Why did Aerys send Bittersteel to the wall?

[Lord Varys]

On 3.3.2018 at 0:10 PM, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

 But we do know that Aerion Brightflame  came back from exile during the third blackfyre rebellion. And his later actions were “well known” I believe is the quote..... sounds possible. But it just as likely could’ve been a fossaway... or dare I say a Hightower (bc like you’ve said multiple times we DON’T KNOW) 

Aerion came back from Essos long before the Third Blackfyre Rebellion. His exile was not supposed to last for a decade.

Quote

 By the way if somehow Bennis of the brown shit head shield was able to actually get away with that as well....  I thoroughly believe dunk would hunt him down.  (I  understand you were simply putting forth characters which have already been introduced to us and not being serious in any manner) simply saying bennis would be an enormous shit stain in history if it were somehow true. 

There is simply no reason to believe Aerion killed Haegon Blackfyre at this point. If he did, it is very odd that Aerys I didn't take his head for that crime or sent him to the Wall along with Bittersteel. Apparently, the murder of Haegon was seen as a crime.

Aerion had enough standing with the king to urge him not to spare Bittersteel's life when he was delivering his sentence. Why should we think the murderer of an unarmed prisoner has that much standing with the king?

On 4.3.2018 at 6:21 PM, newbieone said:

Woah, whence all the Blackfyre hate?

Nobody hates the Blackfyres. We don't even know them all that well. Most of them seem to have been morons, though, including Daemon Blackfyre himself. Daemon II was stupid as well, and Daemon III really a pawn of Bittersteel's. Aenys looks like a moron, and we don't know what kind of guy Haegon was. Maelys was his own man, though. But also the Targaryen version of Gregor Clegane.

On 4.3.2018 at 6:21 PM, newbieone said:

Once you believe that Daeron II was not Aegon IV's son and that Daemon Blackfyre's legitimization was valid (no reason to believe otherwise), and that Aegon IV was a valid king (this is more up to debate, but Daeron II's right also depends on this), then there is no option but to regard oneself as bound in fealty to follow Daemon Blackfyre and his descendants and see them rule.

There is no reason to believe Daeron II wasn't Aegon IV's - but even if we believe otherwise there is no proof. And without proof the crowned and anointed king remains the crowned and anointed king. Aegor Rivers, Daemon Blackfyre, and his sons would all have done homage to their royal brother/uncle, Daeron II for years and years until the war broke out. That makes them all traitors.

If Daemon had believed his brother shouldn't be king because of his parentage he should have rebelled in 184 AC, not in 196 AC.

In addition, Daeron II not being Aegon's son doesn't automatically make Daemon Blackfyre king. Aegon the Unworthy legitimized all his bastards, not just Daemon or the great bastards. That means that the rightful king would have been Aegon's eldest son. And there is no proof that Daemon Blackfyre is Aegon's eldest son. He seems to be his eldest acknowledged male bastard - or rather: his eldest acknowledged male bastard whose parentage is supposedly proven - but that doesn't make him Aegon's eldest son or the rightful king.

For all we know some whore's son fathered while Aegon was, say, fifteen was the rightful king.

On 4.3.2018 at 6:21 PM, newbieone said:

In fact, DB was only a younger son of Aegon the Unworthy but the eldest son of his mother, who was the senior heir, being the daughter of Aegon III (sister of Daeron II the Young Dragon and Baelor the Blessed), to whom Viserys II, the father of Aegon IV, was a younger brother.

Hence even with Daeron II actually being legitimate, DB still can be argued to have a better claim to be the senior representative of the dynasty in general, though not as a direct heir to Aegon IV as the previous king.

While one can make such a case, George himself has repeatedly made it clear that pretty much nobody in Westeros actually did that. Daemon was seen as a pretender to the Iron Throne because of his looks, his prowess as a warrior, and - of course - because of his royal father gave him 'the sword'. His mother and her royal ancestry apparently played no role in all that (aside from it most likely being a cause of his very prominent Valyrian features).

On 4.3.2018 at 6:21 PM, newbieone said:

DB's children through Rohanne of Tyrosh were quite possibly descendants of the bypassed Vaelaryon heirs (through Rhaenys, the Queen Who Never Was), even before the Dance of the Dragons, as Viserys I, the father of both Aegon II and Rhaeryna was not the senior heir. Hence they would have an even better claim than DB himself.

There is no evidence for any such speculation. Laena's children by Daemon - Baela and Rhaena - are accounted for. Baela married Alyn Velaryon and continued the line of House Velaryon, and Rhaena first married Corwyn Corbray (no living issue) and then Garmund Hightower (six daughters). There is no indication that any Velaryons or Targaryen-Hightowers ended up marrying into the family of the Archon of Tyrosh.

Could be that Rohanne was of Valyrian descent as well, explaining why at least Daemon II had as prominent Valyrian features as he had, but even that is not clear.

On 4.3.2018 at 6:21 PM, newbieone said:

So it's not about wanting to usurp the other branch and improve the fate of their own branch of the dynasty, but about where the blood points, who should be king or even who is by right the lawful king, seen as an obligation as much as a right. In their own minds, the Blackfyres are already kings by simply existing and being who they are, and consequently they have the obligation to rule the Seven Kingdoms. That we don't necessarily agree with them (as it's enough to recognize Aegon IV as valid and Daeron II as his bio son — even because of sheer absence of contrary proof — and then go by birth order; this is all perfectly convincing) is a different thing.

I don't think any of us should speak for 'the Blackfyres'. Daemon II we know. We know he believed to be king. Whether Haegon, Aenys, Daemon III, etc. honestly believed themselves that they were king or whether they were force-fed that idea by their elders (Rohanne, Bittersteel, other Blackfyre relations, etc.) is completely unclear at that point.

[One-eyed Misbehavin]

@Lord Varys yes that’s correct auto-correct got me on the 1st quote.

For the 2nd none of that was serious as we don’t have the info required. I just found it funny you brought up bennis is all.

[Valyrian Fyrewyrm]

If I had to take a guess I would say that Aerys was an amiable man who disliked the idea of having a kinsman executed, despite his crimes. Maybe from his point of view the Blackfyres were 'done' and spilling more blood would simply make old wounds fester?

Of course we won't know for sure until more Dunk & Egg or the second volume of Fire & Blood are released, so not for some time

[Jon_Stargaryen]

On 2/25/2018 at 2:06 PM, Daemon The Black Dragon said:

The Blackfyre supporters werre traitors and turncloaks themselves . Are they decent and honorable men to begin with? You really think a good chunk of them stopped supporting Bittersteel/Blackfyres because Bittersteel didn't follow through with joining the NW?  Most likely  the houses that supported the 2nd and 3rd Blackfyre rebellion, lost their lives or a good chunk of their lands and income and were in no shape to support another Blackfyre rebellion. Especially one that they didn't think would succeed to begin with. 

If we're going to be technical, most of those men were less traitorous than misinformed.

The current (at the time) Targaryen dynasty was under suspicion of illegitimacy by some- due in large part to Aegon IV's propaganda- and the previous king had legitimized his bastard with another Targaryen woman; a handsome man of martial prowess.

With all of these factors at play, I'm more inclined to call them susceptible than traitorous.