CAllDSmith Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 What is the in-universe reason for how the King's are currently counted? Why is it this? Not this? Or this? Aegon the Conquorer (1-37) Aegon the Conqueror (1-37) same as second column Aenys I (37-42) Aenys I (37-42) Rhaenyra (129-130) Maegor the Cruel (42-48) Aegon the Uncrowned (42-43) Aegon the Dragonsbane (130-157) Jaehaerys the Conciliator (48-103) Viserys the Unfortunate (43-44) same from here. Viserys I (103-129) Jaehaerys the Conciliator (44-103) Aegon II (129-131) Viserys II (103-129) Aegon the Dragonsbane (131-157) same fro.m here Daeron the Young Dragon (157-161) Baelor the Blessed (161-171) Viserys II (171-172) Aegon the Unworthy (172-184) Daeron the Good (184-209) Aerys I (209-221) Maekar I (221-233) Aegon the Unlikely (233-259) Jaehaerys II (259-262) Aerys the Mad King (262-283) Who is it who is determining the official count, why do they legitimize Maegor the Cruel? Is it based on who the High Septon recognizes? If not why wouldn't one of Rhaenyra's descendants de-legitimize Aegon II? As this pertains to the future, when/if House Targaryen reclaims the Iron Throne do Robert, Joffrey and Tommen continue to count or will it be reworked to account for Targaryen succession? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 I'm unhappy with the appendix king list being seen as 'official'. Granted, George gave us the appendix of AGoT long before he flashed out the details of the reigns of the various kings and the circumstances they inherited (for instance, Aenys-Maegor-Jaehaerys could have been technically completely peaceful with the early Targaryens not having properly established male primogeniture or there being some sort of special case scenario due to the fact that the Conqueror had two wives and sons from each), but I find the way Rhaenyra is presented during the Dance - as a Queen Regnant who actually deposed her usurping half-brother for a time and had all the proper symbols of power in her grasp - as so strong that she cannot really be counted as a pretender. She was crowned Queen Regnant on Dragonstone, she was the universally acknowledged Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne by decree of her royal father, she eventually took KL and the Red Keep and sat the Iron Throne. Usually, historians - be their scholars or court officials/propagandists - usually count such rulers as legitimate who actually owned all the symbols of legitimate power as well as such who actually wielded power. This is the reason, I'd think, that Maegor the Cruel is seen as a usurper - he usurped the throne, there is no question about that - but not a pretender - because he actually ruled as king for over six years. His rival Aegon the Uncrowned was neither crowned nor anointed nor did he ever sit the Iron Throne of his royal grandfather and father. That's why he is correctly seen as a pretender rather than a king who ruled despite the fact that he definitely was the rightful heir, the prince who should have been king but wasn't. His brother Viserys never laid claim to the Iron Throne so he is neither a pretender nor a claimant and most definitely not the rightful king - because the proper heirs of a King Aegon the Uncrowned would have been his daughters Aerea and Rhaella, not his younger brother. All Viserys was before his untimely death was the acknowledged heir of his usurping uncle, Maegor the Cruel. An anti-women propaganda king list would only count Aegon II among the proper rulers, but an impartial king list covering the fact would the rulers during the Dance count as following: Aegon II (129-130 AC, deposed) Rhaenyra I (130 AC) Aegon II (131 AC, reinstated) One could also add 'various pretenders (Trystane Truefyre, Gaemon Palehair, Hugh Hammer)' for 130 AC, but those never properly ruled. Because that's simply what the historical facts are. It is a fact that Rhaenyra sat the Iron Throne and ruled the Seven Kingdoms pretty much to the same degree Aegon II did during his time on the Iron Throne. Neither of them ever ruled all their domains, of course, because they were fighting a war. In fact, George subtly implies that neither Aegon II nor Rhaenyra are proper monarchs since neither was actually anointed by the High Septon. Aegon II was crowned by Cole and anointed by Septon Eustace and Rhaenyra was crowned by Daemon (nothing of an anointing on her part, but there would have been a castle septon on Dragonstone, not to mention that she could have commanded Eustace to anoint her later in KL). It is also the case that Aegon II burned all the decrees and proclamations of the three kings who ruled during the Moon of Madness, but not those of his half-sister. In fact, there are decrees of Rhaenyra which obviously survived her reign like the legitimation of Addam and Alyn of Hull. That Rhaenyra is not properly counted in that capacity is doubly vexing because her sons ruled after her - and see their claims as being derived from her not their father (nobody ever says Aegon III also had a claim through Prince Daemon). Aegon III also seems to make it clear that his mother ruled as queen when he acknowledges that Lord Manderly served her well. I expect that the various Blackfyre pretenders are also counted as such because none of them ever sat the Iron Throne. Daemon I and Haegon and Daemon III definitely had coronations (possibly Daemon II as well), cementing their status as mere pretenders. In fact, Viserys III would also be a pretender in comparison to Robert Baratheon since he was crowned and the rightful heir but never sat the Iron Throne, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 It's all messed up to me. Can someone please explain to me why Maegor usurped Aegon, his own nephew. At that point, the Targaryens were tight-knit. Maegor always seemed to have gotten along with his brother and he was originally supposed to marry Rhaena (not that it was guaranteed to really work given that she's almost assuredly gay) I don't get it. What caused Maegor (and Visenya too for that matter) to change so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The hairy bear Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 On 5/8/2019 at 2:56 PM, CAllDSmith said: Who is it who is determining the official count, why do they legitimize Maegor the Cruel? Is it based on who the High Septon recognizes? If not why wouldn't one of Rhaenyra's descendants de-legitimize Aegon II? Those official lists are kept by maesters, an organization composed exclusively by men, and hardly progressive. One can see why they would count Maegor, who ruled for a lot of time, but not Rhaenyra, who could only hold King's Landing for a month. As for why none of Rhaenyra's immediate descendants intervened to have her included, Aegon was clearly traumatized about the civil war and probably was terrified of opening new wounds, and Viserys himself only became king because the "official list" excluded women (otherwise the crown would have gone to Daenna the Defiant). From this point on, if you accept Rhaenyra's claim to the throne, then the Blackfyre's claim suddenly becomes stronger (since Daenna the Defiant would become queen instead of Viserys II). 49 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said: Can someone please explain to me why Maegor usurped Aegon, his own nephew. At that point, the Targaryens were tight-knit. Maegor always seemed to have gotten along with his brother and he was originally supposed to marry Rhaena (not that it was guaranteed to really work given that she's almost assuredly gay) I don't get it. What caused Maegor (and Visenya too for that matter) to change so much? I don't really think that Maegor got along with his brother. We are told that they didn't spend much time together as children (Aenys traveled with his Aegon, Maegor stayed with his mother). Their interests and personalities were completely different. May be they weren't fighting each other, but I don't think Maegor ever respected or loved Aenys. Maegor seems to be the greatest champion of Aenys during the crisis that follows Aegon's death, but he was also supporting his own interests here. And didn't take long for the two brothers to fight afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 16 minutes ago, The hairy bear said: I don't really think that Maegor got along with his brother. We are told that they didn't spend much time together as children (Aenys traveled with his Aegon, Maegor stayed with his mother). Their interests and personalities were completely different. May be they weren't fighting each other, but I don't think Maegor ever respected or loved Aenys. Maegor seems to be the greatest champion of Aenys during the many crises that follows Aegon's death, but he was also supporting his own interests here. And didn't take long for the two brothers to fight afterwards. But they fought over Maegor's love life and desire to have children. Even if Aenys didn't personally like or respect Maegor's polygamy, it's something that Aenys as his brother should have publicly defended or, at the very least, ignored. Especially since Aenys himself is a product of a polygamous marriage and his two eldest children decided to marry each other. While I agree that Maegor should have abdicated in favor of Aegon the Uncrowned (on the condition that he be made Hand of the King) once Aegon came of age and made a claim on the Iron Throne, I'm struggling with Maegor's issue with Aegon. Why did he choose to fight him? Why didn't he just name Aegon his heir? And why would Jaehaerys usurp the rights of his nieces, Aerea and Rhaella? The Faith Militant was bad news for any Targaryen king...especially Aegon and Rhaena, the King and Queen to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syl of Syl Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said: But they fought over Maegor's love life and desire to have children. Even if Aenys didn't personally like or respect Maegor's polygamy, it's something that Aenys as his brother should have publicly defended or, at the very least, ignored. Especially since Aenys himself is a product of a polygamous marriage and his two eldest children decided to marry each other. While I agree that Maegor should have abdicated in favor of Aegon the Uncrowned (on the condition that he be made Hand of the King) once Aegon came of age and made a claim on the Iron Throne, I'm struggling with Maegor's issue with Aegon. Why did he choose to fight him? Why didn't he just name Aegon his heir? And why would Jaehaerys usurp the rights of his nieces, Aerea and Rhaella? The Faith Militant was bad news for any Targaryen king...especially Aegon and Rhaena, the King and Queen to be. I don't think the laws of succession had been clearly established yet for the Targaryens. Maegor saw himself as superior to his brother in many ways. He clearly thought he was his father's true son, as evidenced by his insistence on keeping Blackfyre and his desire to ride Balerion once he became a dragonrider. It isn't until the Great Council during Jaehaerys's reign, that the order of succession really started to become established in the way that most of the Seven Kingdoms seem to practice it. We don't know necessarily how things worked back in Old Valyria. Maegor may have seen himself as the rightful heir to his father's realm once his older brother was dead. I think it's tricky because while Aenys is the older son, Visenya is actually the eldest of the siblings. It's possible that Visenya herself was bitter that Aegon ruled the kingdom despite Visenya being the eldest. Before Maegor's exile, he had been informally the Prince of Dragonstone. After, Aenys names Aegon the Prince of Dragonstone which begins the tradition of the heir holding this title. It could also be that Maegor took this as an additional slight, as he may have seen Dragonstone as his birthright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrish Lace Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 On 5/8/2019 at 2:56 PM, CAllDSmith said: Who is it who is determining the official count, why do they legitimize Maegor the Cruel? Is it based on who the High Septon recognizes? If not why wouldn't one of Rhaenyra's descendants de-legitimize Aegon II? The count is determined by consensus among the nobility. It was easier for nobility to accept Maegor as King and move on. Maegor the Cruel was a usurper, yes, but he spent almost a decade ruling - conferring titles and lands. If Maegor was no King, Harrenhall, lands in the Reach and probably a few more things would have to be re-distributed. Jaehaerys didn't want rock the boat, given how many of his benefactors were former Maegor supporters. Rhaenyra discredited herself with paranoia and brutality. Her remaining backers - the Late Lord Stark and Late Lady Arryn, fresh out of jail Corlys Velaryon - were not too keen on promoting her rights. Aegon III, being closest male relative to Aegon II, was a natural successor in accordance to Great Council's decision. He also had neither power nor will to reverse post-war settlement, Daeron was half-Velaryon, Baelor didn't care. And once Viserys II seized the throne ahead of his niece, any attempt to recognize Rhaenyra's rights would undermine his (and his successors') right to rule. Same goes for Robert, Joffrey, Stannis and others - whoever is going to be palatable to the nobility is going to land in the list. I suspect Robert will remain - otherwise a decade of legislation and decision-making will go out of the window and it's not something even potential Targaryens would like to see. Too much hassle, to many opportunities for stirring shit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 28 minutes ago, Syl of Syl said: I don't think the laws of succession had been clearly established yet for the Targaryens. Maegor saw himself as superior to his brother in many ways. He clearly thought he was his father's true son, as evidenced by his insistence on keeping Blackfyre and his desire to ride Balerion once he became a dragonrider. It isn't until the Great Council during Jaehaerys's reign, that the order of succession really started to become established in the way that most of the Seven Kingdoms seem to practice it. We don't know necessarily how things worked back in Old Valyria. Maegor may have seen himself as the rightful heir to his father's realm once his older brother was dead. I think it's tricky because while Aenys is the older son, Visenya is actually the eldest of the siblings. It's possible that Visenya herself was bitter that Aegon ruled the kingdom despite Visenya being the eldest. Before Maegor's exile, he had been informally the Prince of Dragonstone. After, Aenys names Aegon the Prince of Dragonstone which begins the tradition of the heir holding this title. It could also be that Maegor took this as an additional slight, as he may have seen Dragonstone as his birthright. But Visenya did, in fact, rule the kingdom. And she supported Aegon every step of the way. Aegon worked closely with her and Orys and only took direct charge of the kingdom when he absolutely had to. He spent most of his time on Dragonstone while Visenya (and Rhaenys when she was alive) ruled from and held court in King's Landing. I think this division in the family all boils down to the fact that Aenys was a bad king, both ill-prepared and weak. Had Aenys been good or wise, he would have stood by his brother against House Hightower (is anyone noticing a trend with the Hightower family?) and the High Septon, resolved to reign Maegor discreetly and take a dragon for himself. If he was truly left with no course but to exile Maegor, he should tried to help Maegor carve out his own kingdom on the Stepstones or in Essos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 18 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: The count is determined by consensus among the nobility. It was easier for nobility to accept Maegor as King and move on. Maegor the Cruel was a usurper, yes, but he spent almost a decade ruling - conferring titles and lands. If Maegor was no King, Harrenhall, lands in the Reach and probably a few more things would have to be re-distributed. Jaehaerys didn't want rock the boat, given how many of his benefactors were former Maegor supporters. Rhaenyra discredited herself with paranoia and brutality. Her remaining backers - the Late Lord Stark and Late Lady Arryn, fresh out of jail Corlys Velaryon - were not too keen on promoting her rights. Aegon III had neither power nor will to reverse post-war settlement, Daeron was half-Velaryon, Baelor didn't care. And once Viserys II seized the throne ahead of his niece, any attempt to recognize Rhaenyra's rights would undermine his (and his successors') right to rule. If Rhaenyra discredited herself, then Maegor himself should have been discredited too based on the logical. Why would the original Maegor be given legitimacy even though he was cruel and detestable but the female Maegor doesn't get the legitimacy on account for the fact that she is paranoid? And rightfully so, given the fact that the won was far from over. If Jaehaerys was truly a wise man who didn't want to rock the boat, he should have married Aerea. It would have saved him, Alysanne and maybe even Aerea a lot of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syl of Syl Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 I think the issue of Rhaenyra is that her rule was never truly undisputed. Aegon II was crowned first and survived Rhaenyra. The Dance of the Dragons was a civil war as well as a war of succession. Although Aegon II was the usurper, he was the one to hold the throne first and last, so in a lot of ways he was the winner. The list of rulers is a thing that historians do. I think it is legitimate to look back on the time of the Dance and say one was the King and the other was disputing his crown. Just as Daeron was king while Daemon was the rebel. Aegon the Usurper's reign is disputed for it's entirety, so I think it would always be fair to remember that his rule was disputed by Rhaenyra and the blacks. But in the end, I guess you have to pick one if you want to have an "official" list of uninterrupted rulers of the Seven Kingdoms. The truth of history is always going to be quite different from a list such as this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrish Lace Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 31 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said: If Rhaenyra discredited herself, then Maegor himself should have been discredited too Discredited Maegor ruled Westeros as a sole monarch for a decade, leaving a corresponding amount of decisions - land grants, titles, allocation etc. Rhaenyra's only decision that carried over was Alyn's legitimization - and even that one had to be confirmed/re-issued by Aegon III's regency council. At certain point overturning many years of legislation and decision-making becomes too much of a hassle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syl of Syl Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 35 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said: But Visenya did, in fact, rule the kingdom. And she supported Aegon every step of the way. Aegon worked closely with her and Orys and only took direct charge of the kingdom when he absolutely had to. Aegon was always king. Of course, Visenya was a powerful person as Queen and later Dowager Queen. But she respected her brother is a way that she never respected her nephew. Like you say, Aenys was something of a weak ruler. I don't think Maegor respected his cousin either. He got some of these feelings from his mother for sure. He's everything that Aenys is not. In a lot of ways, they are two extremes of the Targaryen spectrum. It may not seem the right thing to have done in hindsight, but I'm sure Maegor thought he was entitled to act the way he did, and I certainly think we're given enough backstory to believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Myrish Lace said: Discredited Maegor ruled Westeros as a sole monarch for a decade, leaving a corresponding amount of decisions - land grants, titles, allocation etc. Rhaenyra's only decision that carried over was Alyn's legitimization - and even that one had to be confirmed/re-issued by Aegon III's regency council. At certain point overturning many years of legislation and decision-making becomes too much of a hassle. True. Is that why Jaehaerys made Queen Elinor roam the Seven Kingdoms like a barefoot, penniless septa? A way of de-legitimizing her queenly status and breaking her spirit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAllDSmith Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 3 hours ago, Myrish Lace said: The count is determined by consensus among the nobility. It was easier for nobility to accept Maegor as King and move on. Maegor the Cruel was a usurper, yes, but he spent almost a decade ruling - conferring titles and lands. If Maegor was no King, Harrenhall, lands in the Reach and probably a few more things would have to be re-distributed. Jaehaerys didn't want rock the boat, given how many of his benefactors were former Maegor supporters. Rhaenyra discredited herself with paranoia and brutality. Her remaining backers - the Late Lord Stark and Late Lady Arryn, fresh out of jail Corlys Velaryon - were not too keen on promoting her rights. Aegon III, being closest male relative to Aegon II, was a natural successor in accordance to Great Council's decision. He also had neither power nor will to reverse post-war settlement, Daeron was half-Velaryon, Baelor didn't care. And once Viserys II seized the throne ahead of his niece, any attempt to recognize Rhaenyra's rights would undermine his (and his successors') right to rule. Same goes for Robert, Joffrey, Stannis and others - whoever is going to be palatable to the nobility is going to land in the list. I suspect Robert will remain - otherwise a decade of legislation and decision-making will go out of the window and it's not something even potential Targaryens would like to see. Too much hassle, to many opportunities for stirring shit up. The italics have never be established. The bold should be self-evident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 9 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said: It's all messed up to me. Can someone please explain to me why Maegor usurped Aegon, his own nephew. At that point, the Targaryens were tight-knit. Maegor always seemed to have gotten along with his brother and he was originally supposed to marry Rhaena (not that it was guaranteed to really work given that she's almost assuredly gay) I don't get it. What caused Maegor (and Visenya too for that matter) to change so much? Ambition and lust for power. Not to mention the falling out Aenys and Maegor had over Alys Harroway. The fact that the Faith Militant had effectively deposed King Aenys and was actually besieging Prince Aegon at Crakehall should also have played a role. But overall, Visenya was of the opinion that Aenys should have never ruled. She was the Kingmaker, calling Maegor back to usurp the throne. 8 hours ago, The hairy bear said: Those official lists are kept by maesters, an organization composed exclusively by men, and hardly progressive. One can see why they would count Maegor, who ruled for a lot of time, but not Rhaenyra, who could only hold King's Landing for a month. What list do you mean here? The original appendix of AGoT giving us the Targaryen kings, etc. isn't an in-universe source. As such it should reflect the facts as they *are*, not as historians or otherwise biased people should present them. But even in-universe historians and biased people would and should count Rhaenyra as a ruler since she basically sat the Iron Throne for a time. I mean, yes, she is based on Empress Matilda who is also not counted as a proper English queen, but that is because Matilda never had a coronation. Rhaenyra was crowned and Rhaenyra sat the Iron Throne. She was more than just a pretender. You can still say that Aegon II was the rightful king and all but any sort of document which actually covers the facts of the Dance would look as I laid out above. Aegon II did not rule from 129-131 AC, he merely ruled from 129-130 AC, was deposed in 130 AC, and restored in 131 AC. A pretender is usually a person who only pretends to a throne. He or she doesn't sit it or does proper ruling. Quote As for why none of Rhaenyra's immediate descendants intervened to have her included, Aegon was clearly traumatized about the civil war and probably was terrified of opening new wounds, and Viserys himself only became king because the "official list" excluded women (otherwise the crown would have gone to Daenna the Defiant). From this point on, if you accept Rhaenyra's claim to the throne, then the Blackfyre's claim suddenly becomes stronger (since Daenna the Defiant would become queen instead of Viserys II). That would only make sense if we were to assume such an official list was made later during the reign. Aegon III, for instance, has no reason to not count his mother as a ruling monarch. The same goes for Daeron I and Baelor I. Also, a single female monarch doesn't mean women cannot be passed over. Rhaenyra Targaryen was duly anointed Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne - but slutty Daena and the other imprisoned sisters were most definitely not the duly anointed heirs of King Baelor the Blessed. And it is quite clear that in-universe historical facts trump propaganda. Alyssa Velaryon and Jaehaerys I did not erase Maegor the Cruel's kingship from history despite the fact that they did see Aegon the Uncrowned as the rightful king. If they didn't do that, I see little reason why Aegon III and his successor should have erased Rhaenyra who was actually not 'Rhaenyra the Uncrowned'. She was crowned queen and she sat the Iron Throne, unlike Aegon the Uncrowned. She is a different league. 7 hours ago, Syl of Syl said: Maegor may have seen himself as the rightful heir to his father's realm once his older brother was dead. I think it's tricky because while Aenys is the older son, Visenya is actually the eldest of the siblings. It's possible that Visenya herself was bitter that Aegon ruled the kingdom despite Visenya being the eldest. But such things are never actually cited to strengthen Maegor's claim. And they do confirm that the Lords of Dragonstone also practiced male primogeniture rather than equal primogeniture. Quote Before Maegor's exile, he had been informally the Prince of Dragonstone. After, Aenys names Aegon the Prince of Dragonstone which begins the tradition of the heir holding this title. It could also be that Maegor took this as an additional slight, as he may have seen Dragonstone as his birthright. Dragonstone was still very much a royal residence at that time. King Aenys kept court there and Maegor's title was just informal. Still, it was a slight to Maegor that Aenys granted the title to his heir. 7 hours ago, Myrish Lace said: The count is determined by consensus among the nobility. It was easier for nobility to accept Maegor as King and move on. There is no textual evidence that anybody asks the nobility to decide who is a legitimate ruler. Quote Maegor the Cruel was a usurper, yes, but he spent almost a decade ruling - conferring titles and lands. If Maegor was no King, Harrenhall, lands in the Reach and probably a few more things would have to be re-distributed. Jaehaerys didn't want rock the boat, given how many of his benefactors were former Maegor supporters. But that could have been rather easily done by retroactively claiming that all of Maegor's decrees and laws - or at least the convenient ones - are seen as Aegon the Uncrowned's proclamations. That's how damnatio memoriae works in the real world. 6 hours ago, Syl of Syl said: I think the issue of Rhaenyra is that her rule was never truly undisputed. Aegon II was crowned first and survived Rhaenyra. The Dance of the Dragons was a civil war as well as a war of succession. Although Aegon II was the usurper, he was the one to hold the throne first and last, so in a lot of ways he was the winner. The list of rulers is a thing that historians do. I think it is legitimate to look back on the time of the Dance and say one was the King and the other was disputing his crown. Just as Daeron was king while Daemon was the rebel. This helps a little bit to decide who was 'the one who won the personal struggle' (in the end, though, it was actually the late Rhaenyra who won considering the army who crushed the Stromlanders showed her banners, making it perfectly clear who they were fighting for), but it doesn't change the historical facts that Rhaenyra did rule for half a year. And Aegon II lost, too. He even lost three times considering he was forced to accept Aegon the Younger as his legal heir and was then defeated in the field by Rhaenyra's people to be eventually removed by men loyal to King Aegon III. It is just false to say that she never ruled and was a pretender in the same sense as all the others, people who weren't crowned and/or never sat the Iron Throne. 6 hours ago, Myrish Lace said: Discredited Maegor ruled Westeros as a sole monarch for a decade, leaving a corresponding amount of decisions - land grants, titles, allocation etc. Rhaenyra's only decision that carried over was Alyn's legitimization - and even that one had to be confirmed/re-issued by Aegon III's regency council. The latter is factually wrong. The regents confirmed Alyn Velaryon's succession to Driftmark after Lord Corlys' death, they never ruled on Rhaenyra's decree legitimizing the Hull boys. Other things decreed by Rhaenyra - like the various taxes her Master of Coin Bartimos Celtigar (re-)introduced - were only struck down by Ser Tyland Lannister during the Regency, meaning that there is a legal continuity there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syl of Syl Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: This helps a little bit to decide who was 'the one who won the personal struggle' (in the end, though, it was actually the late Rhaenyra who won considering the army who crushed the Stromlanders showed her banners, making it perfectly clear who they were fighting for), but it doesn't change the historical facts that Rhaenyra did rule for half a year. And Aegon II lost, too. He even lost three times considering he was forced to accept Aegon the Younger as his legal heir and was then defeated in the field by Rhaenyra's people to be eventually removed by men loyal to King Aegon III. It is just false to say that she never ruled and was a pretender in the same sense as all the others, people who weren't crowned and/or never sat the Iron Throne. I agree that Rhaenyra ought to count on such a list. I am just trying to take the perspective of a historian, say Maester Gyldayn for example, trying to compile such a list. I would consider that the rule was disputed for the entirety of the Dance which wasn't truly over until both Aegon II and Rhaenyra were both dead and Aegon III was crowned. I think the choice is either to place an interregnum period to mark the Dance of the Dragons and list the two claimants, or to choose one to list while the other is footnoted as disputing the claim. The latter choice is the one made in the Appendix of GoT, which is a fine choice. Personally, I would choose the interregnum, considering the details we've since learnt of how the Dance played out, but I think the other choice is still fine. I understand that Rhaenyra and Aegon II both were crowned and sat the Iron Throne, but I don't think it is accurate to say that either actually ruled the entire realm, as it was before or after the Dance, at any time during their respective reigns. Their rule was continually disputed and the realm only became whole again under Aegon III. Being King (or Queen) is more than just having a crown and sitting a throne - it is receiving fealty from the Lords of your land which didn't happen for either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 23 hours ago, Syl of Syl said: I agree that Rhaenyra ought to count on such a list. I am just trying to take the perspective of a historian, say Maester Gyldayn for example, trying to compile such a list. I think Gyldayn would actually try to go with the facts, not propaganda. And he himself gives us ample evidence that maesters actually prefer to argue in favor of the legal concepts that should prevail rather than brute force (e.g. the maesters having the view that Aegon the Uncrowned was the rightful king and Maegor simply a bloody usurper who never was a proper king, or the Goodbrother maester insisting that Asha should succeed Balon because she was his daughter and his chosen heir and thus came before any of Balon's brothers) I actually have a hard time maesters discrediting the fact that Rhaenyra was the rightful heir. Her father named her heir and the Realm accepted that back in 105 AC. It is a pretty long way from anointed heir to evil pretender... But the list we get in AGoT and FaB isn't an in-universe list. It is George's list. And considering how he portrays all the other pretenders he should have neither made Rhaenyra Viserys I's chosen heir nor Aegon II's half-brother with more Targaryen blood, nor allowed her to ever ascend the Iron Throne or rule over KL and, at least, half the Realm. All that undermines her status as a pretender, especially in comparison to the other pretenders we met in FaB and TWoIaF. 23 hours ago, Syl of Syl said: I would consider that the rule was disputed for the entirety of the Dance which wasn't truly over until both Aegon II and Rhaenyra were both dead and Aegon III was crowned. I think the choice is either to place an interregnum period to mark the Dance of the Dragons and list the two claimants, or to choose one to list while the other is footnoted as disputing the claim. The latter choice is the one made in the Appendix of GoT, which is a fine choice. Such an interregnum scenario is much better. And George really undermined the restoration of Aegon II after Rhaenyra's death by not allowing him to ever ascend the Iron Throne again, so he wasn't a proper king afterwards, just as he wanted considering that he was never crowned and anointed by the High Septon - which all the kings from Aegon I to Viserys I were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syl of Syl Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: But the list we get in AGoT and FaB isn't an in-universe list. It is George's list. The fact that it shows up in FaB in the same form, kind of makes it Gyldayn's list tho, doesn't it. That's semi-in-universe. 21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: I actually have a hard time maesters discrediting the fact that Rhaenyra was the rightful heir. Her father named her heir and the Realm accepted that back in 105 AC. I agree that a typical maester would see Rhaenyra as the rightful heir and Aegon as the usurper. In the moment, I agree with what you are saying. From the perspective of a maester looking back on history, I don't think it is discrediting the fact that Rhaenyra was the rightful heir to also acknowledge the fact that her rights were usurped by her half-brother. That's just what happened. It doesn't make it right, just as it wasn't right when Maegor usurped the rights of his nephew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaith Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 Since a lot of this argument seems to be coming down to whether Rhaenyra is counted or not, I am going to go with my personal theory that the rather Green Hightowers, as Defenders of the Citadel, made sure that Aegon II's request to remove all references to Rhaenyra as queen was fulfilled for quite some time until it became tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullrout Posted May 11, 2019 Share Posted May 11, 2019 On 5/8/2019 at 8:56 AM, CAllDSmith said: What is the in-universe reason for how the King's are currently counted? Why is it this? Not this? Or this? Aegon the Conquorer (1-37) Aegon the Conqueror (1-37) same as second column Aenys I (37-42) Aenys I (37-42) Rhaenyra (129-130) Maegor the Cruel (42-48) Aegon the Uncrowned (42-43) Aegon the Dragonsbane (130-157) Jaehaerys the Conciliator (48-103) Viserys the Unfortunate (43-44) same from here. Viserys I (103-129) Jaehaerys the Conciliator (44-103) Aegon II (129-131) Viserys II (103-129) Aegon the Dragonsbane (131-157) same fro.m here Daeron the Young Dragon (157-161) Baelor the Blessed (161-171) Viserys II (171-172) Aegon the Unworthy (172-184) Daeron the Good (184-209) Aerys I (209-221) Maekar I (221-233) Aegon the Unlikely (233-259) Jaehaerys II (259-262) Aerys the Mad King (262-283) Who is it who is determining the official count, why do they legitimize Maegor the Cruel? Is it based on who the High Septon recognizes? If not why wouldn't one of Rhaenyra's descendants de-legitimize Aegon II? As this pertains to the future, when/if House Targaryen reclaims the Iron Throne do Robert, Joffrey and Tommen continue to count or will it be reworked to account for Targaryen succession? The author considers Viserys a king. The beggar king. He described how Viserys should be depicted to an artist who was drawing each of the Targaryen kings. Viserys and Daenerys are included on the art work of Targaryen monarchs. Rhaegar was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.