Jump to content
James Steller

Was there any bloodless way to resolve the succession crisis?

Recommended Posts

One thing that always struck me in “The Princess and the Queen” was how unwilling Aegon II was to steal the crown from Rhaenyra. By all rights, she was the heir, and she had five sons to succeed her. This complacency on Aegon’s part (before he went all-in for violence and total war) makes me wonder if there was a way to avoid the whole Dance of the Dragons. Could the greens have been content to be royals without crowns or maybe go to Essos and carve out their own kingdom? Would Rhaenyra have been tyrannical if she hadn’t been opposed so viciously by Queen Alicent and her ambitious father? 

Or was violence and the near extermination of an entire family literally the only way that things would move forward?

Edited by James Steller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Great Council. Viserys was lazy, counting on the personal promises of a few Lords 20ish years ago was always going to be a problem. 

Viserys should have bribed influential lords with titles, gold and marriages to secure his daughter the Throne in an official Grand Council on the matter. 

 

2 hours ago, James Steller said:

By all rights, she was the heir, and she had five sons to succeed her.

Not really, its supposed to be a debated issue, with no clear answer. 

  • When Viserys was adamant she would be his heir he had no sons
  • He asked for support for Rhaenyra to stop Daemon becoming a King due to him being unfit to rule; now they are married and he becomes defacto king
  • The laws of Westeros favor a son over a daughter
  • Jaehaerys Grand Council rubber stamps this law, Viserys is only king because of it

 

Reading the Rogue Prince I always assumed being given Dragonstone was a major part of being heir, but Fire & Blood lessens the importance given Jaehaerys granted it to Rhaena despite not being the heir while Aemon was prince of Dragonstone but his heir overlooked. The title may not have carried the same weight at that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Aegon not wanting his sister’s crown was an addition by Septon Eustace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy answer:

There wouldn't have been a conflict if the Greens hadn't staged a coup. Nothing in FaB indicates that Rhaenyra ever planned to banish, punish, or actually physically harm any of her half-siblings or her Hightower kin-by-marriage.

She makes it clear to Alicent - and no historian or source ever cites conflicting sources here or puts forth theories to the contrary - that her half-brothers could have had high places at her court had they not all chosen to rebel.

The idea that the Greens had to move first to save the lives of Otto, Alicent, and Alicent's children is just a lie. The stupid leniency Rhaenyra shows to both Alicent and Helaena after they are in her power is all the proof we need for that.

6 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Reading the Rogue Prince I always assumed being given Dragonstone was a major part of being heir, but Fire & Blood lessens the importance given Jaehaerys granted it to Rhaena despite not being the heir while Aemon was prince of Dragonstone but his heir overlooked. The title may not have carried the same weight at that time. 

Not really. FaB did not change the fact that Dragonstone only became the seat of the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne in the reign of Jaehaerys I. Aenys as Heir Apparent had no seat at all, nor was Maegor Prince of Dragonstone in any meaningful sense - back in the reign of the Conqueror and his sons Dragonstone was a royal seat the kings spent much of their time. Aegon I half of the time he spent at court, King Aenys most of his time after his coronation (as per Alysanne's memory of the splendor of her father's court on Dragonstone). It was ruled and owned by the king who allowed his family to reside there, too, but was never granted to any of them as a seat of their own. Visenya seems to effectively take possession of Dragonstone in Maegor's reign, but she does receive it as a seat of her own as far as we know.

Maegor being 'the Prince of Dragonstone' is not a formal title but rather a nickname given to him by the smallfolk. King Aenys may have intended to properly grant his son jurisdiction over Dragonstone but even that's not clear. Granting him the title of a Prince of Dragonstone in place of the exiled Maegor may have just been a courtesy at this point. It had nothing to do with Aegon being the Heir Apparent which he was since 37 AC - just as Aenys not being the Prince of Dragonstone had nothing to do with him being the Heir Apparent - which he was since his birth.

Queen Rhaena is the first to rule Dragonstone in her own right - but as a subject of her royal brother, not as a queen in her own right. But she clearly has jurisdiction over the island. That trend continues when Aemon, Baelon, and Viserys are named Prince of Dragonstone and actually reside there while the king continues to reside in the Red Keep. Queen Alysanne often visits Dragonstone, especially when she is about to give birth, but the island is the seat of her two sons and then her grandson, the anointed heirs of Jaehaerys I.

It is quite clear that the being heir to the Iron Throne and being Prince of Dragonstone are seen as going together by the time of the reign of Viserys I. That is why Daemon covets that title - he sees himself as Viserys' heir in the early years of his brother's reign. And this is also the reason why Rhaenyra is named Princess of Dragonstone when she is declared her father's heir and successor.

This doesn't mean this custom cannot be changed later down the line - the usurping Aegon II offered Rhaenyra Dragonstone and the adjacent holdings as her hereditary seat, and it might be that Aegon III grants Dragonstone to his brother Viserys to give him and his children a seat of their own. It would be very odd if a man who was as close to his brother as Aegon III would not grant the man any favors in lands and lordships. And we certainly do know that King Robert granted Dragonstone as a seat to his brother Stannis as a hereditary lordship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, James Steller said:

One thing that always struck me in “The Princess and the Queen” was how unwilling Aegon II was to steal the crown from Rhaenyra. By all rights, she was the heir, and she had five sons to succeed her. This complacency on Aegon’s part (before he went all-in for violence and total war) makes me wonder if there was a way to avoid the whole Dance of the Dragons. Could the greens have been content to be royals without crowns or maybe go to Essos and carve out their own kingdom? Would Rhaenyra have been tyrannical if she hadn’t been opposed so viciously by Queen Alicent and her ambitious father? 

Or was violence and the near extermination of an entire family literally the only way that things would move forward?

There was one way. Rhaenyra had to die. She was unworthy of the Iron Throne. Viserys cut his hand when he refused to listen to the blatant truth of Rhaenyra's adultery and then the throne "rejects" Rhaenyra every time she sits on it. Aegon III was only taken when literally everyone else was dead. If there is a magic in the Iron Throne, it's a sexist magic which puts men over women. And don't tell me that this was a history written by men so of course they'd say that; it was Rhaenyra's dynasty which endured, they would have had every reason to kiss Rhaenyra's ass in the history books as being the rightful ruler who was wrongfully robbed of her throne. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Easy answer:

There wouldn't have been a conflict if the Greens hadn't staged a coup. Nothing in FaB indicates that Rhaenyra ever planned to banish, punish, or actually physically harm any of her half-siblings or her Hightower kin-by-marriage.

She makes it clear to Alicent - and no historian or source ever cites conflicting sources here or puts forth theories to the contrary - that her half-brothers could have had high places at her court had they not all chosen to rebel.

Otto didn't care about Rhaenyra, it was Daemon that scared him, and we can safely assume that Daemon would have abused his position of power like nobody's business. And Otto and Daemon hated each other. Otto was right to fear Daemon getting an inch of any sort of power. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

The idea that the Greens had to move first to save the lives of Otto, Alicent, and Alicent's children is just a lie. The stupid leniency Rhaenyra shows to both Alicent and Helaena after they are in her power is all the proof we need for that.

 

Unless you believe that Rhaenyra had Alicent and Helaena sent to a brothel to be used indiscriminately. Not saying I do, but GRRM wouldn't have put it in there for no reason, and frankly, I buy that Rhaenyra would have been cruel enough by the point to do it. Look at how Alicent tries to encourage her eight-year-old granddaughter to murder Aegon III, the princess and the queen were both truly bereft of any humanity thanks to this game of thrones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

There was one way. Rhaenyra had to die. She was unworthy of the Iron Throne. Viserys cut his hand when he refused to listen to the blatant truth of Rhaenyra's adultery and then the throne "rejects" Rhaenyra every time she sits on it. Aegon III was only taken when literally everyone else was dead. If there is a magic in the Iron Throne, it's a sexist magic which puts men over women. And don't tell me that this was a history written by men so of course they'd say that; it was Rhaenyra's dynasty which endured, they would have had every reason to kiss Rhaenyra's ass in the history books as being the rightful ruler who was wrongfully robbed of her throne. 

Otto didn't care about Rhaenyra, it was Daemon that scared him, and we can safely assume that Daemon would have abused his position of power like nobody's business. And Otto and Daemon hated each other. Otto was right to fear Daemon getting an inch of any sort of power. 

Unless you believe that Rhaenyra had Alicent and Helaena sent to a brothel to be used indiscriminately. Not saying I do, but GRRM wouldn't have put it in there for no reason, and frankly, I buy that Rhaenyra would have been cruel enough by the point to do it. Look at how Alicent tries to encourage her eight-year-old granddaughter to murder Aegon III, the princess and the queen were both truly bereft of any humanity thanks to this game of thrones.

I refuse to believe the Brothel Queens. It remind me the real-world dude the Mushroom is based on and he made a similiar comment and I think it is a reference to that. 

 Too outrageous to be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Otto didn't care about Rhaenyra, it was Daemon that scared him, and we can safely assume that Daemon would have abused his position of power like nobody's business. And Otto and Daemon hated each other. Otto was right to fear Daemon getting an inch of any sort of power.

Considering how little influence Daemon had over his royal wife and how small the role he played in her government was chances are zero that this fear had any real basis. And the men of the Green Council actually knew that Daemon didn't exactly have the patience or the taste for the tedium of rule. Even when he was driven by ambition he just wanted the throne, he never actually wanted to rule.

The guy abusing his power like nobody's business was Otto Hightower - the man who broke the vow he swore to both King Viserys I and Rhaenyra.

5 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Unless you believe that Rhaenyra had Alicent and Helaena sent to a brothel to be used indiscriminately. Not saying I do, but GRRM wouldn't have put it in there for no reason, and frankly, I buy that Rhaenyra would have been cruel enough by the point to do it.

Considering that there is no evidence about this aside from incoherent tales by a confirmed liar, this isn't worth to be discussed. Gyldayn is very doubtful of that particular calumny Mushroom spreads. Not to mention that the source base for that kind of thing should have been enormous if it were true. If you had fucked 1-2 queens in a brothel - as many men would have - then you would talk about that during the reign of Aegon III. Thus Munkun's many sources would corroborate Mushroom's claims, as would popular tales in KL.

The chances are equally low that Aegon II developed into an impotent voyeur, by the way. Sure, it is not unlikely that he could no perform due to his various injuries, but I very much doubt he spent his time watching his goons fucking ladies of the court. That's just a silly tale.

The point for Rhaenyra to avenge herself and make Alicent and Helaena suffer was when she took the throne, not some time later. She had lost her mother-in-law and two of her sons due to the machinations of Alicent and Otto, so the point to exact vengeance was then and there. And she did deal with Otto then and the other men on the Green Council.

5 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Look at how Alicent tries to encourage her eight-year-old granddaughter to murder Aegon III, the princess and the queen were both truly bereft of any humanity thanks to this game of thrones.

Alicent, certainly. The woman was nothing but an ambitious social climber who feigned love for the man she seduced - the fact that she never speaks about Viserys I in her last days gives us the ugliest view into Alicent's character. There was, as it turns out, nothing redeemable about this woman aside from, perhaps, the fact that she realized that her own petty ambitious killed her entire family.

Rhaenyra most definitely not. She didn't even leave Alicent's head as a parting gift in the Red Keep when she left - something any truly vindictive person would have done. If you have to abandon your seat you first execute all the enemies that languish in your dungeons.

Share this post


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

Considering that there is no evidence about this aside from incoherent tales by a confirmed liar, this isn't worth to be discussed. Gyldayn is very doubtful of that particular calumny Mushroom spreads. Not to mention that the source base for that kind of thing should have been enormous if it were true. If you had fucked 1-2 queens in a brothel - as many men would have - then you would talk about that during the reign of Aegon III. Thus Munkun's many sources would corroborate Mushroom's claims, as would popular tales in KL.

Mushroom was on Rhaenyra's side. He sympathized with her cause, and he still told that story. Him spreading lies about Alicent Hightower sleeping with Daemon or Aegon II being a creepy voyeur is one thing, they were his enemies. But he had no reason to make something that crude up about Rhaenyra. Plus, he's characterized as the one who tells the truths that nobody else will tell, even when they're accompanied by salacious gossip. Anyway, I'd sooner believe Mushroom than a hoity-toity septon who is operating for both the Iron Throne and the Faith. But we could argue for years about what Mushroom was lying about and what he was truthful about, but from where I stand, I'm inclined to believe that if he says something vicious about Rhaenyra, it might be true. It does explain why Alicent was so ready to murder a child and have her own grandchild be a murderess in turn. 

And also, the townsfolk DID talk about it. The narrator of Fire and Blood dismisses it as calumny but he points out that the cityfolk did talk about it. And anyone with the title "Archmaester" has an agenda, plus they're usually snobbish towards the subject of sex. But the people of King's Landing hated Rhaenyra so much that they rose up against her on the word of a one-armed madman. The idea of the Brothel Queens would go a long way to explain that. Plus it would also help justify Helaena's madness and suicide. Rhaenyra didn't go mad when her children died, and neither did Aegon II or Alicent or Alysanne or Alyssa or Catelyn (not until her last one died anyway). The only person I can think of who did was Cersei and she already went mad years before that.

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra most definitely not. She didn't even leave Alicent's head as a parting gift in the Red Keep when she left - something any truly vindictive person would have done. If you have to abandon your seat you first execute all the enemies that languish in your dungeons.

I think the only reason why she didn't kill Alicent was because Rhaenyra left in the greatest haste, and she wasn't thinking clearly because of Joffrey's death. Both those things meant that she had no time to deal with Alicent (and if you believe the brothel queen story, she already dealt a savage punishment to her).

Edited by Floki of the Ironborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Floki of the Ironborn said:

 If there is a magic in the Iron Throne, it's a sexist magic which puts men over women. And don't tell me that this was a history written by men so of course they'd say that; it was Rhaenyra's dynasty which endured, they would have had every reason to kiss Rhaenyra's ass in the history books as being the rightful ruler who was wrongfully robbed of her throne.

Visenya and Rhaenys sat on the throne and pronounced judgements from it without any alleged mishaps, however. Also, you forget that women had been passed over for the throne twice while Rhaenyra's dynasty endured, so maesters writing during and after the reign of her youngest son Viserys II, had every reason not to insist on female rights of succession, even when writing for her descendants.

@Mrs.Grumpy    : Procopius, right?

@Mrs.Grumpy

Share this post


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

Rhaenyra most definitely not. She didn't even leave Alicent's head as a parting gift in the Red Keep when she left - something any truly vindictive person would have done. If you have to abandon your seat you first execute all the enemies that languish in your dungeons.

 

5 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

I think the only reason why she didn't kill Alicent was because Rhaenyra left in the greatest haste, and she wasn't thinking clearly because of Joffrey's death. Both those things meant that she had no time to deal with Alicent (and if you believe the brothel queen story, she already dealt a savage punishment to her).

Personally, I think the Brothel Queens story is calumny but Rhaenyra was definitely vindictive. Her reign on the Iron Throne was filled with beheadings and accusations of treason. If she'd had the chance, she would have definitely done something cruel to Alicent. I can only assume that she kept Alicent alive as a hostage for leverage (for all the good that did her anyway), or else she wanted Alicent to live long enough to see her enemy rule as Queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maia said:

Visenya and Rhaenys sat on the throne and pronounced judgements from it without any alleged mishaps, however. Also, you forget that women had been passed over for the throne twice while Rhaenyra's dynasty endured, so maesters writing during and after the reign of her youngest son Viserys II, had every reason not to insist on female rights of succession, even when writing for her descendants.

@Mrs.Grumpy    : Procopius, right?

@Mrs.Grumpy

Visenya and Rhaenys were always subservient to their brother. We don't hear about Queen Rhaenys I or Queen Visenya I, we hear about Aegon I and his wives. 

To be honest, though, I don't want to argue this point very hard because I always disliked the inherent sexism of Westerosi monarchy. I understand that GRRM was making a point by portraying the medieval world (and let's be honest, our modern world too), but the idea of the Iron Throne turning against Rhaenyra and her father was a plot point that was unpleasant to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Mushroom was on Rhaenyra's side. He sympathized with her cause, and he still told that story.

Mushroom supposedly liked Rhaenyra, but this doesn't mean he was on her side or anything. He tells for too many juicy stories about her to be called her follower, just as Eustace tells far too many ugly things about Aegon II and the Greens to actually be considered a devoted of follower of that cause. These two people may have had certain leanings, but the very fact that they lived throughout the entire Dance (like Orwyle) strongly suggests that they were not ruled by principle. Especially not the court jester - who was a political non-entity.

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Him spreading lies about Alicent Hightower sleeping with Daemon or Aegon II being a creepy voyeur is one thing, they were his enemies. But he had no reason to make something that crude up about Rhaenyra. Plus, he's characterized as the one who tells the truths that nobody else will tell, even when they're accompanied by salacious gossip. Anyway, I'd sooner believe Mushroom than a hoity-toity septon who is operating for both the Iron Throne and the Faith. But we could argue for years about what Mushroom was lying about and what he was truthful about, but from where I stand, I'm inclined to believe that if he says something vicious about Rhaenyra, it might be true. It does explain why Alicent was so ready to murder a child and have her own grandchild be a murderess in turn. 

As things stand now, nobody ever claimed Daemon was sleeping with Alicent. But the rumors about Jaehaerys I got more credence in light of the fact that Alicent really seems to have had a thing for the old man.

Mushroom gives us certain truths nobody else will, but you must be very aware that most of the things he tells are blatant and invented nonsense. He is not some guy dictating 'the truth' in his old age, he is a guy who continues to entertain his readers the same way he always has. A tiny fraction of the stuff he tells might be true - but most of the stuff isn't.

Alicent has no reason to see Aegon III dead because the boy had nothing to do with anything Rhaenyra did during the war. This was just hatred and spite.

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

And also, the townsfolk DID talk about it. The narrator of Fire and Blood dismisses it as calumny but he points out that the cityfolk did talk about it.

Yeah, the rumors. Not actual credible reports.

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

And anyone with the title "Archmaester" has an agenda, plus they're usually snobbish towards the subject of sex.

Not everybody who is an archmaester has some evil agenda.

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

But the people of King's Landing hated Rhaenyra so much that they rose up against her on the word of a one-armed madman. The idea of the Brothel Queens would go a long way to explain that.

We know Larys Strong had more than a hand in those riots. They were not spontaneous. This is confirmed especially for the rabble of Ser Perkin the Flea.

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Plus it would also help justify Helaena's madness and suicide. Rhaenyra didn't go mad when her children died, and neither did Aegon II or Alicent or Alysanne or Alyssa or Catelyn (not until her last one died anyway). The only person I can think of who did was Cersei and she already went mad years before that.

Helaena's madness after Blood and Cheese is well-attested.

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

I think the only reason why she didn't kill Alicent was because Rhaenyra left in the greatest haste, and she wasn't thinking clearly because of Joffrey's death. Both those things meant that she had no time to deal with Alicent (and if you believe the brothel queen story, she already dealt a savage punishment to her).

If she was as vindictive as you want to paint her, she would have thought about that. She would have thought of little else but to ensure that the evil stepmother would not prevail. And they did not leave in great haste. They waited until the day after the riots. Killing prisoners in their cells is quickly done.

2 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

There was one way. Rhaenyra had to die. She was unworthy of the Iron Throne. Viserys cut his hand when he refused to listen to the blatant truth of Rhaenyra's adultery and then the throne "rejects" Rhaenyra every time she sits on it. Aegon III was only taken when literally everyone else was dead. If there is a magic in the Iron Throne, it's a sexist magic which puts men over women. And don't tell me that this was a history written by men so of course they'd say that; it was Rhaenyra's dynasty which endured, they would have had every reason to kiss Rhaenyra's ass in the history books as being the rightful ruler who was wrongfully robbed of her throne. 

Not sure why Rhaenyra the adulteress was unworthy of the Iron Throne and Aegon II the adulterer was. There is a reason why this guy never again sat the Iron Throne after his so-called 'restoration'.

They may actually say that this is the case. Aegon III sees his mother as the rightful queen, and Alyssa Velaryon and Jaehaerys I viewed Aegon the Uncrowned as the rightful king, too. Historians still count Maegor the Usurper as king, just as they do count Aegon the Usurper and Robert the Usurper, but the truth is pretty obvious there.

Those Iron Throne signs are all bogus. They are accidents by clumsy, nervous, and stupid people who are then used as color in the various slanders and calumnies that are told about them. No gods nor fate caused Viserys I to cut himself - that was the consequence of his fatness, his age, his many afflictions, and perhaps even his agitation when he delivered that sentence. 

And nobody actually interprets this as 'a sign'. Readers do - and that's what George wants. But he doesn't really send a message there or makes a statement himself.

1 hour ago, Canon Claude said:

Personally, I think the Brothel Queens story is calumny but Rhaenyra was definitely vindictive. Her reign on the Iron Throne was filled with beheadings and accusations of treason. If she'd had the chance, she would have definitely done something cruel to Alicent. I can only assume that she kept Alicent alive as a hostage for leverage (for all the good that did her anyway), or else she wanted Alicent to live long enough to see her enemy rule as Queen.

She had all the chances in the world - and apparently did nothing to her. Alicent was never used or referred to as hostage. And neither was Helaena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been giving this idea some thought, and frankly, the only solution I can think of which solves the issue of succession without any bloodshed is if Rhaenyra and Aegon II got married like Alicent suggested and crowned joint rulers a la Mary and William III of England. Rhaenyra would have to deal with a pretty bad husband, given what we know about him, but as long as they were marked equal rulers, there'd be no need for the Dance of Dragons to occur.

The second-closest situation I can think of is that Rhaenyra and her family happen to be in King's Landing when Viserys dies, but I figure that would devolve into violence too, since Rhaenyra would be in the grips of childbirth, so plotters might still try to capture her or perform a brutal coup which wipes out her family in one fell swoop. Nobody would be able to fight the greens if Rhaenyra's whole branch dies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Canon Claude

If Rhaenyra was wed to Aegon II the Dance would still happen. It would just be between Rhaenyra + Aegon II and Daemon + Corlys.

What makes you say that? Aegon and Rhaenyra would have nothing to gain from warring on their partner, they’d both be the parent of the heir to the Iron Throne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Canon Claude

If Rhaenyra was wed to Aegon II the Dance would still happen. It would just be between Rhaenyra + Aegon II and Daemon + Corlys.

Why would Daemon and Corlys war against the Iron Throne? Corlys was literally the only person in Westeros who counted Daemon as a friend, any attempt to fight would have led to disaster. And besides, who would they be trying to put on the Iron Throne? Daemon? Rhaenys? Would House Velaryon take over? Nobody would support that. This isn't like the Dance of the Dragons, it's two rogue dragons and a substantial fleet against the multiple united dragons of House Targaryen's main branch. The fighting wouldn't touch most of Westeros in that scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say Maris Baratheon was struck by a fever the day Aemond and Luke went to Storms End and its possible (if unlikely) the war doesn't evolve beyond the war of quills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Say Maris Baratheon was struck by a fever the day Aemond and Luke went to Storms End and its possible (if unlikely) the war doesn't evolve beyond the war of quills.

Why, though? Two people had been declared to be ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, both with spouses and both with heirs. By that point, how would one of them possibly be able to back down? 

Also, I find it hard to believe that Maris Baratheon was the only reason why Aemond attacked Lucerys. Aemond was itching for blood from the start of the war. I think something would have had to be done long before that point, probably even before Aemond lost his eye.

Edited by James Steller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@James Steller

I agree.

@Canon Claude

If Daemon doesn't marry Rhaenyra a lot changes.

1. How many kids, if any, do Aegon II and Rhaenyra have together?

2. Who does Laenor marry, if anyone? Even if the marriage isn't consummated that still brings another house into the Velaryon circle.

3. Who does Daemon marry, assuming Laena dies as in OTL?

4. Who are Rhaena and Baela betrothed to and does either one of them claim Vhagar, again, assuming their mom dies giving birth to that stillborn son? If so, which dragon does Aemond claim?

5. Rhaenys and Corlys were rich, powerful, shrewd, and ambitious, with a legitimate claim to the Iron Throne, albeit one that had lost at the Great Council but 101 AC and 129 AC are very different years so who really knows?

6. Daemon wished to be king most of his life and without a marriage to Rhaenyra to draw him into the Black/Green conflict on her side he would remain an outside enemy to both her and Aegon II.

7. Who does Helaena marry, does she have children, and does she claim Dreamfyre?

8. If Daemon remarries does he have any children by his third wife?

9. Without the "Strong" boys stoking the ambitions of Corlys's nephews they probably tow the line, which means Corlys has up to seven more pawns in the marriage game.

10. If Aegon II marries Rhaenyra there will be in-fighting over the division of power between them.

11. If Aegon II marries Rhaenyra then they'll probably stay in KL, which means the Velaryons could easily blockade the capital and capture Dragonstone, which would give them access to Silverwing, Vermithor, and Sheepstealer (assuming Grey Ghost and the Cannibal remain untamed as in OTL).

To conclude, Daemon and Corlys could have in such a scenario the support of at least a dozen houses by marriage alone, the Velaryon fleet, and Meleys as well as Caraxes for a certainty, with Vhagar, Seasmoke, Moondancer, Silverwing, Vermithor, and Sheepstealer also being potential assets, which is more than enough to start a civil war.

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

×