone and Aegon II's sons from his second wife challenging that could have had the potential to reopen the rift between the Blacks and the Greens all over again.

That is speculation, of course, but the idea that Aegon II still had the sovereign right to choose his own heir is already contradicted by the fact that he had to accept Aegon the Younger. The idea that he could have changed that years later if it had been part of a very important peace treaty which allowed him to remain on the throne isn't very likely.

After all, the dragons were dead, and now the Targaryens could no longer do whatever the hell they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2016 at 9:44 AM, Zara Zokan said:

Well, both the Blacks and the Greens clearly didn't care much about kinslaying and killing children, and Ser Alfred Broome did press Aegon II to kill him. But Aegon III could have been useful as a hostage; maybe he could have been used to placate the Blacks.

Not to mention, Aegon III was the heir of both Rhaenyra under equal primogeniture and Aegon II's heir under Salic law, since he was Daemon's son. It's not like Aegon III had anyone else to name as his heir, since the Greens' entire claim relied on discrediting a woman's right to the throne, so Jaehaera was out of the picture. Aegon II probably planned to remarry and have children again after the Dance, but killing the only other male Targaryen who was known to be alive during the war was a risky move.

Sry to interrupt but Salic law would have prevented Aegon III from inheriting.  

 

Edward III had a claim to the French throne thru his mother the eldest child of Philip the Fair. Upon his death his three sons reign in turn. Then his brothers son Charles Valois was named king.

Edward felt he had a better claim. But has luck would have one of his uncles turned Salic law from an unwritten rule into law. Hence the start of the hundred yr war.

 

Henry V held the french crown by right of conquest not inheritance. Even if he did have a few drops of french royal blood.Henry VI while having a Valois mother held the crown as inheritance from hjs father not his mother. As he would have been barred because of Salic law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, the conquering bastard 25 said:

Sry to interrupt but Salic law would have prevented Aegon III from inheriting.  

 

Edward III had a claim to the French throne thru his mother the eldest child of Philip the Fair. Upon his death his three sons reign in turn. Then his brothers son Charles Valois was named king.

Edward felt he had a better claim. But has luck would have one of his uncles turned Salic law from an unwritten rule into law. Hence the start of the hundred yr war.

 

Henry V held the french crown by right of conquest not inheritance. Even if he did have a few drops of french royal blood.Henry VI while having a Valois mother held the crown as inheritance from hjs father not his mother. As he would have been barred because of Salic law

But, remember, Aegon III was not only his nephew, but his cousin ;)

So under Salic law, Aegons' brothers and their male children would come first, but they were dead and childless at that point, so then his uncle, Daemon, who was dead, and then the male children of Daemon - his oldest son being Aegon III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, the conquering bastard 25 said:

Sry to interrupt but Salic law would have prevented Aegon III from inheriting. 

You mean, there was someone with a better claim (in male line) than Aegon no. 3? Son of Daemon, son of Baelon, son of King Jaehaerys I? If so, then who was it (among those still alive after the Dance, of course)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Text

I agree that Aegon II, Corlys and Alicent would have all been physically present in King's Landing but it also only makes sense that Aegon II would only pardon Corlys after the loyalists had captured the city given that Aegon II would not have known if Corlys was even alive after his imprsonment and the riots. But to make your memory a bit stronger the Velyaron army didn't only desert Rhaenyra at the time of Corlys arrest, it abandoned her precisely at that time due to the fact that Corlys was arrested.

No, we are aware that Aegon II and Alicent didn't see Prince Aegon as Aegon II's firsthand heir and that Alicent didn't like the marriage between Aegon and Jaehaera. Tom Tangletonge and Alfred Broome also did Aegon II good service but they didn't get into the Kingsguard and thus I dare say that saving Baela was part of why Marston Waters got the specific reward of a Kingsguard service instead of some other more material but less prestigeous benefits, even if his dutiful vigil over his king showed Marston had the proper Kingsguard qualities.

I can agree that Corlys may have had some greater motive for the realm than just make up for past mistakes, however we learnt nothing of Corlys taking command or that he held some kind of influence over anything regardless of how he was positioned. Not to mention that making a new switch to the Blacks after having joined the Greens could well have erased all respect there was for him; it would have just looked like he was switching from side to side.

A compromisse could have been reached but the problem was that no compromisse was suggested to Aegon II. What Corlys suggested was a total surrender and beyond Prince Aegon's health, King Aegon II had nothing whatsoever to use in a bargain with the lads and Lord Stark. That's the issue of it, not that Aegon II couldn't have compromissed but that there was no need for the recently and continiously victorious Blacks to make any kind of compromisse with a defeated enemy. We know nothing of what advice Corlys had given King Aegon II but I dare say that it wasn't about making peace and more about what else he wanted to raise Driftmark for his new king. Provided he wasn't already busy doing just that.

A deal between the Blacks and Greens would have been interesting but it would all depend on the relative factors of strength between them. A marriage between Prince Aegon and Jaehaera to make it an Aegon III after Aegon II sounds very much like a clear Black dominance and an essential Green surrender. If the Greens would have been more successful in the field or held a stronger position at the time of this theoretical compromisse then I would think the treaty would be much less in favor of the Blacks and more in favor of the Greens. Maybe a deal that Aegon III would inherit after Aegon II provided that no sons were born to Aegon before a certain date, so that they could reasonbly have been mature men when Aegon II kicked the bucket? Similar to the Treaty of Troyes in the 1410s, if I recall.

I agree however that with the dragons dead, the Targaryens had to change their way of ruling Westeros, although they seem to have been fairly successful at doing that precise change since they held the Iron Throne for about the same ammount of time if not longer without dragons as with dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LionoftheWest

I know why and when the Velaryons abandoned Rhaenyra, but we don't know for sure that all had left KL by the time she fled the city. But it really seems as if they had no hand in the Truefyre/Palehair regimes nor were they making common cause with the Shepherd's gang. Therefore I figure it was solely Borros' people who restored order in KL in the name of Aegon II.

The thing with Waters is that we really have no clue when and how Aegon II promised him his White Cloak. Could have been as early as them spending time together on that boat that got them to Dragonstone or later while Aegon II was hanging out with him in that hut of his relatives. I mean, it would not be surprising if Aegon II genuinely bonded with the guy who stayed true to him when everybody else had deserted him. Or such an appointment was part of the original bargain Larys Strong had made with Waters in Aegon II's name. The man might not have been willing to take such a big risk without a reward.

We know from Ran that all the men involved in Rhaenyra's murder later died gruesome deaths - however, one or two of them might also have been named to the new Kingsguard. Aegon II had six spots to fill, if I remember correctly, considering that his men slew the remainder of Rhaenyra's Queensguard. The only KG surviving until Aegon II's restoration might have been Ser Willis Fell who seems to have carried Jaehaera successfully to Storm's End.

We know that Corlys Velaryon was in charge after the murder of Aegon II. He was the one who opened the gates to the Riverlands and he was the one who had sent out offers of peace to Casterly Rock, Storm's End, and Oldtown. And he was one of the men who were arrested along with all the other courtiers of Aegon II by Cregan Stark and accused of murdering Aegon II. Baela and Rhaena Targaryen schemed together with Alysanne Blackwood to get him out the trial by convincing Aegon III to restore him to his titles and honors (and then convincing Cregan to accept that). This strongly suggests that Baela, Rhaena, and Alysanne knew that Corlys was at least involved in the murder, perhaps even the man arranging it. We also know that Baela was most likely at court with her grandfather (accompanying Aegon II to KL alongside Aegon the Younger) and that Alysanne Blackwood would have arrived there days/weeks prior to Cregan Stark. They might have had much more intimate knowledge about what had happened at court than Cregan Stark.

The compromise idea is hypothetical, of course. Aegon II does not send Borros against the Riverlords or dispatches Tyland to hire sellswords but tries to forge a peace with the remaining Blacks in the field. Prior to the Kingsroad battle Aegon II would have negotiated from a position of relative strength and if he had then decided - pushed by Corlys - to seal whatever deal was reached with the Blacks with the marriage of Aegon the Younger and Jaehaera then the symbolic importance of that marriage would have been way too strong to be cast aside later on by Aegon II's speculative younger sons. They were proclaimed joint heirs if Ran is correct above, so the idea is that the symbol of peace is the reunion of the different Targaryen branches in the union of Prince Aegon and Princess Jaehaera. Coming up with the idea of naming different heirs later on would have been facing the risk that the war might begin anew.

And - again, if we assume the Lords of the Realm were fine with that arrangement and effectively forced it on Aegon II then pretty much nobody should have backed his new succession plans.

Corlys only suggested a total surrender after Aegon II had lost the war and had no chance to keeping the capital. At that point his only chances seem to have been death or the Wall. Earlier on a peace offer from his side may have been heard. After all, it was winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zara Zokan said:

But, remember, Aegon III was not only his nephew, but his cousin ;)

So under Salic law, Aegons' brothers and their male children would come first, but they were dead and childless at that point, so then his uncle, Daemon, who was dead, and then the male children of Daemon - his oldest son being Aegon III.

His claim to the throne still would have rested with his mother. She was queen and her claim came before Daemons. The lords of the realm swore to it.

Again Targs dont practice Slavic law. Because of the whole incest thing.

Aegon III would have had a claim from both side yes. But Aegon II had a female decendant and for hin to name her heir would have been a slap in the face of his supporters. They fought for the male line to dominate over the female line. These lords mainly supported Aegon because of the precedent set by 2 grand councils that supported the male claimants. 

 

By wedding the two branches back together Aegon III still would have had the superior claim because hes male. Thus still making their descendant hold their claim thru him not their mother.

 

Ita the samething wAegon, Dany and Jon.

Dany as the kings daughter of the late dynasty would have a claim yes. But its still behind that of Aegon and Jon. As they are both descent from Rheagar the eldest male.

Think Edward III leaving the crown to Richard the son of his heir instead of going toLionel. Richarda claim is superior to Lionels daughter and before Jonh of Grunts claim. Hence Lionels granddaughter wedding Yorks son to strenthen  their claim.

Richard of York the whole reason he rose gainst Henry was because as a descendent of Lionel through the female line he felt his claim came before that ofHenry's. But if one goes strictly by the male line Lancaster have the superior claim.

Yet claims workdepending who believes what and is willing to claim what they believe to be theirs.

Slavic law exludes the female line completely. They cant rule in their own right and are place holders for their sons til they reach of age is their ruling in their name.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, the conquering bastard 25 said:

His claim to the throne still would have rested with his mother. She was queen and her claim came before Daemons. The lords of the realm swore to it.

Again Targs dont practice Slavic law. Because of the whole incest thing.

Aegon III would have had a claim from both side yes. But Aegon II had a female decendant and for hin to name her heir would have been a slap in the face of his supporters. They fought for the male line to dominate over the female line. These lords mainly supported Aegon because of the precedent set by 2 grand councils that supported the male claimants. 

 

By wedding the two branches back together Aegon III still would have had the superior claim because hes male. Thus still making their descendant hold their claim thru him not their mother.

 

Ita the samething wAegon, Dany and Jon.

Dany as the kings daughter of the late dynasty would have a claim yes. But its still behind that of Aegon and Jon. As they are both descent from Rheagar the eldest male.

Think Edward III leaving the crown to Richard the son of his heir instead of going toLionel. Richarda claim is superior to Lionels daughter and before Jonh of Grunts claim. Hence Lionels granddaughter wedding Yorks son to strenthen  their claim.

Richard of York the whole reason he rose gainst Henry was because as a descendent of Lionel through the female line he felt his claim came before that ofHenry's. But if one goes strictly by the male line Lancaster have the superior claim.

Yet claims workdepending who believes what and is willing to claim what they believe to be theirs.

Slavic law exludes the female line completely. They cant rule in their own right and are place holders for their sons til they reach of age is their ruling in their name.

 

Apparently the Targs established Semi-Salic law after the Dance (women can only inherit if there are no more men alive in the dynasty).

I mean, yes, Aegon III was definitely seen as Rhaenyra's son before Aegon II's cousin by everyone, and Black supporters would see Daemon as only King-Consort, and Aegon III as Rhaenyra's legitimate heir.

But under real-world Salic law (as opposed to male-preference primogeniture, where Jaehaera would be the heir), Aegon III would be Aegon II's heir, not by virtue of being Rhaenyra's son, but by being his cousin through the male-only line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@the conquering bastard 25

Actually, things are somewhat different. We know from Yandel that Aerys II named Viserys his heir after Rhaegar's death - Rhaegar's children were passed over. If we count Viserys III as a Targaryen king (which Targaryen loyalists would do because he was crowned) then his chosen heir is Daenerys Stormborn, who was named by Viserys Princess of Dragonstone (and is referred to as such in AGoT).

On the royal level primogeniture is only a strong legal principle if you talk about a son following a father. In those cases proximity often wins the day. A grandchild or great-grandchild is usually not chosen, especially if the king hasn't anointed an heir. Check Viserys I vs. Laenor Velaryon, Aegon V vs. Vaella/Maegor, and Viserys III vs. Aegon/Rhaenys.

Mostly the reason seem to be that a father usually prefers a son over a grandson/great-grandson especially because the son usually is already a man grown whereas the children mostly were either toddlers or pretty young in the precedents in which this came up.

And as things turn out now Aegon II apparently named his daughter and Aegon the Younger co-heirs which means in his mind Aegon III had pretty much no claim at all, and if he would sit the throne then by right of his wife rather than his own right.

@Zara Zokan

Unless Ran comes around and gives us another tidbit on the legal situation after the Dance, the main blow against female inheritance came from the first Great Council of 101 AC. The rigid interpretation of that was that neither women nor males through the female line could ever inherit the Iron Throne. The Dance added to that only in the sense that Rhaenyra lost the war and was declared a bad example for a Queen Regnant, but there is no hint that there was any formal law made regarding the succession.

In fact, female succession came up again after the death of Baelor I, and the claims of Baelor's sisters were discussed and dismissed. That wouldn't have been the case if people had already known/accepted that women couldn't inherit at all.

And it came up again on the Great Council in 233 AC when the claim of Princess Vaella was discussed, too. That wouldn't have happened had nobody thought she could sit the Iron Throne. 

Whether Aegon the Younger still had legally a claim to the throne in the mind of Aegon II before he was forced to betroth him to Jaehaera is unclear. I doubt that this is the case because nobody in KL right now looks to Stannis or Shireen as Tommen and Myrcella's legal heirs. They have been attainted. Just as Aegon the Younger would have been attainted by Aegon II. Only because Corlys and others defended what they thought was his birth right could he eventually ascend the Iron Throne.

If the Greens had won the throne wouldn't have been offered to Aegon the Younger upon Aegon II's death. It would have been offered to a much more distant relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Whether Aegon the Younger still had legally a claim to the throne in the mind of Aegon II before he was forced to betroth him to Jaehaera is unclear. I doubt that this is the case because nobody in KL right now looks to Stannis or Shireen as Tommen and Myrcella's legal heirs. They have been attainted. Just as Aegon the Younger would have been attainted by Aegon II. Only because Corlys and others defended what they thought was his birth right could he eventually ascend the Iron Throne.

If the Greens had won the throne wouldn't have been offered to Aegon the Younger upon Aegon II's death. It would have been offered to a much more distant relative.

Oh yes, true, context matters, after all. I'm just saying that Aegon III's claim could be seen as somewhat valid as Aegon II's heir as well as Rhaenyra's (though considering what actually happened after Aegon II's death, I think the Greens just decided to support Aegon III as the last male Targaryen, nobody truly "won".)

Though I'm wondering, did Aegon II actually have any Green relatives left (bar Jaehaera) after Rhaenyra's death? The Arryns and the Velaryons were related, but they were Blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zara Zokan said:

Oh yes, true, context matters, after all. I'm just saying that Aegon III's claim could be seen as somewhat valid as Aegon II's heir as well as Rhaenyra's (though considering what actually happened after Aegon II's death, I think the Greens just decided to support Aegon III as the last male Targaryen, nobody truly "won".)

Though I'm wondering, did Aegon II actually have any Green relatives left (bar Jaehaera) after Rhaenyra's death? The Arryns and the Velaryons were related, but they were Blacks.

My guess is that if Aegon II had had a chance to name a new heir presumptive of his own free (and we ignore Jaehaera for a moment) he would have gone a pretty long way back, choosing either some (alleged) Targaryen bastard (he could have acknowledged Gaemon Palehair as his son, after all, and we know he had at least two bastards before the Dance even began) or going back to another descendant of Aenys I (say, through Princess Rhaena or her twin daughters Aerea and Rhalla), or just randomly picking some dude with power who had no Targaryen blood at all.

Somebody would have to sit the throne after his death, and it just makes no sense that he would have wanted his nephew to sit the throne.

If we compare this to the situation in KL right now the heir presumptive of Tommen/Myrcella right now wouldn't be Stannis/Shireen or Aegon/Daenerys but presumably the Targaryen cousin most closely related to the Targaryen-Baratheon. A distant Baratheon cousin wouldn't do because only the Baratheons descended from Ormund and Steffon Baratheon had a legal claim to the Iron Throne (because they were descended from Aegon V's daughter, Princess Rhaelle). It seems that Steffon didn't have any siblings so the next in line would be (a) descendant of Maekar I if such people exist. We know that Daeron had a daughter, Princess Vaella, and Aerion had a son, Prince Maegor, but we don't know if they had children of their own. If they did those people would have pretty good claims. We also know that both of Egg's sisters had children of their own, too.

But unfortunately we don't know if any or all those branches died out in the meantime. Many Targaryen relations might have died at Summerhall, after all. However, it seems to be confirmed that Selwyn Tarth and Brienne are Targaryen cousins - so Myrcella's and Shireen's immediate heir might actually be the Lord of Tarth (although we have no idea how the the Targaryens and the Tarths are connected my guess is that Dunk ended up marrying Egg's sister Princess Daella before he joined the KG, and that the only daughter of that union ended up marrying into House Tarth and became Selwyn's mother - that way both the Targaryen connection as well as the Dunk connection in Brienne's family tree is explained).

Whether whoever rules KL by the time of Tommen/Myrcella's death would ever care about the rightful heir is another question. If Aegon wasn't coming right now Mace Tyrell might just decide to crown himself in such a scenario. It is unlikely that he gets such an opportunity now, and neither is the probability high that any distant Targaryen cousin would stand a chance against either Aegon or Daenerys, but both Selwyn and Brienne might now actually rise to prominence at a Targaryen court due to be this closely related to the royals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Whether whoever rules KL by the time of Tommen/Myrcella's death would ever care about the rightful heir is another question. If Aegon wasn't coming right now Mace Tyrell might just decide to crown himself in such a scenario. It is unlikely that he gets such an opportunity now, and neither is the probability high that any distant Targaryen cousin would stand a chance against either Aegon or Daenerys, but both Selwyn and Brienne might now actually rise to prominence at a Targaryen court due to be this closely related to the royals.

This comes up from time to time, with discussions over who should succeed Daenerys, if she should win the Iron Throne, but be unable to bear a child.

Her closest legitimate relatives are Stannis and Shireen, but it seems very unlikely to me that she would make them her heirs.  That then leaves Selwyn Tarth and Brienne.  I would guess that Brienne is her third cousin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

However, it seems to be confirmed that Selwyn Tarth and Brienne are Targaryen cousins ...

Where is this info from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, apovsic said:

Where is this info from?

That is from a side remark by Yandel in TWoIaF (the section on the Stormland history) indicating that there was a recent marriage/connection between House Tarth and House Targaryen. Connections between the Durrandons and the Baratheons and the Tarths are also mentioned, but those seem to have been much further in the past.

@SeanF

Well, if Dany is truly barren and this is confirmed she can either name Tyrion (if he is Targaryen bastard) or Jon Snow her heir. I guess the latter would then be a very likely possibility, and if they know for a certainty that Jon Snow can't conceive Jon might end up being the guy with multiple wives - first Daenerys to reunite the Targaryen branches and then Arya to continue the royal line.

But I'm pretty sure Brienne's Targaryen blood will come up long before that and be part of the reason why she is going to become a very important champion in the coming fights against the Others. She already has a Valyrian steel sword and if Beric Dondarrion could return from the dead and create burning swords by using his blood because he also has a Targaryen ancestor (which is right now my working hypothesis considering that Baelor Breakspear married a Dondarrion without creating any kind of scandal) then I see no reason why Brienne and Jon Snow should not eventually be able to have burning Valyrian steel swords in the near future.

Brienne is already with Thoros right now - all they need to do is talk about Brienne's heritage, the magical properties of dragonlord blood, and Beric's ancestors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23.04.2016 at 8:57 PM, Ran said:

The world book notes Corlys was pardoned and made a member of the small council.... but all this was in a bid to get him to use his wealth and power to raise forces to defend Aegon II. But Corlys would absolutely not accept the execution of Aegon the Younger, and indeed proposed that Aegon should be betrothed to Jaehaera (to the annoyance of Queen Alicent) as a requirement before he'd willingly support Aegon II again.

Ran,

Why Aegon II cared about Corlys support? He was only one lord of many and killing aegon younger would end line of rhaenyra, and therefore making starks and arryns unable to still fight as there would be no claimant left. Moreover, after three daughters sacked high tide, corlys hadn't much gold left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Ran,

Why Aegon II cared about Corlys support? He was only one lord of many and killing aegon younger would end line of rhaenyra, and therefore making starks and arryns unable to still fight as there would be no claimant left. Moreover, after three daughters sacked high tide, corlys hadn't much gold left.

Well, I'm not Ran, but I guess the Velaryons didn't lose all their wealth during the attack on Driftmark (after all, High Tide wasn't the only Velaryon castle). In addition, there is the fact to keep in mind that Driftmark was awfully close to KL and Aegon II was apparently in desperate need of troops to defend his capital and his throne. He may have not been able to be picky about where those troops came, and even if Corlys had lost a lot of his gold his men were still there.

In addition, Aegon III wasn't the last potential claimant/pretender any Blacks could espouse as their king or queen. They would have had no big problems supporting female claimants so either Baela or Rhaena Targaryen could have served as such figureheads (especially Rhaena considering she had her own dragon Morning by that time and most likely wasn't in enemy hands like her sister).

But there would also have been Alyn Velaryon, a legitimized bastard of Laenor Velaryon (at least officially) who would have also have had a pretty strong claim to the Iron Throne thanks to that.

The fact that the legal claims of these people wouldn't have been as good as Aegon III's wouldn't have mattered - swords would have decided the issue, not legal talk.

Finally, one should keep in mind that those fighting against Aegon II might have been interested in getting rid of him. Not every faction necessarily needs a rival claimant. Just remember the secessionist kings throughout the more recent wars, and the various rebel warlords throughout Westerosi history (the Vulture Kings, the rebellions throughout the reign of Aegon V, the Faith Militant Uprising, etc.). All those worked without a figurehead who actually wanted to claim the Iron Throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I'm not Ran, but I guess the Velaryons didn't lose all their wealth during the attack on Driftmark (after all, High Tide wasn't the only Velaryon castle). In addition, there is the fact to keep in mind that Driftmark was awfully close to KL and Aegon II was apparently in desperate need of troops to defend his capital and his throne. He may have not been able to be picky about where those troops came, and even if Corlys had lost a lot of his gold his men were still there.

In addition, Aegon III wasn't the last potential claimant/pretender any Blacks could espouse as their king or queen. They would have had no big problems supporting female claimants so either Baela or Rhaena Targaryen could have served as such figureheads (especially Rhaena considering she had her own dragon Morning by that time and most likely wasn't in enemy hands like her sister).

But there would also have been Alyn Velaryon, a legitimized bastard of Laenor Velaryon (at least officially) who would have also have had a pretty strong claim to the Iron Throne thanks to that.

The fact that the legal claims of these people wouldn't have been as good as Aegon III's wouldn't have mattered - swords would have decided the issue, not legal talk.

Finally, one should keep in mind that those fighting against Aegon II might have been interested in getting rid of him. Not every faction necessarily needs a rival claimant. Just remember the secessionist kings throughout the more recent wars, and the various rebel warlords throughout Westerosi history (the Vulture Kings, the rebellions throughout the reign of Aegon V, the Faith Militant Uprising, etc.). All those worked without a figurehead who actually wanted to claim the Iron Throne.

Well, i am not sure that velaryons were so popular that people would bring them on the throne. And Rhaena hadn't morning at this point if i remember. And alyn was only bastard after all. 

About rebels, most of what you used as example tried to cut their own part of seven kingdoms. Vulture King tried to conquer red mountains and dornish marches and faith militant was well faith uprising to get rid of targaryens and maybe bring back old days of seven kingdoms. Dance of Dragons is succesion war and even tho aegon wasnt most forgiving king, i doubt that people would start another war just to depose him if there would be no avalaible heirs from rhaenyra line.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Well, i am not sure that velaryons were so popular that people would bring them on the throne. And Rhaena hadn't morning at this point if i remember. And alyn was only bastard after all. 

About rebels, most of what you used as example tried to cut their own part of seven kingdoms. Vulture King tried to conquer red mountains and dornish marches and faith militant was well faith uprising to get rid of targaryens and maybe bring back old days of seven kingdoms. Dance of Dragons is succesion war and even tho aegon wasnt most forgiving king, i doubt that people would start another war just to depose him if there would be no avalaible heirs from rhaenyra line.

Morning hatched during the Dance, so it would have been there at that time. If the Velaryons hadn't been powerful or popular then Aegon II never would have felt he needed Corlys Velaryon.

And the Dance isn't a succession just because you say it is. Or rather - while historians would describe it as such that doesn't by far mean that the people participating in it cared gave a damn who won the throne. Some did, but a majority actually might not have. Dalton Greyjoy certainly didn't, for example.

The point is that by the time Rhaenyra died Black armies were already on the march. They didn't start a new war they were just continuing it. And they didn't just go home after she died and continued to march even while they could not be sure that Aegon the Younger still lived. We don't know if Aegon II told that everybody at once when he announced that Rhaenyra was dead, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Morning hatched during the Dance, so it would have been there at that time. If the Velaryons hadn't been powerful or popular then Aegon II never would have felt he needed Corlys Velaryon.

And the Dance isn't a succession just because you say it is. Or rather - while historians would describe it as such that doesn't by far mean that the people participating in it cared gave a damn who won the throne. Some did, but a majority actually might not have. Dalton Greyjoy certainly didn't, for example.

The point is that by the time Rhaenyra died Black armies were already on the march. They didn't start a new war they were just continuing it. And they didn't just go home after she died and continued to march even while they could not be sure that Aegon the Younger still lived. We don't know if Aegon II told that everybody at once when he announced that Rhaenyra was dead, after all.

Dalton Greyjoy only raided westerlands. He didnt cared about iron throne as he still raided coast even after war was over.

 

But if whole line of rhaenyra would go extinct, then for what would fight cregan and jeyne arryn? News about rhaenyra death came probably late to them, but as aegon younger still lived they had pretendent for throne. This war was about rhaenyra or alicent line on the throne. If blacks would be sure that there is no offspring of rhaenyra, why they should continue war? It would be pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×