Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Do we get anymore info on the childhood of Aegon II and his brothers? Later in the novel we see he depends greatly on his mother for making peace terms with Corlys, but do we see him in his early years? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but there as a lot more about the guy during his rule, and he is by far the worst guy imaginable.

We get a little bit more about how Prince Aegon liked to spend his days before he got his crown. Mushroom's account there is particularly interesting ;-).

Share this post


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

No, but there as a lot more about the guy during his rule, and he is by far the worst guy imaginable.

We get a little bit more about how Prince Aegon liked to spend his days before he got his crown. Mushroom's account there is particularly interesting ;-).

Can you give some quotes? I haven't read Dance of the Dragons part and Rhaenyra also is not the nicest person around from what i know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah:

Quote

Prince Aegon was “at his revels,” Munkun says in his True Telling, vaguely. The Testimony of Mushroom claims Ser Criston found the young king-to-be drunk and naked in a Flea Bottom rat pit, where two guttersnipes with filed teeth were biting and tearing at each other for his amusement whilst a girl who could not have been more than twelve pleasured his member with her mouth. Let us put that ugly picture down to Mushroom being Mushroom, however, and consider instead the words of Septon Eustace.

Aegon II later has a couple of hundreds of people turned into living torches, lighting the streets of KL. He is the worst out there. Rhaenyra is nowhere near that league. She makes some stupid decisions, but she is not wantonly cruel in this manner (there are some stories about her turning Alicent and Helaena into whores but it is implied that those are slanders spread later by Aegon II to justify his own treatment of Rhaenyra).

The thing above is not dismissed by Gyldayn in the same manner, although he seems to prefer (without saying it explicitly) the nice guy account of Aegon being just with a normal mistress and not wanting to take the throne - which is completely out of character for this guy who spread the tales of 'the Strong boys' at the age of thirteen in 120 AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah:

Aegon II later has a couple of hundreds of people turned into living torches, lighting the streets of KL. He is the worst out there. Rhaenyra is nowhere near that league. She makes some stupid decisions, but she is not wantonly cruel in this manner (there are some stories about her turning Alicent and Helaena into whores but it is implied that those are slanders spread later by Aegon II to justify his own treatment of Rhaenyra).

The thing above is not dismissed by Gyldayn in the same manner, although he seems to prefer (without saying it explicitly) the nice guy account of Aegon being just with a normal mistress and not wanting to take the throne - which is completely out of character for this guy who spread the tales of 'the Strong boys' at the age of thirteen in 120 AC.

Well that quote shows that he was complete degenerate, but I am more curious about his cruel acts. Previous books haven't given us much. Can you give more information about these living torches? For Rhaenyra things that most repulsed me was torture of Tyland, mass executions of her brother's supporters once she got King's Landing and what happened to Aegon's sons by the hands of her supporters on her order or at least with her knowledge.

For me, I don't see why teenager who called his nephews bastards would be an argument against being with mistress account. Mushroom told similar story about Daemon teaching Rhaenyra how to pleasure the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The living torches are the people judged the most fervent followers of the Shepherd. They are all burned, with Aegon II's himself lighting the pyre of the Shepherd.

Rhaenyra doesn't have 'mass executions' when she takes KL. She just kills the members of the green council she can get her hands on, and those turncloak black lords who defected to Aegon II. But Aegon II starts this execution thing considering he puts down all those blacks they imprisoned during the coup who refuse to swear their allegiance to him. Later he continues this kind of nonsense when there was a small chance of making a peace with the black lords in the field by continuing to offer no pardons to the lords who had taken up arms against him.

The most ugly thing he does in my opinion is a throwing a feast in honor of Aemond's murder of Lucerys. How fucked-up that is becomes clear by contrast - Otto asks his nephew Aemond whether he lost his wits or his eye, and Alicent is terrified.

Rhaenyra has literally nothing to do with Blood and Cheese (which was arranged by Daemon and orchestrated by Mysaria) and even less to do with the entire Maelor episode. All she did was putting a bounty on the heads of Fell and Thorne and the Targaryens that escaped. She didn't tell anyone to rip the boy to pieces (this episode is given in great detail, Ser Rickard is a true Kingsguard, and we get a lot of contradictory accounts as to what happened).

Rhaenyra is very much a tragic figure, surrounded by people who give her, frankly, shitty counsel, cuckolded by her own beloved uncle-consort, who prefers Mysaria to her, causing her to seek solace in sweets and cakes and the like.

The Tyland thing is cruel, but it seems to be necessary. The treasury is empty and Tyland is the one who hid it all. And as I think I speculated earlier on, Rhaenyra's lack of coin is a huge (Gyldayn even says the main) reason of her downfall. It was not Aegon II who unmade Rhaenyra, it was Tyland Lannister. But as things stand, Rhaenyra also won the war, effectively. She was just killed because she insisted to go to Dragonstone. Had she continued on the Vale or the North she would have returned to KL the next year either 10,000 Vale men or Cregan's Northmen (with Lord Cregan possible the king consort at her side). And until the death of Aegon II (who is essentially murdered by his entire court, with Larys Strong and Corlys Velaryon masterminding the thing - at the instigation of the Clubfoot, of course) all of Aegon II's enemies continue to bear her quartered banner.

32 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

For me, I don't see why teenager who called his nephews bastards would be an argument against being with mistress account. Mushroom told similar story about Daemon teaching Rhaenyra how to pleasure the man.

The point here is just that Eustace's account is utter nonsense in light of Aegon's previous and later stance on Rhaenyra and his nephews. It goes like this:

Quote

Though the good septon admits Prince Aegon was with a paramour when he was found, he insists the girl was the daughter of a wealthy trader, and well cared for besides. Moreover, the prince at first refused to be a part of his mother’s plans. “My sister is the heir, not me,” he says in Eustace’s account. “What sort of brother steals his sister’s birthright?” Only when Ser Criston convinced him that the princess must surely execute him and his brothers should she don the crown did Aegon waver. “Whilst any trueborn Targaryen yet lives, no Strong can ever hope to sit the Iron Throne,” Cole said. “Rhaenyra has no choice but to take your heads if she wishes her bastards to rule after her.” It was this, and only this, that persuaded Aegon to accept the crown that the small council was offering him, insists our gentle septon.

Do we for a moment believe that a man who didn't get along with his half-sister at the age of six (!), who derided her sons as bastards, who grew wroth when his eldest nephew wanted to dance with his aunt, Aegon's sister-wife, who later wants said half-sister and her followers attainted and killed because they actually presumed to do - crown her - what he a couple of days himself supposedly thought they should do?

And especially the talk about 'his sister's birthright' is nonsense because at this time this was a new precedent set by Viserys I. By all the other precedents, traditions, and laws the Iron Throne was not (!) Rhaenyra's birthright!

That makes just no sense. It is lie Eustace concocted to present Aegon II as a dutiful son who tried to honor his royal father's wishes. In a patriarchal society as this the wishes of fathers - especially kings - do weigh rather highly, and a man taking something against his father's expressed wishes and decrees doesn't have to be construed as a traitor - he is one. Aegon II is exonerated in part by shifting most of the blame to Cole and Alicent and Otto.

Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


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

and even less to do with the entire Maelor episode

but

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

All she did was putting a bounty on the heads of Fell and Thorne and the Targaryens that escaped

she literally put bounty for the head of the two year old

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra is very much a tragic figure, surrounded by people who give her, frankly, shitty counsel, cuckolded by her own beloved uncle-consort, who prefers Mysaria to her, causing her to seek solace in sweets and cakes and the like.

Considering how unwilling she was to compromise and her apparent lack of understanding why people didn't wanted her bastards on the throne I can't really sympathise with her. And she has to blame herself for marrying the man who was as cruel as Aemond (although Daemon was actually smart, unlike his nephew).

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Tyland thing is cruel, but it seems to be necessary. The treasury is empty and Tyland is the one who hid it all. And as I think I speculated earlier on, Rhaenyra's lack of coin is a huge (Gyldayn even says the main) reason of her downfall. It was not Aegon II who unmade Rhaenyra, it was Tyland Lannister.

She wasted money on celebration of Joffrey as the new heir to the Iron Throne when treasury was already empty. You can't blame Tyland for hiding money from her and then justify his torture, blinding, gelding and mutilation.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The point here is just that Eustace's account is utter nonsense in light of Aegon's previous and later stance on Rhaenyra and his nephews. It goes like this:

I guess we misunderstood, I was trying to say that Aegon insulting his nephews as a teenager wasn't good argument for believing Mushroom's bizarre tale. I agree with you on part where it is unlikely that Aegon refused crown, I just think that Mushroom's account is a bit too ridiculous. Truth is probably somewhere in between with Aegon's refusal part being likely made up by Eustace.

Overall, I think most on what I disagree with you comes with just my personal opinion and the fact that I haven't read whole book yet ( for some retarded reason they split book in my country). I really need to get somehow full version of the book, it has been really annoying me.

Share this post


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

Overall, I think most on what I disagree with you comes with just my personal opinion and the fact that I haven't read whole book yet ( for some retarded reason they split book in my country). I really need to get somehow full version of the book, it has been really annoying me.

Well, frankly, then you should not really offer your opinion on the stuff you have not read yet, no ;-)?

And this is just factually wrong:

18 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

She wasted money on celebration of Joffrey as the new heir to the Iron Throne when treasury was already empty. You can't blame Tyland for hiding money from her and then justify his torture, blinding, gelding and mutilation.

There was no such celebration. There were plans for a such a celebration, and Rhaenyra did get coin - but the means she had to go to get that coin helped to turn the people against her. You cannot properly rule and fight a war and win the hearts of the people when you have no coin.

Torture is not something monarchs are not allowed to do to stealing traitors and usurpers in this world. The same goes for putting a bounty on the heads of pretenders and false kings, never mind the age. Or do you think Cersei was to blame for random people murdering dwarfs because she put a bounty on the head of her dwarf brother? Or Robert, if some guy had chosen to kill young Viserys or Daenerys for him despite the fact that he wanted them alive?

18 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I guess we misunderstood, I was trying to say that Aegon insulting his nephews as a teenager wasn't good argument for believing Mushroom's bizarre tale. I agree with you on part where it is unlikely that Aegon refused crown, I just think that Mushroom's account is a bit too ridiculous. Truth is probably somewhere in between with Aegon's refusal part being likely made up by Eustace.

I don't think we can really get down to 'the truth' on matter such as this. We can identify lies and embellishments like Eustace's claim about Aegon not wanting the throne by looking at other accounts and whether this fits with his character as described elsewhere, but we cannot really find out what 'the truth' was in a given scenario where there are contradictory accounts and one seems to be as likely as the other. Just as we have no idea what exactly happened between Rhaenyra and Criston Cole.

Just because some things are extreme doesn't mean they didn't happen. Those are, in part, very extreme characters.

23 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Considering how unwilling she was to compromise and her apparent lack of understanding why people didn't wanted her bastards on the throne I can't really sympathise with her. And she has to blame herself for marrying the man who was as cruel as Aemond (although Daemon was actually smart, unlike his nephew).

That her uncle groomed and seduced her to become his lover and eventually her husband is also part of tragedy. She fell in love with a man who just exploited her for his own ends. There was no love on Daemon's side, there, apparently. Viserys I is also a tragic figure, being exploited by a woman who never loved him (that's made pretty clear in the scene on Alicent's death).

Her 'bastards' are in fact only referred to as such by Alicent's gang at court (and the Velaryons who want to steal Driftmark from Corlys' grandchildren - which he sees as his grandchildren and Velaryons). Nobody in the broader realm seem to have given a fig about any of that during the Dance. Vice versa, Joffrey's hand in marriage is an important bargaining chip Jace uses to seal his deals.

Share this post


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

Well, frankly, then you should not really offer your opinion on the stuff you have not read yet, no ;-)?

I offer my opinion based on previous books ;-) And most of I wrote were why i disliked Rhaenyra.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And this is just factually wrong:

39 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

She wasted money on celebration of Joffrey as the new heir to the Iron Throne when treasury was already empty. You can't blame Tyland for hiding money from her and then justify his torture, blinding, gelding and mutilation.

There was no such celebration. There were plans for a such a celebration, and Rhaenyra did get coin - but the means she had to go to get that coin helped to turn the people against her. You cannot properly rule and fight a war and win the hearts of the people when you have no coin.

Ok, but that means that she taxed people during middle of the war just to get money for future celebration. That was still rather stupid idea.

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Torture is not something monarchs are not allowed to do to stealing traitors and usurpers in this world. The same goes for putting a bounty on the heads of pretenders and false kings, never mind the age. Or do you think Cersei was to blame for random people murdering dwarfs because she put a bounty on the head of her dwarf brother? Or Robert, if some guy had chosen to kill young Viserys or Daenerys for him despite the fact that he wanted them alive?

But haven't you said that she had little to do with Maelor's death?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

and even less to do with the entire Maelor episode. All she did was putting a bounty on the heads of Fell and Thorne and the Targaryens that escaped.

My problem was putting bounty for the head of two year old itself, not the matter of his death. I find paying people to kill two year old disgusting, no matter the means.

And I don't think that blinding and gelding brother of one of the Lord Paramounts for money is very nice act either.

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That her uncle groomed and seduced her to become his lover and eventually her husband is also part of tragedy. She fell in love with a man who just exploited her for his own ends. There was no love on Daemon's side, there, apparently. Viserys I is also a tragic figure, being exploited by a woman who never loved him (that's made pretty clear in the scene on Alicent's death).

Her 'bastards' are in fact only referred to as such by Alicent's gang at court (and the Velaryons who want to steal Driftmark from Corlys' grandchildren - which he sees as his grandchildren and Velaryons). Nobody in the broader realm seem to have given a fig about any of that during the Dance. Vice versa, Joffrey's hand in marriage is an important bargaining chip Jace uses to seal his deals.

Viserys was naive and arbitrary man who changed law that brought him to the throne just because he disliked his brother and put his daughter as heir without establishing complete gender equality in inheritance matters.

She knew that her children were bastards and she openly lied about them and insisted that they were true heirs to the Iron Throne. 

Share this post


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

She knew that her children were bastards and she openly lied about them and insisted that they were true heirs to the Iron Throne. 

What choice did Rhaenyra have? Laenor was likely unwilling to consummate the match, and for all she knew he could’ve lived well beyond her childbearing years and left her without heirs, so why not have children by a man she loves? 

I also have no sympathy for Corlys’s Velaryon cousins. Their opposition to Lucerys inheriting Driftmark is understandable, but they fail to see that Lucerys is betrothed to Rhaena Targaryen, Corlys’s own legitimate grandchild. The other Velaryons are trying to steal Driftmark from Corlys’s own bloodline. And if Corlys and Laenor are both happy to accept Jace, Luke, and Joff as their heirs, there’s no legally or morally acceptable path to disinheriting them. 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II later has a couple of hundreds of people turned into living torches, lighting the streets of KL. He is the worst out there.

I’m a firm supporter of Rhaenyra over Aegon II, but I think Aegon II was perfectly justified in doing this. These were people who attacked and killed five of the last surviving dragons. Dragons are fundamental to Targaryen power, the symbol of their dynasty, and beloved companions of their riders. Regardless of your opinion on dragons, (I’m divided), a Targaryen choosing to burn those involved in their massacre is absolutely understandable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jaehaerys Tyrell said:

What choice did Rhaenyra have? Laenor was likely unwilling to consummate the match, and for all she knew he could’ve lived well beyond her childbearing years and left her without heirs, so why not have children by a man she loves? 

I also have no sympathy for Corlys’s Velaryon cousins. Their opposition to Lucerys inheriting Driftmark is understandable, but they fail to see that Lucerys is betrothed to Rhaena Targaryen, Corlys’s own legitimate grandchild. The other Velaryons are trying to steal Driftmark from Corlys’s own bloodline. And if Corlys and Laenor are both happy to accept Jace, Luke, and Joff as their heirs, there’s no legally or morally acceptable path to disinheriting them. 

Rhaenyra insisted on her sons being accepted as trueborn and rightful Targaryen heirs after herself in the face of overwhelming visual evidence, that these were her trueborn sons just because she said so. Tell me if it isn't arbitrary and shows that she considered herself above the law.  Not even Aegon IV declared product of his extramarital affair as his heir instead his trueborn son(and he really hated his son).  

Whatever Vaemond was justified or not, demanding that none speak about Rhaenyra’s offspring despite great amount of evidence that Harwin Strong was the father in threat of losing a tongue, suggested that king was either unwilling to hear the truth or was easily deceived. 

Share this post


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

Rhaenyra insisted on her sons being accepted as trueborn and rightful Targaryen heirs after herself in the face of overwhelming visual evidence, that these were her trueborn sons just because she said so. Tell me if it isn't arbitrary and shows that she considered herself above the law.  Not even Aegon IV declared product of his extramarital affair as his heir instead his trueborn son(and he really hated his son).  

Whatever Vaemond was justified or not, demanding that none speak about Rhaenyra’s offspring despite great amount of evidence that Harwin Strong was the father in threat of losing a tongue, suggested that king was either unwilling to hear the truth or was easily deceived. 

Once Rhaenyra had had her first three sons, what choice did she have but to insist they were legitimate? Once she’d ascended the Iron Throne (if all had gone to plan) she could’ve admitted their parentage and legitimised them as her heirs anyway, but it would only serve to bring dishonour upon her, turn the realm against her, and weaken the stability of her rule and the rule of her successors. Most of the realm wouldn’t be all that familiar with Laenor and his supposed sons, and they’re no experts on genetics. The mere fact that the Strong-Velaryons are dragonriders would be enough for most to accept them as Rhaenyra’s heirs. I just don’t think Rhaenyra and Viserys had much choice other than to insist that Jacaerys, Lucerys and Joffrey were legitimate. 

Are the royal family not considered above the law anyway? It was debatable as to whether Maegor came ahead of Rhaena in the line of succession, Jaehaerys I succeeded ahead of Aerea despite no known precedence of agnatic primogeniture, chose Baelon as his heir ahead of Rhaenys, and then opened up the possibility that Laenor could become his heir after all when he called the Great Council. The Targaryens don’t seem to know what they’re doing with the succession. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jaehaerys Tyrell said:

Once Rhaenyra had had her first three sons, what choice did she have but to insist they were legitimate? Once she’d ascended the Iron Throne (if all had gone to plan) she could’ve admitted their parentage and legitimised them as her heirs anyway, but it would only serve to bring dishonour upon her, turn the realm against her, and weaken the stability of her rule and the rule of her successors. Most of the realm wouldn’t be all that familiar with Laenor and his supposed sons, and they’re no experts on genetics. The mere fact that the Strong-Velaryons are dragonriders would be enough for most to accept them as Rhaenyra’s heirs. I just don’t think Rhaenyra and Viserys had much choice other than to insist that Jacaerys, Lucerys and Joffrey were legitimate. 

Are the royal family not considered above the law anyway? It was debatable as to whether Maegor came ahead of Rhaena in the line of succession, Jaehaerys I succeeded ahead of Aerea despite no known precedence of agnatic primogeniture, chose Baelon as his heir ahead of Rhaenys, and then opened up the possibility that Laenor could become his heir after all when he called the Great Council. The Targaryens don’t seem to know what they’re doing with the succession. 

She could tell the truth and keep them as royal bastards. I really dislike rulers who mess up with succession. Ignoring established law makes precedent for another people to abuse the system. Viserys should go all in and make women and men equal in inheritance instead arbitrarily deciding that his daughter should be his heir instead his son or simply not marry(this entire war could be prevented if Viserys holded back his lust). If he cared so much about Rhaenyra he also had possibility of sending his sons to the Citadel or Faith. Renly similarly considered that 'might makes right', not realizing that same could be done to his children(if he had any) by some ambitious lord.

Share this post


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

I offer my opinion based on previous books ;-) And most of I wrote were why i disliked Rhaenyra.

But you don't have the complete picture. The complete shows that Rhaenyra is far less terrible than Aegon II. She is the better person and the better ruler. Aegon II is an utter catastrophe. He doesn't even try to be a good ruler. Rhaenyra at least tries.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Ok, but that means that she taxed people during middle of the war just to get money for future celebration. That was still rather stupid idea.

It is nowhere said she needed the money for this celebration. That would have taken place, presumably, after the end of the war, not in the middle of it. There are times when it looks the war could soon be over. 

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

But haven't you said that she had little to do with Maelor's death?

She did have nothing to do with it as you will see when you actually read this piece. The people fighting over the boy aren't even sure whether they want to sell him to Rhaenyra or to Lord Ormund (who is not that far away with his army). There is no price on Maelor's head, and Rhaenyra does not celebrate when she learns of Maelor's death - unlike Aegon II when he hears about Luke's death. Rhaenyra is also not obsessed with murdering her half-sister and stepmother whereas Aegon II has to be repeatedly forced to spare the life of his nephew.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

My problem was putting bounty for the head of two year old itself, not the matter of his death. I find paying people to kill two year old disgusting, no matter the means.

Again, no price was on his head. Rewards were offered for finding him/arresting him, not for his dead body.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

And I don't think that blinding and gelding brother of one of the Lord Paramounts for money is very nice act either.

Who cares who Tyland was? He was a traitor. He can be happy that he kept his head. And in the end he is even blacker than the black, anyway, becoming one of the most loyal followers of King Aegon III.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Viserys was naive and arbitrary man who changed law that brought him to the throne just because he disliked his brother and put his daughter as heir without establishing complete gender equality in inheritance matters.

There was no law changed. Just because the Great Council favored Viserys over Laenor doesn't mean Viserys cannot favor his daughter over his brother or his own sons. The Great Council wasn't giving the Realm a binding law, it just settled the succession of Jaehaerys I and assessed a bunch of individual claimants.

But Viserys' character and rule isn't what I referenced here - the fact is that the woman he loved didn't love him in return. She used him to become queen and seat her children on the throne and may have even killed him.

1 hour ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

She knew that her children were bastards and she openly lied about them and insisted that they were true heirs to the Iron Throne. 

Since we don't know the children were bastards, Rhaenyra may not have known that either, no ;-). As Rhaenyra's children they were heirs to the Iron Throne never mind whether they were bastard or not. She was Viserys' heir, not Jacaerys Velaryon and his brothers. And once she sat the Iron Throne she could have decreed whatever the hell she wanted.

Bastards are born out of wedlock, anyway. Laenor Velaryon's children were born in wedlock and were acknowledged as his children by him. What more evidence do you need? What other people think on the matter is as relevant as my opinion on your parentage.

But even if they were definitely not Laenor's sons - it was clear that Laenor would only get sons this way. He had no intention to consummate his marriage, and both he and Rhaenyra were in need of heirs - both for Driftmark and for the Iron Throne.

1 minute ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

She could tell the truth and keep them as royal bastards. I really dislike rulers who mess up with succession. Ignoring established law makes precedent for another people to abuse the system. Viserys should go all in and make women and men equal in inheritance instead arbitrarily deciding that his daughter should be his heir instead his son or simply not marry(this entire war could be prevented if Viserys holded back his lust). If he cared so much about Rhaenyra he also had possibility of sending his sons to the Citadel or Faith. Renly similarly considered that 'might makes right', not realizing that same could be done to his children(if he had any) by some ambitious lord.

There is no 'system' as you claim. There were Seven Kingdoms with their own laws and tradition and in some parts there was equal primogeniture, not just in Dorne (Marla Sunderland was Steffon's elder sister).

There are just precedents which have to be seen under the circumstances in which they are made. Just because this king made this call doesn't mean that another is bound by it. There is no proper law of succession for the Iron Throne.

Share this post


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

There is no price on Maelor's head, and Rhaenyra does not celebrate when she learns of Maelor's death - unlike Aegon II when he hears about Luke's death.

What was her reaction to deaths of Aegon's children?

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Who cares who Tyland was? He was a traitor. He can be happy that he kept his head.

If Rhaenyra wanted to execute everyone who 'betrayed' her she would have to execute half of the lords in Westeros. Jaehaerys treatment of Rogar was much smarter.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Bastards are born out of wedlock, anyway. Laenor Velaryon's children were born in wedlock and were acknowledged as his children by him. What more evidence do you need? What other people think on the matter is as relevant as my opinion on your parentage.

But even if they were definitely not Laenor's sons - it was clear that Laenor would only get sons this way. He had no intention to consummate his marriage, and both he and Rhaenyra were in need of heirs - both for Driftmark and for the Iron Throne.

I can take some random hobo from the street and declare him my son but that wouldn't make it true. Jace could become King and his descendants could rule for over 700 years but that still wouldn't make him son of Laenor.  

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no proper law of succession for the Iron Throne.

I guess this is where is my problem: If there is no proper law of succession any King/Queen can do nominate whoever he/she wants and that's guarantee for civil war everytime old ruler dies. 

Share this post


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

What was her reaction to deaths of Aegon's children?

Conflicting reports: Mushroom said she wept, Eustace claims she smiled and had the head burned 'for he was the blood of the dragon'.

Nobody claims she celebrated his death - unlike her half-brother, for whom nephews killed by his brother are a reason to celebrate.

No reaction of hers to the death of Jaehaerys is recounted. But she basically mourns for Lucerys until the Battle of the Gullet, not exactly involving herself much in politics.

13 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

If Rhaenyra wanted to execute everyone who 'betrayed' her she would have to execute half of the lords in Westeros. Jaehaerys treatment of Rogar was much smarter.

Tyland wasn't a lord, so the comparison was off. And unlike Rogar, Rhaenyra did not exactly owe him her throne, did she? Nor was he married to her mother, if I recall correctly...

13 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I can take some random hobo from the street and declare him my son but that wouldn't make it true. Jace could become King and his descendants could rule for over 700 years but that still wouldn't make him son of Laenor.  

We don't have proof that Rhaenyra's sons are not Laenor's. It might be the case, but we don't have proof. And for what it's worth, Lucamore Strong did not have brown hair. His hair was blond. Perhaps Harwin was blond, too. Perhaps the boys all looked like Rodrik Arryn or even their grandmother Aemma. Or like Corlys Velaryon's mother.

13 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

I guess this is where is my problem: If there is no proper law of succession any King/Queen can do nominate whoever he/she wants and that's guarantee for civil war everytime old ruler dies. 

Well, it has to be someone from the dynasty, it seems, but, yeah, that's it. Else Renly would have never gotten as much support as he did, considering his ridiculously weak claim compared to both Joffrey and Stannis.

And by the way: Adoption is introduced as a thing in FaB, which means that you can also have heirs that are not your biological children (Daemon Velaryon suggests that Jaehaerys marry Elinor Costayne and adopt her three boys by Theo Bolling).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. However, @Paxter Redwyne, I have to respectfully disagree with you entirely. First off, Rhaenyra was dealt a bad hand by her father to begin win. He named her heiress because he was (rightfully) pissed at his brother, which was all well and good considering that Andal law said a daughter came before an uncle. Yet Viserys went on to insist on a Dornish style succession and refused to consider that many lords would see her half-brother as the rightful heir. Hell as you rightfully pointed out, if Viserys was so determined to have Rhaenyra as his heiress, then he shouldn't have remarried and contented himself with whores and mistresses instead.


Second, she had Tyland Lannister tortured and her brother's councilors (and not all his supporters) executed: so what? This is a medieval world and such actions were par the course for the middle ages. They were traitors who refused to bend the knee (or in Tyland's case confess where the gold was/retrieve the gold) so they died traitors deaths. Simple as that. As to the Maelor thing, harder to say. Bounties were put on the Aegonist Targaryens true, but it's never said wanted dead or alive. Hell its never said if any bounties were actually put on Maelor and Jaehaera or if the smallfolk just assumed that there was. Rhaenyra can't be blamed for the ignorance and stupidity of the commoners.

Third, her Velaryon sons. We have no proof of them being bastards. DNA is a tricky thing and they could simply take after other relatives (Queen Alysanne lacked the silver-blond/silver-gold hair and purple eyes of the Targaryens, yet no one doubted her legitimacy; several of Jaehaerys and Alysanne's children, like Alyssa, also lacked those features. Hell Laenor's own mother had black hair), like Aemma Arryn or Corys Velaryon's mother. Or even Corys himself; I don't recall a physical discrimination of him from his younger years, so he too may have lacked typical Valyrian features. Sure three sons looking nothing like father or mother does strain credulity a bit, but it's not impossible. And the Viserys threat doesn't mean much; Viserys hated any fighting about the succession in general and often struck out at those who did, banishing his father-in-law as an example.

But even if all three are bastards, again so what? The father's bloodline didn't matter here, only the mothers. Rhaenyra was heiress and Princess of Dragonstone; marrying Laenor strengthened her hold, but wasn't necessary. Plus they were Dragonriders already, so whether or not they were biologically the sons of Laenor Velaryon, Harwin Strong or someone else entirely was irregardless. This isn't a Cersei situation, where a Queen with no biological connection to the reigning dynasty is cuckolding the King and placing her bastards on the throne; its more likely Rhaenyra needed kids and would get none from her gay husband. Sure, if that's the case,  she should have slept with someone with Valyrian blood instead so the kids would have the looks, but she could have also assumed that her firstborn would look like her. Hard to say.

Ultimately Aegon II was a selfish, petty cruel man that was uncomfortably close to Joffrey in personality and the realm was lucky his court murdered him when they did. Rhaenyra was dealt a bad hand from the start of the War and was never able to recover from the loss of the Treasury. Personally I'm surprised that Aegon III didn't demand his mother be treated in the annuls as Queen Rhaeyra I of her name and co-sign his uncle to being a usurper or at least date his reign from her death.

Edited by Hiigara129

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I am so waiting for my copy of FaB to arrive so that I can join the fray here. Just you wait, girls, boys and eunuchs.

Edited by Lion of the West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was a nasty piece of work i tell you only thing he did i like was when he got rid of Shepard and his followers Rhaenyra should have done this from the get go.

This guy lost his dragon through his own fault then after he killed his sister and heard he had no choice but to surrender what does he do? Let me cry to my bitter mother who started this and she tell him to cut off Aegon III ear and threaten to kill Baela sigh. No wonder Club Foot set him up. He was an idiot much like his brother Aemond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×