Rhaenyra: Traitor or legitimate heir?

[Bael's Bastard]

@Lord Varys
 

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, he could have named Viserys his heir all by himself. The point of the Great Council was to prevent a succession war, to settle the succession peacefully. It was pretty plain to see that there was a danger that Jaehaerys' grandchildren would rip the Realm apart so he did everything he could to dissuade them to pursue the idea to decide the issue with fire and blood.

Jaehaerys I was a shell of his former self by the time of the Great Council, just coming off the deaths of his daughter, his beloved wife, and his eldest living son and heir, on top of all the other children he'd lost in the last decade and more. I don't doubt that he hoped to secure a peaceful and stable transition by making sure ahead of time that the lords of the realm were on board with the heir and succession. But I'm also not sure how with it he was at the end there.

And while it may be seen as brilliant to have involved the lords of the realm, and made them feel that they were part of the decision, I think it did more to invite and strengthen potential rival claims than to shut them down. He had already passed over the daughter of his eldest son (Rhaenys), and his next eldest child  (Alyssa) for her younger brother/husband. But then, instead of being consistent and choosing his chosen son's son, he went back and opened it back up to the daughter of his eldest son, and her own children.

No matter how bitter at being passed over, they would have never had any reason to believe that they would have a shot at the Iron Throne had Jaehaerys chosen Viserys. Jaehaerys would have reaffirmed his previous decision to pass over the daughter of his eldest son, just as his sister Rhaena had been passed over for her younger brother Aegon, just as she and her daughters had been passed over for her younger brother Jaehaerys himself, and just as Jaehaerys later passed over Alyssa for Baelon.

Regardless of the GC's decision to support what should have been the obvious choice based on his own previous decisions, Jaehaerys himself muddied things right before his death just by opening it up for discussion.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Grover Tully, Jasper Wylde, and perhaps even some of the Dragonstonians who betrayed Rhaenyra in the end may have believed that kind of stuff. But the real issues were the split within the royal family. If Otto and Alicent hadn't crowned Aegon II nothing would have happened.

I agree. Aegon II was an established fact on the ground by the time anyone knew Viserys I was dead, and that never would have happened without the plotting of the Hightowers and Cole. I do not see the lords of the realm rising up to put Aegon on the throne over Rhaenyra on their own, at least not immediately. I don't think there would have been any notable protest to Rhaenyra ascending the Iron Throne. But once Aegon sat the Iron Throne, they had to pick a side.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is made pretty clear in TPatQ that the main issue especially the Hightowers had with Queen Rhaenyra was Daemon at her side.

Exactly. So we see, just as with certain lords and ladies that offered their daughters or themselves to the incest and polygamy practicing Targaryens, that they were not strictly guided by dogma. Their opposition had more to do with Daemon than their being strictly against the accession of a woman.

[Lion of the West]

13 hours ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

Rhaenyra was the rightful heir because her father the king chose her.  The king is the law.  That is really all that need be said.  The Hightowers are the traitors for attempting to break the Will of the king. 

 

That's certainly a popular sentiment but one that few people actually follow through with. And in all honestly in Westeros everyon is prepared to honor the king's will as long as that will is what they want, Its when the will is something they don't want that its gets ditched time and again.

[The hairy bear]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And when you are the king, you are the king. You are above anyone else. You may have become king this or that way, but once you receive your crown and are anointed with the seven oils, and take possession of the Conqueror's Iron Throne and the sword of kings, etc. you are no longer a mortal man like your subjects, princes included.

I don't know where do you take this from. Clearly not from the books, where there are numerous examples showing that a king is expected to comply with several rules. Many people argued that the Mad King's actions entitled the rebels to overthrow him, and Rhaegar himself intended to summon a Grand Council to depose his father. All of this proves that Westerosi do not think that the monarchy is completely absolute, and instead there is some kind of implicit feudal contract with rights and obligations for all sides involved.

It's the same situation in real world. If we look at the English monarchs, which are George's main source of inspiration, we can see that Richard II was deposed by the Plantagenets because "through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king". There's also the precedent of King John being forced to sign the Magna Carta, which delimited the powers of the king.  In fact, "Lex facit regem" (the law makes the king) was a commonly agreed principle back then.

It was only until the 17th century (much later than the period that George bases his world in) that the absolute monarchies started to appear in Europe.

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is made pretty clear in TPatQ that the main issue especially the Hightowers had with Queen Rhaenyra was Daemon at her side.

I disagree. The main thing the Hightowers had with Queen Rhaenyra was that she wasn't half-Hightower.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

1 hour ago, LionoftheWest said:

That's certainly a popular sentiment but one that few people actually follow through with. And in all honestly in Westeros everyon is prepared to honor the king's will as long as that will is what they want, Its when the will is something they don't want that its gets ditched time and again.

While it is true that many people lack the honor to obey the wishes of their ruler, the king, we can be thankful that most are not that way.  The majority of the houses supported Rhaenyra's claim.  There were a lot of backdoor deals going on, like the ones between Hightower's group and the Baratheons that had nothing to do with anything besides the Baratheons getting something for their support.  But there are more who took to the field to honor the wishes of their king.  Rhaenyra is the true heir because her father wanted it that way. 

[Blackwater Revenant]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And when you are the king, you are the king. You are above anyone else. You may have become king this or that way, but once you receive your crown and are anointed with the seven oils, and take possession of the Conqueror's Iron Throne and the sword of kings, etc. you are no longer a mortal man like your subjects, princes included.

Huh, quite the contradictory statement on your part, considering the arguments I've seen you put forth against king Robert Baratheon's rule, and his heir's rights to the throne.

[Bael's Bastard]

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

I disagree. The main thing the Hightowers had with Queen Rhaenyra was that she wasn't half-Hightower.

It is entirely possible that the Hightowers still might have tried to put their own descendant on the throne had Rhaenyra never married Daemon, but the short stories make it clear that Otto supported Rhaenyra when Daemon was a potential rival to succeed Viserys, and opposed Rhaenyra after she married Daemon.

[Lion of the West]

55 minutes ago, Skahaz mo Kandaq said:

While it is true that many people lack the honor to obey the wishes of their ruler, the king, we can be thankful that most are not that way.  The majority of the houses supported Rhaenyra's claim.  There were a lot of backdoor deals going on, like the ones between Hightower's group and the Baratheons that had nothing to do with anything besides the Baratheons getting something for their support.  But there are more who took to the field to honor the wishes of their king.  Rhaenyra is the true heir because her father wanted it that way. 

There always seem to be a kind of flux of how many Houses are loyalists or favoring another course than what the king has set. For example I think about how both many Houses have defied the Targaryens but also how unwieldy the word of the king has been under House Baratheon. For example it was a messy affair during Robert's Rebellion, it was more or less a unified front against the Greyjoys and when the Robert died the word of Robert that Joffrey was his heir meant little to a majority of the realm. Thus I don't think that we can say that most people are this way or that. Its all about the issues which are hot this day rather than notions of ancestral pledges or duties.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

@Lord Varys
 

Jaehaerys I was a shell of his former self by the time of the Great Council, just coming off the deaths of his daughter, his beloved wife, and his eldest living son and heir, on top of all the other children he'd lost in the last decade and more. I don't doubt that he hoped to secure a peaceful and stable transition by making sure ahead of time that the lords of the realm were on board with the heir and succession. But I'm also not sure how with it he was at the end there.

The hints we have indicate that Daemon and Corlys were willing to go to war over the succession. Jaehaerys I's relative weakness can be seen in the fact that he wasn't able to prevent either of those men to make preparations for war, but in the end the Great Council very efficiently ensured that the hostilities ceased and Viserys I could ascend to the throne with little or no controversy. Without it, we would most likely have had the Dance in 103 AC and not in 129 AC. Corlys was the richest man in the Seven Kingdoms, and Rhaenys and Laena controlled the largest dragons alive.

9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

And while it may be seen as brilliant to have involved the lords of the realm, and made them feel that they were part of the decision, I think it did more to invite and strengthen potential rival claims than to shut them down. He had already passed over the daughter of his eldest son (Rhaenys), and his next eldest child  (Alyssa) for her younger brother/husband. But then, instead of being consistent and choosing his chosen son's son, he went back and opened it back up to the daughter of his eldest son, and her own children.

That isn't the impression I have. We have the Velaryon claim (Laenor) against the Targaryen claim (Viserys). The others are irrelevant. And Laenor's claim was very strong. It didn't grow stronger but, oddly enough, weaker thanks to the Great Council. Most likely because he was still a child and not as jolly and likable as Prince Viserys.

The Velaryon claim was already on the table before the Great Council. Corlys/Rhaenys and Viserys/Daemon didn't ask the old man for his opinion on the matter.

9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Regardless of the GC's decision to support what should have been the obvious choice based on his own previous decisions, Jaehaerys himself muddied things right before his death just by opening it up for discussion.

The fact that the lords spoke with an overwhelming majority for Viserys strongly indicates that this was a very smart move. It prevented a succession war and pretty much ensured that the Velaryons knew and understood that nobody wanted a scion of that line on the Iron Throne.

If Laenor's claim had been strengthened, with Viserys being only backed by 55% of the lords and 45% supporting Laenor the whole thing would have been an utter failure, but that's not what happened.

9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

I agree. Aegon II was an established fact on the ground by the time anyone knew Viserys I was dead, and that never would have happened without the plotting of the Hightowers and Cole. I do not see the lords of the realm rising up to put Aegon on the throne over Rhaenyra on their own, at least not immediately. I don't think there would have been any notable protest to Rhaenyra ascending the Iron Throne. But once Aegon sat the Iron Throne, they had to pick a side.

It would have depended how Rhaenyra had dealt with Otto, Alicent, and her half-siblings in such a scenario. Had she just dismissed Otto and allowed him and Alicent to honorably retire at Oldtown, treating th Hightower-Targaryens with kindness and respect chances are that things would have worked out pretty fine. A great move could have been to make Aegon's twins her royal wards, bringing them up alongside Aegon and Viserys. That way these four could have become the friends the elder princes never became.

9 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Exactly. So we see, just as with certain lords and ladies that offered their daughters or themselves to the incest and polygamy practicing Targaryens, that they were not strictly guided by dogma. Their opposition had more to do with Daemon than their being strictly against the accession of a woman.

Most people suck up to power. The unmarried female Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne was a huge chance of advancement for any unmarried lord or heir. Decent and honorable men like the Tully and Blackwood sons or Forrest Frey didn't take Rhaenyra's rejections personally. The Lannister twins apparently did. If Tyland Lannister had been in Laenor Velaryon's or Harwin Strong's shoes, Casterly Rock would have stood firmly at Rhaenyra's hands.

Or imagine what would have happened if Rhaenyra had taken Aegon the Elder or Aemond as a second husband - or a Hightower nephew or cousin of Otto's.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I don't know where do you take this from. Clearly not from the books, where there are numerous examples showing that a king is expected to comply with several rules.

The person of the king is inviolable. We see this with Aegon III not being physically chastised but having a whipping boy instead (like Tommen does, too). That seems to be a thing that goes back to the medieval English kings, both the Norman and the Anglo-Saxon kings who were fundamentally changed when they were anointed during their coronations. We have a similar thing with the Targaryen kings being anointed by the High Septons.

We also know that the king - and only the king - is above the laws. Princes and dragonriders are subject to the king's will and rules just as anybody else is. We see this countless times - when weak King Aenys forces his brother Maegor (the rider of the mighty Balerion) - into exile, when dragonless King Viserys I rules his brother Daemon in all things (Royce marriage, exile, etc.). We also know that only kings do arrange incestuous marriages or is able to get away with polygamous marriages. Kings make and change laws. And they also rule on disputed successions, including their own.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Many people argued that the Mad King's actions entitled the rebels to overthrow him, and Rhaegar himself intended to summon a Grand Council to depose his father.

I'd agree that Ned and Robert had a right to rebel against King Aerys. The man had commanded to execute them without giving them a trial. But there is actually no argument that the lords had a right to depose Aerys II. Robert talks about killing Aerys, not about deposing him.

Rhaegar clearly did not have the right to call a Great Council. The only Great Councils we know were called by the king himself, his regent/Hand (Grand Maester Munkun) and the Hand after the death of the king in the king's name. Munkun spoke with Aegon III's voice, and Bloodraven with the late King Maekar's voice.

Rhaegar just intended to use the front of the tourney as an informal Great Council.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

All of this proves that Westerosi do not think that the monarchy is completely absolute, and instead there is some kind of implicit feudal contract with rights and obligations for all sides involved.

Those are separate issues. Yes, there are all kind of limits to the actual power of a king, but there is no constitution nor any formal and legal restrictions to said power. In the real middle ages the king was usually not just primus inter pares but saw himself as receiving his power by and ruling in the name of god - long before modern absolutism developed. Absolutists simply took the concept of the grown medieval monarchies seriously. 

The fact that some kings were bullied, threatened, and even deposed by powerful noblemen, magnates, etc. doesn't mean the concept of the kingship (as an ideal) changed. Some of the most powerful English kings ruled after John, Edward II, or Richard II.

If you check the limits of the Targaryen monarchy you realize that there are no defined legal limits. You can rebel if you feel you are treated unjustly, but that is true in any monarchy - whether we are talking about King John, Louis XIV, or Aegon the Conqueror.

Even Ned - effectively the viceroy of the North - fears Robert's power in AGoT. That's why he agrees to serve him as Hand.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

It's the same situation in real world. If we look at the English monarchs, which are George's main source of inspiration, we can see that Richard II was deposed by the Plantagenets because "through his tyranny and misgovernment, had rendered himself unworthy of being king". There's also the precedent of King John being forced to sign the Magna Carta, which delimited the powers of the king.  In fact, "Lex facit regem" (the law makes the king) was a commonly agreed principle back then.

We have no such precedents in the Seven Kingdoms. There is no Magna Carta, no Parliament, no cabinet of ministers, no mandatory participation of the great lords in the government of the Realm, and - most importantly - no deposition of a king throughout Targaryen history.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I disagree. The main thing the Hightowers had with Queen Rhaenyra was that she wasn't half-Hightower.

The Daemon thing is the main issue Otto Hightower himself cites in TPatQ. There is a chance that they might have been willing to cut a deal with her - if she hadn't married Daemon. When Rhaenyra marries Daemon and Otto is recalled as Hand the Dance conflict after Viserys I's death became pretty much inevitable.

8 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Huh, quite the contradictory statement on your part, considering the arguments I've seen you put forth against king Robert Baratheon's rule, and his heir's rights to the throne.

Those are two different issues here.

The Baratheon dynasty isn't seen as the legitimate dynasty while there are still descendants of Aerys II out there. But Robert Baratheon is still the *real king* in comparison to Viserys III. The latter is the rightful king, but effectively a powerless pretender to the throne. Robert had the real power, and that's simply a fact.

If there is a Targaryen restoration later on in the story, Robert is pretty much the Maegor the Cruel (who was also a usurper yet also a crowned and anointed king) to Viserys III's Prince Aegon (who, as King Aenys' son and chosen heir was the rightful king but never sat the throne). Daenerys (or Prince Aegon or Jon Snow, etc.) could then be the Jaehaerys I in this analogy.

The only difference there is that Robert was not as closely related to Dany and Jon than Maegor was related to Jaehaerys and Alysanne. But it is basically the same scenario.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Or imagine what would have happened if Rhaenyra had taken Aegon the Elder or Aemond as a second husband

Daemon and the Velaryons would brood, though all out war most likely would have been avoided.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On December 19, 2017 at 10:38 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

This is actually one of the few sources of contention that I have with regards to how George writes women. Both Rhaenyra and Cersei, the two women to have come closest to ruling over Westeros without having to do so through their husbands, are written as incompetent tyrants. Cersi so far has only ruled through Tommen. Is that really much an upgrade? And how often do you queens even rule through there husband in the first place? And others have mentioned we mostly see Rhainya rule as Queen during a civil war where plots within KL again her would be frequent. By every faucet of life she had ok for the most part

Clearly, we're supposed to root for Daenerys to be the one "true" queen who will rule the realm successfully, but I don't find Dany to be a particularly likable or engrossing female character.

She has a massive fanbase, but despite her good intentions, I don't find her to be a preferable alternative to Stannis or Robb or even Doran. Whoah even Doran? Out of all the 3 alternative you listed(only Stannis  whose actually vying to rule Westeroes), Doran is probably the best one.  Smart, patient, he will not cause his people to bleed for his pride but will always work to make justice happen when and if he can. Honestly if anyone should be king its him.Robb has shown more skill in war than he's shown at being a ruler of a kingdom certainly less so than as a kingdom certainly more than Robb who really showed he couldn't deal with the more ignoble parts of being the head of a monarchy such as being able to set aside his moral qualms for the greater good of his kingdom.

others on this site have mentioned in the past, she reads more like a fantasy dream girl than a viable ruler.

I and others see her time in Mereen the thing that would teach her the skills (both in government and politics), that would make her into a viable ruler for Westeroes. And she's making progress truth be told. Her world view is no longer as black&white as it once was, she's learned you need to compromise if you want to succeed and that doing what appears to be the nice thing isn't always the pragmatic thing. Like, her plan for Astaphor was that of what child would do(which she is), entrusting honestly pretty good men to lead Astaphor but who've no real qualification for running government.

So despite George's many attempts to illustrate how women are as capable as men, when it comes to the most coveted seat in Westeros--the Iron Throne--the women have all been woefully lackluster. 

In terms of Rhaenyra, however, she clearly was the rightful heir to the throne. Even Maegor had named his step-daughter/niece, Aerea, as his heir ahead of Aenys' sons, so the concept of having a a women possibly sit the Iron Throne was never totally out of the question. Viserys required his family and lords to proclaim Rhaenyra the heir-apparent while he was still alive, and they complied. Crowing Aegon after Viserys' death was treason.

There is something to be said about Viserys' decision to marry Rhaenyra to Laenor, however. Laenor was clearly not interested in women, and while one could make the argument that given the circumstances of this world, the lack of attraction between the couple hardly mattered, there must have been other ways Viserys could have strengthened the bonds between the two houses. For one, houses Targaryen and Velaryon had already intermarried several times, and if Viserys really wanted to secure Rhaenyra's claim, he should have betrothed her to a member of a different powerful house--a Tyrell or a Lannister, for instance. 

Now time for a really unpopular opinion: Jaehaerys the Conciliator majorly contributed to Westeros' inequality towards women. As modern readers, we are bound to view the Great Council as an example of democracy and, therefore, evidence of Jaehaerys' genius. As his wife, Alysanne, reminded everyone, however, it also basically stood as a proclamation that women could and should be robbed of their birthright in favor of an uncle or cousin. (Hell, Rhaenys wasn't even given an opportunity to put forth her own claim; that was through her son, Laenor). I don't think it's a coincidence that many of the "hero" houses of the series (Stark, Baratheon, Blackwood, Manderly) supported Rhaenys/Laenor's claim instead of Viserys'. There's a message there. 

 

[Pukisbaisals]

On 12/20/2017 at 5:07 PM, Curled Finger said:

Criston Cole was indeed the wild card at the onset of the DOD.   I have read opinions that Cole had an affair with Rhaenyra and she dumped him, shocked him or he didn't want Daemon's seconds.   Personally, it makes more sense that Cole actually was involved with Allicent though a prior interest in Rhaenyra is clear.

I think Criston Cole was a gay and in love with Laenor. It would best explain why he spurned Rhaenyra, the Realm's delight, and why he hated Joffrey Lonmouth, Laenor's favourite, so much.

[Tai Pan]

Legitimate.  Rhaenyra was the chosen heir and the rightful queen.  Rhaenyra cannot be a traitor because she is the rightful ruler.  All those who opposed her are the traitors. 

[Tai Pan]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Baratheon dynasty isn't seen as the legitimate dynasty while there are still descendants of Aerys II out there. But Robert Baratheon is still the *real king* in comparison to Viserys III. The latter is the rightful king, but effectively a powerless pretender to the throne. Robert had the real power, and that's simply a fact.

Robert had the power of a king but he was not the rightful king.  He had the might but not the right.  That is why he had a good reason to worry about Viserys and Daenerys.  They were a threat to his power while they still live.  We learned in Dance that there were nobles in Westeros who were longing for the return of the Targaryens.  King Viserys III had the right but not the might.  And this fan is longing for the one who has the Right and the Might to take the throne back, Daenerys Targaryen.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Anyways, Rhaenyra's own son Viserys de facto invalidated her claim posthumously, by taking the crown instead of his nieces. To the extent that Daemon Blackfyre did not use his mother's claim as an argument for his case.

[Blackwater Revenant]

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Those are two different issues here.

The Baratheon dynasty isn't seen as the legitimate dynasty while there are still descendants of Aerys II out there.

By who? Targaryn sympathizers who are sour that their side lost the war? Surely you can't be including the King who had received his Crown, was anointed with the seven oils, was in possession of the Conqueror's Iron Throne, and is above anyone else, in that claim? Surely you don't mean any of the Lord Paramount's and all of their subjects that fought in a bloody war in order to crown King Robert? And surely you aren't referring to the Faith, of whom ordained Robert as the rightful King of the Seven Kingdoms, are you?

Quote

If there is a Targaryen restoration later on in the story, Robert is pretty much the Maegor the Cruel (who was also a usurper yet also a crowned and anointed king) to Viserys III's Prince Aegon (who, as King Aenys' son and chosen heir was the rightful king but never sat the throne). Daenerys (or Prince Aegon or Jon Snow, etc.) could then be the Jaehaerys I in this analogy.

I would disagree, now those are two different issues. Maegor did not overthrow the Targaryn regime, as Robert did. Once Aerys was dead, and Robert was crowned as the Baratheon King, the Targaryn dynasty and its authority ceased to exist, along with any claims that Viserys might have had. 

Quote

The only difference there is that Robert was not as closely related to Dany and Jon than Maegor was related to Jaehaerys and Alysanne. But it is basically the same scenario.

Not really. Robert's claim and ascension to the throne had nothing to do with his distant Targaryn blood. He would have still been proclaimed King, had he not had any ties to the Targs whatsoever. Robert did not consider himself to be dragonspawn, as I don't recall him having the desire to exterminate himself. 

[Adam Yozza]

1 hour ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Anyways, Rhaenyra's own son Viserys de facto invalidated her claim posthumously, by taking the crown instead of his nieces. To the extent that Daemon Blackfyre did not use his mother's claim as an argument for his case.

Not really the same issue. Rhaenyra's claim was based on the fact that Viserys chose her. Neither Aegon, Daeron or Baelor in any way indicated that they wanted Daena to come before Viserys.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

19 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Not really the same issue. Rhaenyra's claim was based on the fact that Viserys chose her. Neither Aegon, Daeron or Baelor in any way indicated that they wanted Daena to come before Viserys.

In the sense that they excluded females from taking the crown. The general custom rule in Westeros is, a son before a daughter but a daughter before an uncle. While Rhaenyra's case, had she won, would have a daugter inherit before a son, her own descendants made it so that she would be excluded.

[Blackwater Revenant]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even Ned - effectively the viceroy of the North - fears Robert's power in AGoT. That's why he agrees to serve him as Hand.

Are you sure about that? Could you provide a quote to back this up?

[Adam Yozza]

24 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

In the sense that they excluded females from taking the crown. The general custom rule in Westeros is, a son before a daughter but a daughter before an uncle. While Rhaenyra's case, had she won, would have a daugter inherit before a son, her own descendants made it so that she would be excluded.

No that's not the general custom. The prededent that's been set is in fact uncle before daughter, at least when it comes to Royalty. That's established with Jahaerys over Aegon's daughters, Baelon over Rhaenys and even Viserys considers Daemon his heir over Rhaenyra before the half a day heir comment.

[The Bard of Banefort]

When I re-read AGOT a few months ago, I saw that the Targaryen chronology in the appendix listed Rhaenyra as only being one year older than Aegon. This makes me wonder what George's original plan for the Dance of the Dragons was, and why he decided to change it. I'm guessing that if he had stuck to the original plan, Aegon would have been portrayed as a lout, Rhaenyra would have been portrayed as the ideal ruler, and the whole story would have had a 'oppression of women' theme to it.