Jump to content

The benefits of Targaryen inbreeding


Angel Eyes

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That could worked if Rhaenyra had not arranged betrothals between Daemon's twins and her two elder sons pretty quickly after their birth. But it is not sure that would have helped as much as, say, Aegon and a speculative daughter of Rhaenyra because it would still have cut out Alicent's male heirs out of the succession.

But it would have worked to isolate Aegon.

Aegon and Aemond were making trouble. Helaena and Daeron were meek and taking leadership.

An obvious move would have been to reward Helaena and Daeron - make it clear that the meek inherit and no dragon is left behind. Daeron was behind two elder brethren anyway. Alicent and Otto would be hesitant to give full backing to Aegon or Aemond rebelling if Helaena was a hostage, and Alicent stood to be mother of Queen and grandmother of kings.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not really.

Targaryens were 5 dragons at exile, 3 at Conquest. They were below average - a smaller dragonlord family. The 40 families between them deployed 300 dragons at Rhoyne - average 7 and a half per family deployed, not counting the fighting dragons left behind, and the noncombatant riders.

5 or 7 or 13 ridable dragons is usually more than a single set of full siblings can ride. How do you keep family solidarity? How do you stop a family from splitting into branches with their separate interests, holdings and suppporters?

Brother-sister marriages mean that each couple forms a separate family branch whose ties to rest of family weaken and lose priority compared to branch internal solidarity.

Marry Helaena to Aegon, and they are together against the rest of the world, including Rhaenyra, which they already tend to be due to being full siblings. Instead, counteract the tendency, by marrying Helaena to Jacaerys. First cousins, aunt/nephew, uncle/niece, and when necessary, full siblings - but leave no dragon out.

Looking pastwards...

Viserys refused to marry Laena (to tie back Velaryons and get the biggest living dragon on his side).

Why was Rhaenys ever a Velaryon? Stupid. Stupid.

Daemon raised the issue of succession when Rhaenyra was what, 6, with no living younger brethren.

Rhaenys was 18 when Aemon unexpectedly fell. No mention of Rhaenys having had brethren.

Had Aemon lived to rule, as expected, would he have disinherited his only daughter in favour of his brother or nephew?

They should have seen trouble coming throughout 80s.

And a glaringly obvious solution.

Viserys was selfish and could overrule reason and justice when he was backed by his entitlement to be King, sure. But he also loved ease and avoided family conflict. And was 3 years the junior of Rhaenys.

If sometime in 80s, Aemon had wed Rhaenys to Viserys, and told the then mid/early teen Viserys to look up to his big wife as entitled to be Queen, wear the pants in the family and sit the Iron Throne in due time, would Viserys have bothered to make an attempt to upset such an arrangement? By late 80s, say 89 (Rhaenys 15, Viserys 12), Aemon could have got enough measure of Viserys´ character to go ahead and get the family aboard with such a deal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

But it would have worked to isolate Aegon.

Aegon and Aemond were making trouble. Helaena and Daeron were meek and taking leadership.

An obvious move would have been to reward Helaena and Daeron - make it clear that the meek inherit and no dragon is left behind. Daeron was behind two elder brethren anyway. Alicent and Otto would be hesitant to give full backing to Aegon or Aemond rebelling if Helaena was a hostage, and Alicent stood to be mother of Queen and grandmother of kings.

The children don't matter. Otto and Alicent made Aegon II king, not his own ambitions, nor the ambitions of his siblings. We have no reason to believe that a marriage between Jace and Helaena would have made things better. It could have turned out to be as worse a marriage as Laenor-Rhaenyra.

And we don't know anything about Helaena's feelings for her half-sister and nephews. We know she didn't exactly love Aegon but that doesn't mean she liked Rhaenyra. The fact that Rhaenyra didn't execute her might have more to do with the fact that she was a woman as well as with the fact that Blood and Cheese made her suffer so much. This doesn't mean that they got along or that Helaena had been meek prior to her mental breakdown.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Targaryens were 5 dragons at exile, 3 at Conquest. They were below average - a smaller dragonlord family. The 40 families between them deployed 300 dragons at Rhoyne - average 7 and a half per family deployed, not counting the fighting dragons left behind, and the noncombatant riders.

5 or 7 or 13 ridable dragons is usually more than a single set of full siblings can ride. How do you keep family solidarity? How do you stop a family from splitting into branches with their separate interests, holdings and suppporters?

You have a lack imagination. Dragons are not everything. Not in Westeros and certainly not in Valyria. There would have been cadet branches and all but apparently there were great dragonlord clans who stuck together, and if only for the reason that the Freehold was simply to large to be dominated by a handful of people.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Brother-sister marriages mean that each couple forms a separate family branch whose ties to rest of family weaken and lose priority compared to branch internal solidarity.

That is your suggestion. It is not proven for the Freehold. In monarchy this makes some sense but Valyria wasn't monarchy. 

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Marry Helaena to Aegon, and they are together against the rest of the world, including Rhaenyra, which they already tend to be due to being full siblings. Instead, counteract the tendency, by marrying Helaena to Jacaerys. First cousins, aunt/nephew, uncle/niece, and when necessary, full siblings - but leave no dragon out.

Aegon and Helaena weren't against the rest of the world. Helaena didn't care much for her brother and her didn't care for her. He spent time with his mistresses and did not extend Kingsguard protection to her or his children by her.

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Looking pastwards...

Viserys refused to marry Laena (to tie back Velaryons and get the biggest living dragon on his side).

Why was Rhaenys ever a Velaryon? Stupid. Stupid.

Daemon raised the issue of succession when Rhaenyra was what, 6, with no living younger brethren.

Rhaenys was 18 when Aemon unexpectedly fell. No mention of Rhaenys having had brethren.

Had Aemon lived to rule, as expected, would he have disinherited his only daughter in favour of his brother or nephew?

They should have seen trouble coming throughout 80s.

And a glaringly obvious solution.

Viserys was selfish and could overrule reason and justice when he was backed by his entitlement to be King, sure. But he also loved ease and avoided family conflict. And was 3 years the junior of Rhaenys.

If sometime in 80s, Aemon had wed Rhaenys to Viserys, and told the then mid/early teen Viserys to look up to his big wife as entitled to be Queen, wear the pants in the family and sit the Iron Throne in due time, would Viserys have bothered to make an attempt to upset such an arrangement? By late 80s, say 89 (Rhaenys 15, Viserys 12), Aemon could have got enough measure of Viserys´ character to go ahead and get the family aboard with such a deal.

You have no idea about the dynamics in the family in the 80s. Corlys Velaryon was a much more important man than Viserys Targaryen, a man worthy of being the first Prince Consort of a Targaryen Queen Regnant. And that is most likely why he was chosen as Rhaenys' husband. If Aemon had become king Baelon and his sons would have disappeared into obscurity just as Prince Aegon's twins did. The fact that they were dragonriders wouldn't have helped them all that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-06-17 at 11:40 PM, Lord Varys said:

I just can't imagine how a six-year-old and a sixteen-year-old don't get along all that well. They have nothing in common and nothing to fight about. A six-year-old doesn't even fully understand what's going on around him, certainly not in a world as complex as a royal court. And Viserys I clearly favored Rhaenyra. She was his heir, his favorite child, and the one who accompanied him to court and council. Aegon was just a 'second son', basically, a spare heir should anything happen to her before she had children of her own.

I have no problem to see a pampered and spoiled sixteen year old girl despise a six yeard old boy she considers to be a rival for affection, attention and the future. And a child may not understand courtly intrigues but it will understand that "this person don't like me". Not to mention that young Aegon would have recived contradictionary singnals from two different sources; "you're the second son" from the father and "you're the heir" from his mother.

And if we consider what we talkes about before in how mothers seems to be the centre of the kinship group then it should be clear ,at least to me, that the signals coming from the mother who raises Aegon will be go stronger into his mind than the signals from his father. And once he grows up the basic identity for Aegon will include that "I am my father's heir".

Quote

Aegon himself had no reason to be jealous of Rhaenyra unless other people fed him that idea/feeling and vice versa Rhaenyra had no reason to be jealous of Aegon because her father treated her as his eldest son, basically. She had his favor, always. Aegon was no rival of hers.

Yes he was. She would have known that many people around them wanted Aegon to be the heir and so would focus the feelings of threat into anger at Aegon. Its rather common for people to put ill-will towards people who are upheld by people they dislike, regardless if this is actually logical or not. I think that you are reading these personal relations to mechanical and trying to fit logical explaintion for emotional relations.

Quote

This is why the origin of this entire conflict on the personal has to be laid at the feet of Alicent and Otto. Once Alicent had given birth to sons they wanted them play the first fiddle. And once Viserys I didn't went along with that the relationship between Alicent and Rhaenyra changed from friendship to rivalry.

No. Alicent and Otto only have what power and influence that Viserys affords them so if Robert is responsible for Stannis and Renly rebelling against Joffrey, then Viserys is responsible for the Dance of the Dragons by single-handedly settings everything up for the big show down. Viserys could, at any oppertunity, have stopped to sleep with Alicent or sent his sons to the Watch, the Faith, wherever and kept them away from claiming dragons. Likewise Alicent and Otto could have been sent back to Oldtown and that would have been the end of it. But Viserys didn't and so allowed the Greens to gather support, influence and most importantly dragons to go up against Rhaenyra.

The truth is that Viserys single-handedly, in his foolishness, set up the Dance where a strong-willed and/or clever king would have danced around it.

Quote

But at the age of six Aegon wouldn't have understood anything of that. The real personal grievances between these two must have come only only later.

Six years is old enough to understand that "my half-sister hates me" and "my mother wants me to be the next king but my half-sister wants to take this away from me". Any child can understand "my half-sister is going to take my birthday gift from me" if you want to boil it down.

Quote

Daemon doesn't figure into this at all. He was married to Laena while Rhaenyra had her three eldest children, and I was thinking of them. Rhaenyra's children by Daemon are too young to be considered as spouses for Alicent's children.

So it is, but I think they would be of the right age to be considered spouses for Aegon II' children and that would once more prevent the House of the Dragon to split off into multiple branches.

Quote

And there is no reason to believe that Rhaenyra herself was as 'feminist' to think that her eldest daughter should succeed her. Why should she think that? And royal marriages are usually not arranged without the leave of the king. Viserys I may have underestimated the depth of the hatred in his own family but he clearly knew that there were two competing parties. A marriage arranged between a daughter of his daughter and one of his own sons could have worked to heal that rift, especially if it had included the elder line. That's what he did when he married Rhaenyra to Laenor and that's what he would have done if the opportunity had presented itself.

I would think that she would want her own children to inherit the throne before those of her half-brothers and from the example she herself would have set.

Quote

And this could have resolved the entire thing before it escalated. If you believe either Alicent/Otto or Rhaenyra wanted things to go the way they did you are most likely wrong. Those people did not hate each other from the start. Both sides wanted power. The way things turned out they could not hold power together. But if they had been able to reach compromise they most likely wouldn't have killed each other.

Its not entirely impossible that they would I suppose.

Quote

Prior to the Aemond affair they should have been able to reach some sort of understanding.

Perhaps they would have managed it. But I agree that once blood is shed there's few ways to turn it around.

Quote

We just don't know what he planned. The pressure to kill the children would have been pretty high but then - once Stannis' tale was out he could just declare them bastards and hand them to the Faith (raised in KL and under guard, of course). Killing children is ugly work and if the Lannisters are not completely eradicated this could be a problem. Renly clearly wanted to be loved. He did not want to look like a tyrant.

Presumably he could, but I don't think that he would. As long as the Lannister kids are alive they would have worked wonders to focus any hostility to Renly, just like say the Blackfyres were able to focus such and be a problem, and being loved can also be done by giving the people bloodshed they are longing for. Many people hated the Lannisters so killing Lannisters would have made Renly popular. And its not like that with the Tyrells around, Renly can't kill the children and look like he was trying to save them. The "best" beat to not kill them would be to send them to the Wall and Silent Sisters.

Quote

Cersei and Joffrey would most likely have to die, but I don't think it completely necessary that Tommen and Myrcella die, too.

If you think that two should die, why should not the others die? Tommen and Myrcella are about as guilty as Joffrey of whatever Joffrey is guilty of.

Quote

Renly has no problem with Stannis living despite the fact that he is older and has the better claim. He only gets angry after Stannis turns against him. Now, perhaps Stannis would die in captivity or something of that sort but I really don't know. It is a vile thing to murder your own brother. A death in battle may have been acceptable but a proper execution or a hushed-up murder would be bad PR.

I agree that kinslaying is a vile ting. But Renly has options different from a public execution. And if he really wanted, Renly could send Stannis up to the Wall after the seas were safe. And I dare say that while Renly would resent the stigma of kinslaying, there's little to see that he resents the actual deed of it, only th PR from it.

Quote

This is pretty much idle speculation since we have no idea whether Cersei/Jaime will still be alive by the time Dany and/or Tyrion finally get to Westeros nor whether they will have any positions of power at that point. We don't even know whether they will necessarily be Dany's or Tyrion's enemies at this point.

I agree that its speculation, but I base it on that Tyrion has lots of chapters and his main and most interesting interactions and relations are with his siblings and his father. Tywin is dead so that leaves Tyrion with Jamie and Cersei. Now its entirely possible that GRRM will cut Tyrion loose and let him drift on the wind but without his relations, which has now turned to hatred, against House Lannisters, what would drive him as a character in the story?

I can't however see that if Cersei and Jamie are alive, that Tyrion wouldn't see and treat them as enemies, at least at first.

And remember that Tyrion isn't just any guy coming in to join with Daenaerys. Its the Imp who killed his own father, the monkey demon who starved King's Landing and poisoned his own nephew and king. The view in Westeros isn't that Tyrion is a kind but misunderstood person who only means well. We know that its unfair to throw these things at Tyrion but I doubt that the people in the story sees things this way.

Quote

Dany's people and she herself certainly don't like Jaime, but that's it. Dany has no issues with Cersei.

Daenaerys may not yet have a problem with Cersei but Cersei will have a problem with Daenaerys. Cersei sees herself as the real ruler of the Iron Throne and so will have a problem with another pretender coming up press a claim on that very throne.

Quote

The queen is the spouse of the king - she gives him heirs, something that is important for any monarch. Viserys I only had Rhaenyra and after her came Daemon, something many people did not exactly like all that much. And both Rhaenyra and Daemon could die. A dynasty needs more than one potential heir.

I take it that you agree that a queen has no other public parts than to give heirs to her husband? Its a sad state and doubtless a waste of much talent but that's how it is.

And the problem is that Viserys would, if he was a wise man, know that he came to power through a male-preference in regards to succession and that if he has sons, there would likely be trouble. If Viserys was really wanting for heirs he could either have waited to see if Rhaenyra could provide her own heirs or make Daemon marry again and get a branch with less claims on the Iron Throne than any direct children of Viserys would have. As I see it, Viserys had both an heir and a spare in Rhaenyra and Daemon, and the fact that Viserys refused to change the inheritance to favor Aegon tells me that VIserys didn't really care that much for the popularity of his heir.

And lets not forget that Viserys was a pretty young man when he got Rhaenyra and he was like fourty when Jacaerys was born, meaning that there was well enough time to wait and see if Rhaenyra could give, as she did, heirs of her body, before Viserys would be forced to act in order to provide heirs. And after Rhaenyra in four years gave birth to three sons, there really would have shown Viserys that there was no need for additional Targaryens as spares. But fool as he was, he didn't wait but created a new branch of Targaryens.

Quote

I know all that. My point is that it is Robert's fault that Renly and Stannis were in positions to challenge his son. That was Robert's mistake. Had neither Renly nor Stannis been powerful lords in their own right they wouldn't have been able to challenge Joffrey.

And had the children of Alicent not been raised as dragon-riding princes at the court there would have been no Dance and if Daeron II had not tried to win Daemon Blackfyre over with largesse and kindness there would have been no Blackfyre Rebellion. What I want to say is that while I agree that its ultimately Robert's fault that Renly and Stannis has the strength to compete with Joffrey, its also clear that people taking advantage of a kind or generous ruler is very much a thing that has happened before.

Quote

The fact that Renly or Joffrey/Tommen can try to regain the territory they lost to secessionist kings there is no guarantee that they can hold it. They have no dragons. And we see how great a threat the Ironborn have become under Euron. The inner squabbles among the Baratheons are either over or pretty insignificant right now.

For one thing the Northern-Riverlands separatist cause as, as far as we know at present, collapsed and lost its strength while its former leaders, thus the first pick of leaders in these regions, are mostly either dead or hostages. I see no reason as to think that with a lack of other pretenders coming to challgne King Tommen why these areas would not be brought back to the King's Peace.

And in regards to Euron, yes, he's a threat but given how he's winning enemies and sending off much of his fleet with Victarion I don't see how he's anything above a gambler in attitude. Sure, if his gamble goes well then he wins, but if he don't win everything then he'll lose everything.

Quote

Robb could have kept the Riverlands after the Blackwater. But he sure as hell could have made it very hard for any enemy to try to conquer and hold the North. Perhaps this could have worked if a King Joffrey/Tommen or Renly could have counted on the support of all the other Seven Kingdoms but this would have clearly not been the case. The Dornishmen have their own plans, the Vale stays out of it, and so on.

Thing is that as a feudal lord Robb has an obligation to defend his bannermen, not leave them out to dry, and if he look at how his rule progressed I would expect a full blown rebellion in his rear within a few years if we add total faithlessness to his bannermen to the list. A rebellion that could easily deliver the North straight to King Tommen.

Quote

Nope, the Faith Militant was officially disbanded by the High Septon who succeeded Ceryse's uncle after the man's sudden death. Maegor outlawed them and the High Septon commanded them to lay down their arms and submit to Maegor. Not all of them did that and especially the Poor Fellows continued the fight but there is no hint that those men also fought against Jaehaerys I or opposed his ascension in 48 AC.

Officially disbanded they were, but they by all accounts remained in arms up to Jaehaerys I. My point was, and is, that the Faith's war with Maegor was different from Jaehaerys I and could well have continued if the Old King had not come to terms with the Faith.

Quote

The later agreement with Faith only happened in the 60s and while it included the final disarmament of the Faith the main issue there seemed to have been to take away the judicial privileges and powers of the Faith. The remnants of the Faith Militant that survived apparently weren't a major threat.

Yes.

Quote

Still, the man wore no crown and did not call himself king. And I'm not sure Rhaenyra would have wanted him to give up what he took. She may have granted the entire western coast to him for all we know.

Hardly likely. Lord Velaryon opposed Daemon's proposition to unseat the Lannisters, Hightowers and Baratheon and Rhaenyra took a middle approach. The scenario you paints sounds more liked she would have agreed with Daemon which we knows that she didn't.

Quote

Balon stole about half the Realm from Joffrey. And now Euron is after the Iron Throne itself.

No, Balon invaded the North and after his death the Ironmen withdrew without any gains from the invasion. So Balon didn't steal anything, he tried and failed miserably.

In regards to Euron, its "just" another pretender along with Stannis, Renly, Daenaerys and Aegon. Half of these have already been neutralized and I expect the other half to follow in the next two books.

Quote

Personally, Viserys I and Robert are both weak men if you ask about their personal willpower and determination. Viserys was still the most powerful Targaryen king if you talk about the resources he had, and he certainly was much more interested in his government than Robert. Robert was a great warrior and general, but not a strong king.

That makes no sense. Both Viserys and Robert was essentially the same kind of kings; they could keep their hands on the throne but were unable to rule their own Houses. Viserys had more resources, yes, but he was about as strong a king as Robert who also kept himself on the throne until his death. If you can't make the necessary dynastic arragements then it don't matter if Viserys lived well on the work of Jaehaerys I or if Robert squandered Aerys' old possessions. You're setting things up to fail.

Quote

But Viserys I made only one crucial mistake - reappointing Ser Otto as Hand - Robert made many such mistake. Pardoning Jaime, Varys, and Pycelle. Making Stannis and Renly great lords. Making Littlefinger Master of Coin. Giving Cersei as much as he did, etc. And all that aside from him not caring about his own government or kingdom all that much. Robert beggared the Crown. Viserys I left a full treasury despite the fact that throw a lot of balls, feasts, and tourneys throughout his reign.

One crucial mistake?

Viserys started with his mistakes when he brought Criston Cole into the Kingsguard, he sired competitors against Rhaenyra and allowed them to claim dragons so they really could challenge his heir, he was blind to the chaos within his own House, he was unable to take a firm stand against the Greens but filled his entire small council with them and the list goes on.

Robert was about as much of a fool as Viserys was. Both essentially set things up for a civil war after their deaths. The only thing that was a mitigation was that they needed to die before all hell broke loose.

Quote

The Ironborn only understand the language of strength. If Robert had taken Balon's head and installed a person he could trust as the new Lord of the Iron Islands he could have ensured that they would behave later on.

Could he? I recall everyoen going against the Drowned Men to have died prematurely and that would have been necessary if Robert, or anyone else, wanted the islands to remain clam.

Quote

Dragons don't give you the right or the power to do anything. There were a lot of Targaryen dragonriders who never tried to become king.

And I can name three dragonriding people who fought against a Targaryen heir in order to make someon else king; Aegon, Aemond and Daeron. When seeing how bad the relations was between Alicent and Rhaenyra then it wouldn't take an Archmaester to know it would blow. And to that I recall something of Targaryens riding dragons and rebelling against Maegor. You would have to be about as foolish as to think that giving out large castles is without risk as to think that allowing anyone to claim a dragon is without risk. And as a final touch, I'll add the Two Betrayers.

Quote

Daeron II only had issues with the Blackfyres, a Targaryen cadet branch. That's not the same as half or more of the lords of the Realm trying to rip it to pieces.

Given what we hear of the First Blackfyre Rebellion, I'd say it was. And sixty years of strife was certainly nothing to just ignore, not to mention that Daeron had twelve years and couldn't prevent the rebellion, and instead if blew up straight in his face.

Quote

I just don't agree with that. Stannis and Littlefinger and Doran and the Tyrells are still out there, and they don't need Cersei to fuck things up for them. They would have taken on Kevan and even Tywin, too. Perhaps they would have failed, perhaps not.

The Tyrells are not enemies to the Baratheons or Lannisters, yet at least. The only person you mention that I am worried about is that worm Littlefinger.

Quote

Ramsay is not going to kill Stannis. Where are you getting that crap?

From the rustling of leaves, from the break of waves and from the dance of winds. Stannis is a dead man walking and if anyone will fight th Boltons it will be the Others, or possibly Zombie-Jon.

On 2017-06-18 at 0:23 PM, Lord Varys said:

That could worked if Rhaenyra had not arranged betrothals between Daemon's twins and her two elder sons pretty quickly after their birth. But it is not sure that would have helped as much as, say, Aegon and a speculative daughter of Rhaenyra because it would still have cut out Alicent's male heirs out of the succession.

I'd say that anything that didn't put Alicent's children on the throne would be to little to prevent the Dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

No. Alicent and Otto only have what power and influence that Viserys affords them so if Robert is responsible for Stannis and Renly rebelling against Joffrey, then Viserys is responsible for the Dance of the Dragons by single-handedly settings everything up for the big show down. Viserys could, at any oppertunity, have stopped to sleep with Alicent or sent his sons to the Watch, the Faith, wherever and kept them away from claiming dragons. Likewise Alicent and Otto could have been sent back to Oldtown and that would have been the end of it. But Viserys didn't and so allowed the Greens to gather support, influence and most importantly dragons to go up against Rhaenyra.

The truth is that Viserys single-handedly, in his foolishness, set up the Dance where a strong-willed and/or clever king would have danced around it.

Perhaps they would have managed it. But I agree that once blood is shed there's few ways to turn it around.

Daeron WAS sent to Oldtown, and Alicent swallowed it. Meaning that it could have been difficult for Alicent to object if Viserys had sent Aegon and Aemond to Oldtown... on pretext that the boys were old enough to learn out of home.

And if actually making Rhaenyra Hand might have been a bad idea - she may not have had the stamina to administer well - letting her pick her Hand out of the list of several younger men would have made sense. Make sure to pack your Small Council with Blacks who do not expect to be fired when Rhaenyra finally accedes.

36 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And I can name three dragonriding people who fought against a Targaryen heir in order to make someon else king; Aegon, Aemond and Daeron. When seeing how bad the relations was between Alicent and Rhaenyra then it wouldn't take an Archmaester to know it would blow. And to that I recall something of Targaryens riding dragons and rebelling against Maegor. You would have to be about as foolish as to think that giving out large castles is without risk as to think that allowing anyone to claim a dragon is without risk. And as a final touch, I'll add the Two Betrayers.
 

I'd say that anything that didn't put Alicent's children on the throne would be to little to prevent the Dance.

Completely denying them dragon eggs the way Mhysaria´s egg was taken away? Would have taken care of Aegon, Helaena, Daeron. Would Aemond have attempted his dragon theft if he had not been encouraged by the example of his elder siblings and talk about him deserving a dragon as well?

Another suspicious fact: Jaehaerys and Alysanne raised 9 children to adulthood. None of them is expressly mentioned as dragonrider. One, Vaegon, was expressly Dragonless. But of the 6 girls - during Dance of Dragons, we have a full list of dragons then living. And death of a dragon is expressly mentioned as rare.

The only elder dragons we hear of during Dance that may have had riders among Jaehaerys´ children are Vhagar (between Visenya and Laena) and Dreamfyre (between Rhaena and Helaena). And the siblings who match that number 2 would be Aemon and Baelon.

It strongly suggests that of Jaehaerys´ children, the only ones who had dragons were the two princes - Vaegon and all 6 girls, though trueborn prince/sses were dragonless.

Just bad eggs, 7 out of 9? (The children of Viserys I, Rhaenyra and Laena had, what, 3 bad eggs out of 12 - Aemond, Viserys II, Rhaena till Morning.) Or deliberately not distributing eggs? (The two princes who did have dragons tamed old ones, Vhagar and Dreamfyre.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

I have no problem to see a pampered and spoiled sixteen year old girl despise a six yeard old boy she considers to be a rival for affection, attention and the future. And a child may not understand courtly intrigues but it will understand that "this person don't like me". Not to mention that young Aegon would have recived contradictionary singnals from two different sources; "you're the second son" from the father and "you're the heir" from his mother.

Seriously, we are talking about this quote from TRP:

Quote

Queen Alicent had her own candidate: her eldest son, Prince Aegon, Rhaenyra’s half brother. But Aegon was a boy, the princess ten years his elder. Moreover, the two half siblings had never gotten on well.

You can fantasize about what that means in detail but that is not my issue here. My issue is that I find the idea that a sixteen-year-old girl and a six-year-old boy could have any conflicts of significance quite ridiculous. They would have nothing in common and nothing to fight over. 

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Yes he was. She would have known that many people around them wanted Aegon to be the heir and so would focus the feelings of threat into anger at Aegon. Its rather common for people to put ill-will towards people who are upheld by people they dislike, regardless if this is actually logical or not. I think that you are reading these personal relations to mechanical and trying to fit logical explaintion for emotional relations.

There is no evidence for this. Otto was fired as Hand in 109 AC, when Aegon was three, and thereafter there was little talk of changing the succession. There weren't even any Blacks or Greens at this point, the famous tourney only took place in 111 AC.

And the entire Realm saw Rhaenyra as her father's successor in those days. This is clearly evident in the noblemen vying for her hand. They did not do this because of her looks or the fact that she was a princess, they did so because she was the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne and marrying her would make them the Prince Consort at her side when she took the throne.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

No. Alicent and Otto only have what power and influence that Viserys affords them so if Robert is responsible for Stannis and Renly rebelling against Joffrey, then Viserys is responsible for the Dance of the Dragons by single-handedly settings everything up for the big show down. Viserys could, at any oppertunity, have stopped to sleep with Alicent or sent his sons to the Watch, the Faith, wherever and kept them away from claiming dragons. Likewise Alicent and Otto could have been sent back to Oldtown and that would have been the end of it. But Viserys didn't and so allowed the Greens to gather support, influence and most importantly dragons to go up against Rhaenyra.

The difference is that Robert knew how corrupt his wife, son, brothers, and court was. He just didn't care. Nothing indicates that Viserys I had any reason to believe that his wife and father-in-law would try to steal his daughter's throne. Neither is there any reason to believe he knew his Small Council would join Otto and Alicent in their treason.

His sons are much less to blame in all that because - dragons or no - they had no word in the making of King Aegon II. Aegon may have wanted to be king but he did not play an active role in the whole thing. Alicent, Otto, and Cole arranged it all. That is very much reflected in Aemond's question whether they have to do homage to the whore now. He may ride Vhagar, but nobody asked for his opinion in any of that.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

The truth is that Viserys single-handedly, in his foolishness, set up the Dance where a strong-willed and/or clever king would have danced around it.

Even a strong-willed king can be deceived. And Viserys I and Rhaenyra were both deceived and betrayed by their own families. The Conqueror could also have killed Maegor and Visenya. He must have known what they were, especially in the last years of his reign. But he apparently also did not believe that Maegor would go on to kill two of his grandsons.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Six years is old enough to understand that "my half-sister hates me" and "my mother wants me to be the next king but my half-sister wants to take this away from me". Any child can understand "my half-sister is going to take my birthday gift from me" if you want to boil it down.

We have no idea whether Alicent told Aegon anything about his right at that early age. It would have been rather difficult after Otto had been banished from court. Children talk, and if Aegon had told his daddy some of the things his mother said about his half-sister this could have led to serious trouble. In those early days this was mainly an academic discussion. And Alicent still wanted Aegon and Rhaenyra to marry in 113 AC.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

So it is, but I think they would be of the right age to be considered spouses for Aegon II' children and that would once more prevent the House of the Dragon to split off into multiple branches.

Well, that could have helped, too, but that was too far down the line and too late. They were all born after the Aemond incident.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

I would think that she would want her own children to inherit the throne before those of her half-brothers and from the example she herself would have set.

Why should she? She was her father's favorite and a fairly conventional woman. This is about the right of the king to choose his own heir, no matter what other kings did, not the establishment of gender equality within the royal family. If Rhaenyra had preferred her (eldest) daughter she may have named him her heir but if she had had sons she could have named those. It could be that they would have agreed to make her daughter (assuming Jace had been a daughter) and Aegon her joint heirs or something like that, to resolve the conflict. That could have worked. But if she had had sons by Laenor, too, she could just have decided to go the tradition road and make them her heirs. We don't know how that would have gone.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Its not entirely impossible that they would I suppose.

Sure, that's why we get such an elaborate back story for the Dance. Had Viserys I died around 110 AC or so, the Hightowers would have stood firmly at the side of Queen Rhaenyra I supporting her against the would-be usurpers Daemon Targaryen and Corlys Velaryon. Allegiances changed quite a lot throughout those turbulent years and the Blacks vs. Greens thing only became a pretty sure thing in the 120s. And even then it could have been prevented if Otto hadn't been reappointed Hand.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Presumably he could, but I don't think that he would. As long as the Lannister kids are alive they would have worked wonders to focus any hostility to Renly, just like say the Blackfyres were able to focus such and be a problem, and being loved can also be done by giving the people bloodshed they are longing for. Many people hated the Lannisters so killing Lannisters would have made Renly popular. And its not like that with the Tyrells around, Renly can't kill the children and look like he was trying to save them. The "best" beat to not kill them would be to send them to the Wall and Silent Sisters.

Bastards born of incest are not popular if they are not Targaryen bastards. If Cersei's children had been publicly declared bastards very few people would have fought for them or rallied in their name. Why should they?

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

If you think that two should die, why should not the others die? Tommen and Myrcella are about as guilty as Joffrey of whatever Joffrey is guilty of.

No, Joffrey was a crowned king. They weren't. It is much more difficult to permanently unmake a king without killing him that it is to make some princes disappear.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

I agree that kinslaying is a vile ting. But Renly has options different from a public execution. And if he really wanted, Renly could send Stannis up to the Wall after the seas were safe. And I dare say that while Renly would resent the stigma of kinslaying, there's little to see that he resents the actual deed of it, only th PR from it.

The Wall would still have been a pretty good option, actually. If Stannis had been defeated and captured this would have been a better and cleaner way to get rid of him than an actual murder. The man is so unpopular that there is little chance that somebody would rescue him from his ship or abduct him from the road on his way up to the Wall.

Renly clearly wants to be loved. This is difficult if you murder your own brother. And people would accuse him of that if Stannis had died in his care.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

I agree that its speculation, but I base it on that Tyrion has lots of chapters and his main and most interesting interactions and relations are with his siblings and his father. Tywin is dead so that leaves Tyrion with Jamie and Cersei. Now its entirely possible that GRRM will cut Tyrion loose and let him drift on the wind but without his relations, which has now turned to hatred, against House Lannisters, what would drive him as a character in the story?

His new Targaryen family? To defeat the Others? Perhaps even to try to reconcile with his family before they all die? There are a lot of motivations imaginable. Tyrion can be very vindictive but if he has time to think (and is the right state of mind) he does not do irrational things. And it is going to take him quite a while to return to Westeros. Things will happen that will inevitably change his perspective.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

I can't however see that if Cersei and Jamie are alive, that Tyrion wouldn't see and treat them as enemies, at least at first.

That would depend on the state they are in. If Cat makes Jaime her eunuch jester it is not likely he is going to be a threat to anyone. And if Cersei were in no position of power at the time of Tyrion's arrival he would also have no reason to do or wish her harm.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

And remember that Tyrion isn't just any guy coming in to join with Daenaerys. Its the Imp who killed his own father, the monkey demon who starved King's Landing and poisoned his own nephew and king. The view in Westeros isn't that Tyrion is a kind but misunderstood person who only means well. We know that its unfair to throw these things at Tyrion but I doubt that the people in the story sees things this way.

That certainly could be the case. But this has to do with how Tyrion is seen in Westeros. It has nothing to do with Cersei and Jaime.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

I take it that you agree that a queen has no other public parts than to give heirs to her husband? Its a sad state and doubtless a waste of much talent but that's how it is.

It is an important point but not the only part. She is also the mother of the country. She has a lot of duties at court, etc. And Viserys I was a party king, always throwing feasts and balls and tourneys. If there was no queen at his side something important would be missing.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

And the problem is that Viserys would, if he was a wise man, know that he came to power through a male-preference in regards to succession and that if he has sons, there would likely be trouble. If Viserys was really wanting for heirs he could either have waited to see if Rhaenyra could provide her own heirs or make Daemon marry again and get a branch with less claims on the Iron Throne than any direct children of Viserys would have. As I see it, Viserys had both an heir and a spare in Rhaenyra and Daemon, and the fact that Viserys refused to change the inheritance to favor Aegon tells me that VIserys didn't really care that much for the popularity of his heir.

Viserys I was the most powerful King on the Iron Throne and knew he had no need to heed the decisions of some dead kings, be they his royal grandsire or whoever. The question how you became is not longer all that important when you are king. It is not completely irrelevant but there are differences there. Daemon is not Viserys I. What was good for Viserys I was not good for Daemon because he was unfit to become king. That is why Viserys I named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

And lets not forget that Viserys was a pretty young man when he got Rhaenyra and he was like fourty when Jacaerys was born, meaning that there was well enough time to wait and see if Rhaenyra could give, as she did, heirs of her body, before Viserys would be forced to act in order to provide heirs. And after Rhaenyra in four years gave birth to three sons, there really would have shown Viserys that there was no need for additional Targaryens as spares. But fool as he was, he didn't wait but created a new branch of Targaryens.

What are you talking about? Viserys I named Rhaenyra his Heir Apparent in 105 AC, two years after his own ascension, and married Alicent a year later, who then gave him Aegon in 107 AC. Rhaenyra herself only married in 113 AC, six years later. Yes, she proved to be very fertile but she could just as well have died in childbirth without giving the king any grandchildren. Or she could have died of some illness before she came of age. And then six years would have been lost and Viserys I's heir presumptive would have been Prince Daemon. Again. Which nobody wanted. Not to mention that Viserys I himself could also have died any time. His father and uncle also didn't live to an old age, and he ended up dying pretty early, too.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

And had the children of Alicent not been raised as dragon-riding princes at the court there would have been no Dance and if Daeron II had not tried to win Daemon Blackfyre over with largesse and kindness there would have been no Blackfyre Rebellion. What I want to say is that while I agree that its ultimately Robert's fault that Renly and Stannis has the strength to compete with Joffrey, its also clear that people taking advantage of a kind or generous ruler is very much a thing that has happened before.

Daeron II didn't seem to have been all that kind to Daemon. A keep and some lands are not exactly a sign of largesse if you ask me. That would have been if he had married his sister to him or if he had named him on his council and had given him a great seat of the Realm like Dragonstone or Storm's End. That would have been generosity and kindness. 

Daeron II only befriended one of his half-brothers - Brynden Rivers. The others he did not mistreat but I doubt he ever had any real good relations with either Daemon or Aegor. Why should he?

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

For one thing the Northern-Riverlands separatist cause as, as far as we know at present, collapsed and lost its strength while its former leaders, thus the first pick of leaders in these regions, are mostly either dead or hostages. I see no reason as to think that with a lack of other pretenders coming to challgne King Tommen why these areas would not be brought back to the King's Peace.

Well, if you think the Riverlands are under control that's your problem. They will rise again. But you mistake my meaning. Collecting some hostages and killing an enemy leader doesn't give you control of the land. There are still a lot of outlaws and rebels in the Riverlands and the North and there are still battles to be fought. Even if the Tullys were extinguished and there was no major rebellion in the Riverlands the commoners there continue to fight. The Iron Throne can't collect any taxes or other revenues from that region, and even less from the North.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

And in regards to Euron, yes, he's a threat but given how he's winning enemies and sending off much of his fleet with Victarion I don't see how he's anything above a gambler in attitude. Sure, if his gamble goes well then he wins, but if he don't win everything then he'll lose everything.

And how is he different there from anybody else, really?

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Thing is that as a feudal lord Robb has an obligation to defend his bannermen, not leave them out to dry, and if he look at how his rule progressed I would expect a full blown rebellion in his rear within a few years if we add total faithlessness to his bannermen to the list. A rebellion that could easily deliver the North straight to King Tommen.

Not if Robb had made himself the sole defender of the North's independence. The Iron Throne could have dealt them blows up there and made their lives difficult but without any allies they would have had no means to actually subdue it permanently. They would need dragons for that. If Daeron II could not hold Dorne then King Joffrey or Tommen certainly cannot hold the North against its local population. It is simply too vast.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Officially disbanded they were, but they by all accounts remained in arms up to Jaehaerys I. My point was, and is, that the Faith's war with Maegor was different from Jaehaerys I and could well have continued if the Old King had not come to terms with the Faith.

Well, no, because there was no war between Jaehaerys I and the Faith. Jaehaerys I actually defended the Faith from his own lords who wanted that he simply crush the remnants of the Faith Militant violently and forcefully take away the other privileges of the Faith. This was not so much a fight between the Crown and the Faith but an issue between the Crown and the lords on the one side and the Faith on the other. Back when they still had had the Faith Militant the Faith was a powerful rival of the collective aristocracy just as he was of the Crown.

Jaehaerys I took the peaceful way and ensured that he got what he wanted without making the High Septon lose face. 

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Hardly likely. Lord Velaryon opposed Daemon's proposition to unseat the Lannisters, Hightowers and Baratheon and Rhaenyra took a middle approach. The scenario you paints sounds more liked she would have agreed with Daemon which we knows that she didn't.

Well, Rhaenyra certainly would have accepted Dalton as the new ruler of the West if that had been convenient for her at war's end. Why should she not.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

No, Balon invaded the North and after his death the Ironmen withdrew without any gains from the invasion. So Balon didn't steal anything, he tried and failed miserably.

King Joffrey claims to be the King of the Seven Kingdoms. The North is part of that and Balon stole a huge chunk of that.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

That makes no sense. Both Viserys and Robert was essentially the same kind of kings; they could keep their hands on the throne but were unable to rule their own Houses. Viserys had more resources, yes, but he was about as strong a king as Robert who also kept himself on the throne until his death. If you can't make the necessary dynastic arragements then it don't matter if Viserys lived well on the work of Jaehaerys I or if Robert squandered Aerys' old possessions. You're setting things up to fail.

Viserys I made one crucial mistake. Robert made a lot of those. And unlike Viserys I Robert simply didn't care.

On 20.6.2017 at 8:06 PM, LionoftheWest said:

Viserys started with his mistakes when he brought Criston Cole into the Kingsguard, he sired competitors against Rhaenyra and allowed them to claim dragons so they really could challenge his heir, he was blind to the chaos within his own House, he was unable to take a firm stand against the Greens but filled his entire small council with them and the list goes on.

How do you know that the Small Council of Viserys I was mostly green before that council session after Viserys I's death? There is no proof that Larys Strong or Tyland Lannister were known Greens. And how on earth should Viserys I foreseen what Criston Cole would become when the man joined the KG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread diverged. I guess what I wanted to hear was what the benefits of "keeping the bloodlines pure" meant. When I established the thread, I didn't see that many benefits other than the silver-blonde hair and purple, given the Targaryen madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/29/2017 at 3:52 PM, Angel Eyes said:

Wow, this thread diverged. I guess what I wanted to hear was what the benefits of "keeping the bloodlines pure" meant. When I established the thread, I didn't see that many benefits other than the silver-blonde hair and purple, given the Targaryen madness.

well, given its a valyrian tradition, theres a chance that before the doom, the madness inherent in inbreeding was being suppressed by magic, then come the doom, magic fades out, and no more suppression of crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13.7.2017 at 11:15 AM, Graydon Hicks said:

well, given its a valyrian tradition, theres a chance that before the doom, the madness inherent in inbreeding was being suppressed by magic, then come the doom, magic fades out, and no more suppression of crazy.

Why do you think madness is "inherent in inbreeding"?

Valyria had 300 dragonriders fit to be deployed to Rhoyne 600 years before Doom.

It is possible that madness WAS common in Valyria - but Valyria being a Freehold, there was always enough sane people among the 300+ eligible adults that madmen never got elected. Even if the majority of voters were mad, they may have had different crazy ideas and been unable to agree on a single mad candidate.

It´s also possible that while Targaryens did have frequent mentally ill members, as Jaehaerys II observed, the other 39 dragonlord families did not... because while they did suffer health problems due to inbreeding, the genetic illnesses running in their families were physical, not mental as with Targaryens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...