How important was it to keep the Blackfyres off the Iron Throne?

[Angel Eyes]

In the early 210s AC, Bloodraven concentrated his efforts on repelling the Blackfyres, seemingly forgetting about the Iron Islands who were threatening the North, Westerlands and Reach. Was it really so important to keep the Blackfyres out and possibly lose parts of three kingdoms?

[The Hoare]

Yes. The Blackfyres would take the entire Westeros, instead of only three kingdoms. Either way, the Iron Islands wouldn't have the means to keep whatever they conquered in the long run.

[James Steller]

I’m Personally, I would have been open to Aenys Blackfyre making his case. He wasn’t trying to pull any tricks, he wasn’t even supported by Bittersteel. Aenys wanted a chance to make his case without weapons or force. And we have no evidence that Aenys would have disputed the decision to reject him if he failed. Bloodraven’s actions against Aenys made me despise him. Say what you will about the other Blackfyres, but they weren’t all bad, and arguably better than a few Targaryens.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

In the early 210s AC, Bloodraven concentrated his efforts on repelling the Blackfyres, seemingly forgetting about the Iron Islands who were threatening the North, Westerlands and Reach. Was it really so important to keep the Blackfyres out and possibly lose parts of three kingdoms?

Dagon Greyjoy did just some raiding, he never crowned himself. Brynden Rivers was the Hand of King Aerys I Targaryen, not of the lords of Westeros, and especially not of some peasants and villagers the shores of the Sunset Sea. He was loyal to the brother he loved - Daeron II Targaryen - and his sons and grandsons, and it was his duty to prevent the pretender's brood from stealing the Targaryen throne.

That said, the Warden of the West and the Warden of the North dealt with the crisis, didn't they? Or they at least tried to deal with it.

And at this point we still have no idea who actually ended the Greyjoy threat. I'd not be surprised if King Aerys I and Bloodraven sent (parts of) the royal navy west to end the Ironborn threat.

Bloodraven really caught the Blackfyres with their pants down at Whitewalls. And while Daemon II was alive and a hostage of the Iron Throne, Bittersteel was in no position to stage an invasion.

1 hour ago, James Steller said:

I’m Personally, I would have been open to Aenys Blackfyre making his case. He wasn’t trying to pull any tricks, he wasn’t even supported by Bittersteel. Aenys wanted a chance to make his case without weapons or force. And we have no evidence that Aenys would have disputed the decision to reject him if he failed. Bloodraven’s actions against Aenys made me despise him. Say what you will about the other Blackfyres, but they weren’t all bad, and arguably better than a few Targaryens.

The issue with that thing is that we don't know any details. We have no idea what kind of man Aenys Blackfyre was, nor how much support he had among the lords - or how much support he could have gained had he been allowed to speak. Yandel claims Bloodraven's Great Council prevented another Dance of the Dragons, but this never made much sense in light of the fact that the only real alternatives to Aegon V were an infant boy with a cruel madman as a father, and a simple girl. Maester Aemon was essentially out of the game, and not exactly keen to challenge his dear brother. In that sense, the Blackfyre claim/cause may have been a greater danger after the death of Maekar then we know or suspect at that point.

A threat Bloodraven ended by showing everybody that flirting with that idea is going to get you killed.

But in general I agree that this was a pretty vile thing, and Bloodraven definitely deserved it to be sent to the Wall for that.

[James Steller]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Dagon Greyjoy did just some raiding, he never crowned himself. Brynden Rivers was the Hand of King Aerys I Targaryen, not of the lords of Westeros, and especially not of some peasants and villagers the shores of the Sunset Sea. He was loyal to the brother he loved - Daeron II Targaryen - and his sons and grandsons, and it was his duty to prevent the pretender's brood from stealing the Targaryen throne.

That said, the Warden of the West and the Warden of the North dealt with the crisis, didn't they? Or they at least tried to deal with it.

And at this point we still have no idea who actually ended the Greyjoy threat. I'd not be surprised if King Aerys I and Bloodraven sent (parts of) the royal navy west to end the Ironborn threat.

Bloodraven really caught the Blackfyres with their pants down at Whitewalls. And while Daemon II was alive and a hostage of the Iron Throne, Bittersteel was in no position to stage an invasion.

The issue with that thing is that we don't know any details. We have no idea what kind of man Aenys Blackfyre was, nor how much support he had among the lords - or how much support he could have gained had he been allowed to speak. Yandel claims Bloodraven's Great Council prevented another Dance of the Dragons, but this never made much sense in light of the fact that the only real alternatives to Aegon V were an infant boy with a cruel madman as a father, and a simple girl. Maester Aemon was essentially out of the game, and not exactly keen to challenge his dear brother. In that sense, the Blackfyre claim/cause may have been a greater danger after the death of Maekar then we know or suspect at that point.

A threat Bloodraven ended by showing everybody that flirting with that idea is going to get you killed.

But in general I agree that this was a pretty vile thing, and Bloodraven definitely deserved it to be sent to the Wall for that.

Bloodraven is hardly the man I would trust to pass any kind of judgment on the Blackfyres that isn’t negative. And I don’t trust Yandel after he suggested that Elia Martell killed her own children.

The simple truth is that a young man asked to speak before the council, was promised safe conduct if he arrived, and was cruelly murdered the second he arrived in good faith. If Aenys Blackfyre really meant any malice or violence, he would never have been so trusting or innocent in his endeavour to simply appeal his blood right to the Iron Throne. 

Bloodraven should have been executed for what he did, be damned the 3 Eyed Raven. 

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Bloodraven is hardly the man I would trust to pass any kind of judgment on the Blackfyres that isn’t negative. And I don’t trust Yandel after he suggested that Elia Martell killed her own children.

Why not? Yandel has a vital interest not to paint House Lannister in too bad a light insofar as the events of the Rebellion are concerned, and we actually don't even know whether he invented stuff there or whether he merely decided to include two rather outlandish rumors that actually float(ed) around in Westeros. But he has no reason to mess with the history of the Targaryens and Blackfyres. For him, those houses are both (essentially) dead and gone. One can tell the truth about (most of) them. The only ones he has to watch his quill would be Aerys II and Rhaegar, not their ancestors, and in their cases only in relation to events connected to the Rebellion, not so much on what they did in the years and decades before that.

9 minutes ago, James Steller said:

The simple truth is that a young man asked to speak before the council, was promised safe conduct if he arrived, and was cruelly murdered the second he arrived in good faith. If Aenys Blackfyre really meant any malice or violence, he would never have been so trusting or innocent in his endeavour to simply appeal his blood right to the Iron Throne. 

Ah, well, don't make the mistake of pretending we have all the pieces there. We don't know why Bloodraven killed Aenys the way he did when he didn't touch Daemon II and (apparently) actually captured Bittersteel rather than killing him after he had won their second duel. Something may have changed along the road. We also don't know what kind of man Aenys Blackfyre was - he definitely was no longer 'a young man' in 233 AC, him being born in the early 190s as Daemon Blackfyre's fifth son makes him a man around forty in 233 AC - he could have been a battle-hardened bad-ass, being responsible for many atrocities during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion. He could have fought alongside his brother Haegon.

Here one also has to consider Shiera (and any children she and Bloodraven may have had) - who eventually disappears. If the Blackfyres and their allies are to be blamed for that, we would have a rather interesting explanation for the escalation of Bloodraven's hatred. Because on the Redgrass Field and at Whitewalls he was harsh but not overly cruel. 

We also don't know whether Bloodraven himself made that call, or whether this was a unanimous decision in House Targaryen (i.e. done with the knowledge and approval of Prince Aegon, little Maegor's guardian - possibly his mother Princess Daenora -, Maester Aemon, and Egg's sons Duncan and Jaehaerys, etc.) for which Bloodraven later just took the blame to protect the reputation of his Crown.

It is also possible that Aenys Blackfyre was neither innocent nor naive but actually planning to use the Great Council as a springboard for a Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion. If he was a great orator who also had many friends among the assembled lords allowing him to speak and present his case could have made him king - or it may have given the assembled lords resenting the idea of a King Aegon V the pretender they needed to challenge Egg as soon as the council was over. Keep in mind that Egg apparently was in dire need of Gerold Lannister's gold to buy himself sufficient votes - and that was in a scenario where his only rivals were infant prince, a simple princess, and a man who wore the chain of a maester and who had made it clear he did not want the crown. One wonders whether Lannister gold would have been enough if the Black Dragon had been a viable alternative to the peasant prince...?

Killing the man trying to pull something like that was very ugly and harsh, but it sent the message that nobody but a Targaryen would sit the Iron Throne.

9 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Bloodraven should have been executed for what he did, be damned the 3 Eyed Raven. 

If it was the petty thing you make it out to be you might have a point. But keep in mind that Aerys I also allowed Bittersteel to go to the Wall - who had twice rebelled against the Targaryens, starting by inciting his own half-brother against his other half-brother, the king. If he didn't have to lose his head over that, one certainly can see why Aegon V didn't take Bloodraven's head over Aenys. Especially if it turned out that Bloodraven was a great asset to House Targaryen throughout the reigns of Aerys I and Maekar (and also to Aegon V, specifically, during the Great Council).

[FictionIsntReal]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ah, well, don't make the mistake of pretending we have all the pieces there. We don't know why Bloodraven killed Aenys the way he did when he didn't touch Daemon II and (apparently) actually captured Bittersteel rather than killing him after he had won their second duel.

Bloodraven & Aerion Brightflame argued that Bittersteel should have been killed. It's possible that after the king rejected their advice and Bittersteel escaped that Bloodraven became more determined to kill any Blackfyres he could catch.

[Megorova]

11 hours ago, James Steller said:

The simple truth is that a young man asked to speak before the council

At that time (in 233 AC) Aenys Blackfyre was minimum 37 years old, maybe even as old as 43.

Daemon I Blackfyre died in 196. All of his 9 children were already born at the time of the First Rebellion. He had seven sons, and at least two daughters. His two oldest children, twin-boys, were born in 184. His next son, Daemon II, was born in 189. Apparently, Calla Blackfyre was born between Aegon/Aemon and Daemon II, in 184-189. Haegon I was born after Daemon II, between 189 and 194. Aenys was born between 190 and 195. His other sister could have been born, same as Calla, in 184-189, or she could have been born prior Aenys, next after Haegon, in 190-194, or she was Aenys' twin and they both were born in 190-195. Last two sons could have been twins, and were born in 196, or between 190 and 196. If they were not twins, then the youngest could have been born in 196, and the one before him in 195. If Aenys was the seventh child, then him and his next brother both could have been born in 195, Aenys in very early 195, and his next brother near the very end of 195, and the last one in 196.

Thus, the latest possible year of Aenys' birth is 195, and the earliest is 190 (or late 189). So in 233, at the time of the Great Council, Aenys was 37-43 years old. Ned Stark in AGOT was 35, and had 5 children. Daemon Blackfyre, at the time of his death was 26 years old, and had 9 children. Jaehaerys II Targaryen died aged 37, at that time he already had a 2-3 years old grandson (Rhaegar, born in 259). Aerys II Targaryen became grandfather, when he was 36 years old.

So Aenys wasn't a young men. He already had adult children, and possibly even several grandchildren.

[James Steller]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why not? Yandel has a vital interest not to paint House Lannister in too bad a light insofar as the events of the Rebellion are concerned, and we actually don't even know whether he invented stuff there or whether he merely decided to include two rather outlandish rumors that actually float(ed) around in Westeros. But he has no reason to mess with the history of the Targaryens and Blackfyres. For him, those houses are both (essentially) dead and gone. One can tell the truth about (most of) them. The only ones he has to watch his quill would be Aerys II and Rhaegar, not their ancestors, and in their cases only in relation to events connected to the Rebellion, not so much on what they did in the years and decades before that.

Ah, well, don't make the mistake of pretending we have all the pieces there. We don't know why Bloodraven killed Aenys the way he did when he didn't touch Daemon II and (apparently) actually captured Bittersteel rather than killing him after he had won their second duel. Something may have changed along the road. We also don't know what kind of man Aenys Blackfyre was - he definitely was no longer 'a young man' in 233 AC, him being born in the early 190s as Daemon Blackfyre's fifth son makes him a man around forty in 233 AC - he could have been a battle-hardened bad-ass, being responsible for many atrocities during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion. He could have fought alongside his brother Haegon.

Here one also has to consider Shiera (and any children she and Bloodraven may have had) - who eventually disappears. If the Blackfyres and their allies are to be blamed for that, we would have a rather interesting explanation for the escalation of Bloodraven's hatred. Because on the Redgrass Field and at Whitewalls he was harsh but not overly cruel. 

We also don't know whether Bloodraven himself made that call, or whether this was a unanimous decision in House Targaryen (i.e. done with the knowledge and approval of Prince Aegon, little Maegor's guardian - possibly his mother Princess Daenora -, Maester Aemon, and Egg's sons Duncan and Jaehaerys, etc.) for which Bloodraven later just took the blame to protect the reputation of his Crown.

It is also possible that Aenys Blackfyre was neither innocent nor naive but actually planning to use the Great Council as a springboard for a Fourth Blackfyre Rebellion. If he was a great orator who also had many friends among the assembled lords allowing him to speak and present his case could have made him king - or it may have given the assembled lords resenting the idea of a King Aegon V the pretender they needed to challenge Egg as soon as the council was over. Keep in mind that Egg apparently was in dire need of Gerold Lannister's gold to buy himself sufficient votes - and that was in a scenario where his only rivals were infant prince, a simple princess, and a man who wore the chain of a maester and who had made it clear he did not want the crown. One wonders whether Lannister gold would have been enough if the Black Dragon had been a viable alternative to the peasant prince...?

Killing the man trying to pull something like that was very ugly and harsh, but it sent the message that nobody but a Targaryen would sit the Iron Throne.

If it was the petty thing you make it out to be you might have a point. But keep in mind that Aerys I also allowed Bittersteel to go to the Wall - who had twice rebelled against the Targaryens, starting by inciting his own half-brother against his other half-brother, the king. If he didn't have to lose his head over that, one certainly can see why Aegon V didn't take Bloodraven's head over Aenys. Especially if it turned out that Bloodraven was a great asset to House Targaryen throughout the reigns of Aerys I and Maekar (and also to Aegon V, specifically, during the Great Council).

Keeping Daemon II alive wasn’t mercy on Bloodraven’s part. Keeping the head of House Blackfyre alive means that Bittersteel can’t crown Daemon’s next brother. 

And to be fair, I’m tempted to believe the worst with Bloodraven. That he not only executed Aenys in cold blood and out of pure malice, and that he did cause the deaths of Valarr Targaryen and his sons. But granted, I don’t pretend like there’s evidence for those beyond heresay and hints. Either way, I believe instinctively that he did those things, based on what’s been written thus far about him and the events during his lifetime.

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Bloodraven & Aerion Brightflame argued that Bittersteel should have been killed. It's possible that after the king rejected their advice and Bittersteel escaped that Bloodraven became more determined to kill any Blackfyres he could catch.

Possible, sure, but not exactly very likely. To do what Bloodraven did later on - assuming he was not strictly motivated by 'reasons of state' - indicates that he must have felt a really strong reason to do that. I mean, he could sent pretty much the same message by presenting them with an Aenys Blackfyre in chains whose fate would be determined by the next Targaryen king, or one who was sent to the Wall lacking a nose, or some such less radical thing. But he actually did kill the guy - which certainly could mean that Bloodraven had finally personal issues with the Blackfyres that went beyond his feud with Bittersteel.

We meet the guy in TMK, and while he is harsh and stern, he is not overly cruel or sadistic, he even has a lot of humor if he is actually Maynard Plumm (which is practically confirmed, I'd say). This guy is not really ruled by emotions or hatred - he just has a more cynical and less idealistic view of statecraft than, say, Baelor Breakspear.

As for Bittersteel after the Third Rebellion: The man was sentenced to death, one imagines, but King Aerys I allowed him to go to the Wall if he wanted to because he didn't want to execute him. Going to the Wall is never a sentence, it is an choice a convict can make to avoid the given sentence. 'The Wall' cannot be your only sentence, or else there is no choice involved in a convict taking the black.

[We see more of this stuff happening in FaB - Jaehaerys I gives men the opportunity to choose between exile and the Wall, for instance, Corlys Velaryon tells Aegon II that his nephew would allow him to take the black if he wanted to do that, etc.]

1 hour ago, James Steller said:

Keeping Daemon II alive wasn’t mercy on Bloodraven’s part. Keeping the head of House Blackfyre alive means that Bittersteel can’t crown Daemon’s next brother. 

Bloodraven never made that call, apparently. He made it clear that it wasn't even his call to decide the fate of Daemon II but that of King Aerys I. And this was not just empty talk considering that King Aerys I also followed his own mind and judgment when he allowed Bittersteel to take the black - going against the wishes of both his Hand and Prince Aerion.

On a personal level it definitely was mercy - Daemon II was neither killed nor sent to the Wall or otherwise punished. And it is also quite clear that Bloodraven could have created a scenario where he could have killed Daemon II at Whitewalls (say, by agreeing to a duel) had he been driven by (irrational) Blackfyre hatred.

And it is not the case that Bittersteel couldn't have crowned a second Blackfyre king while Daemon II was still alive - Aenys Blackfyre also tried to claim the Iron Throne while Daemon III was the Bittersteel-crowned head of House Blackfyre in exile. It would have created confusion and possibly infighting in the Blackfyre camp but it certainly would have been possible - although it is quite clear it would have greatly reduced the chances of Blackfyre success in another invasion.

1 hour ago, James Steller said:

And to be fair, I’m tempted to believe the worst with Bloodraven. That he not only executed Aenys in cold blood and out of pure malice, and that he did cause the deaths of Valarr Targaryen and his sons. But granted, I don’t pretend like there’s evidence for those beyond heresay and hints. Either way, I believe instinctively that he did those things, based on what’s been written thus far about him and the events during his lifetime.

Valarr Targaryen had no sons. He was married to Kiera of Tyrosh but they never had any living offspring. The only guy claiming nonsense like that is some Blackfyre toady septon at Stoney Sept. If you buy stuff like that you cannot fault Yandel for spreading rumors about Elia and her children - after all, up until ASoS nobody ever made an official investigation or declaration relating to the deaths of the princess and her children. All people knew was that Tywin presented the bodies of the royal children to Robert. That can certainly imply that his men killed them, but it could technically also mean they merely found the dead bodies in Maegor's Holdfast.

Or take other nonsense rumors - Stannis skinchanging the boar that killed Robert (sounds ridiculous at first, but Stannis' main advisor is a sorceress), Sansa murdering Joffrey and flying away as a winged wolf, etc.

If Bloodraven were truly such a rotten person it is hardly very likely he would have agreed becoming a greenseer. That is a rather selfless act, turning a man who shaped history for most of his life into a guy who can do little more than observe (and, perhaps, shape obscure dreams, etc.). What our little actual interactions with Bloodraven indicate is that he is a stern man who wasted most of his life keeping the branch of the royal family in power he, for some reason, believed in or felt the stronger emotional connection with. 

In a sense, he is a version of Tyrion that was accepted by his '(foster) father' - Daeron II. He fought dirty at times, etc. but there is no questioning where his true loyalty was. If this had been questionable King Maekar would have taken his head upon his ascension - or he would have thrown him into a black cell the way we once thought he did. He wouldn't have kept him as his Hand.

However, I do expect that the rivalry of Bloodraven and Maekar only ended in the Third Blackfyre Rebellion, and that Maekar only reconciled with his brother, King Aerys I, in 219 AC, considering that Aerys I's third heir - after the deaths of Rhaegel and Aelor was not Maekar but Princess Aelora, but after Aelora's death Aerys I did not name her younger sister, his last remaining niece by Prince Rhaegel, his heir but rather his younger brother Prince Maekar. That this happened imply that the brothers finally reconciled. And it makes sense to assume that the Third Rebellion played a crucial role, since that may very well have been a rather severe threat to House Targaryen itself. The fact that all the Targaryens seem to have been involved in that war attests to that.

[broken one]

I think Kyle the Cat, Glendon Ball and ser Eustace Osgrey say their lines on the "white worm" just to depict small folk dumb talk. Same with Tyrion who's said to be the worst of the Lannisters, a true monster, while he was probably the most humane one. 

I'd add that no matter how fair man Aenys Blackfyre  seemed to be, his election could have resulted with series of executions of Targaryens and Bloodraven himself.

 

[nyser1]

Seems fairly important to stop the overall head of government from being violently overthrown in most circumstances.

[James Steller]

2 hours ago, broken one said:

I think Kyle the Cat, Glendon Ball and ser Eustace Osgrey say their lines on the "white worm" just to depict small folk dumb talk. Same with Tyrion who's said to be the worst of the Lannisters, a true monster, while he was probably the most humane one. 

I'd add that no matter how fair man Aenys Blackfyre  seemed to be, his election could have resulted with series of executions of Targaryens and Bloodraven himself.

 

We don’t know what Aenys would have done as king. That he used open communication and honesty and trust to try and win the throne speaks volumes to me. And as I pointed out before, Bittersteel wasn’t on board with making Aenys the next king, he was grooming Daemon III at the time. Aenys was forsaking his Blackfyre support to fall upon the considerations of the westerosi. That says a lot to me about his character.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, James Steller said:

We don’t know what Aenys would have done as king. That he used open communication and honesty and trust to try and win the throne speaks volumes to me. And as I pointed out before, Bittersteel wasn’t on board with making Aenys the next king, he was grooming Daemon III at the time. Aenys was forsaking his Blackfyre support to fall upon the considerations of the westerosi. That says a lot to me about his character.

You project a lot on a non-entity. We don't know who Aenys Blackfyre was, but we can be sure that he wouldn't have been secure on his throne while any descendants of both Daeron II and Haegon Blackfyre yet lived - meaning that the rise of this would-be king had the potential to devolve into another succession of bloodbaths, civil wars, and invasions.

And on what do you base the belief that Aenys was forsaking 'Blackfyre support'? He himself was a Blackfyre, and the lords supporting him as king would have Blackfyre partisans, too, just as the lords backing Daemon II also were Blackfyre loyalists. We also have no idea what Bittersteel's take was Aenys' bid there - could be he acted against his wishes there, but it could also be he approved of Aenys' attempt to get the throne. We don't know whether Daemon III was a particularly promising Blackfyre pretender in Bittersteel's eyes.

And if one cuts to the heart of this Aenys matter then it is clear why Bloodraven did what he did - as Hand of the King of both Aerys I and Maekar Targaryen - his duty was to them and their heirs first. One certainly could argue that allowing a Blackfyre safe conduct was bordering on treason already, considering that the house had been attainted decades ago and had thrice plunged the Seven Kingdoms into war.

It is certainly imaginable that this was some kind of evil trap - but we don't know that at this point.

[The Young Maester]

Tbh I sometimes believe that the Blackfyres have a better claim to the Iron Throne due to Daemon Blackfyres mother being Daena the defiant, daughter of King Aegon the Dragonbane, and sister to the young dragon. Of course the great council had decided that Daena and her sisters be set aside in favour of their uncle Viserys II. But something tells me if Daemon was a legitimate son of Daena and mayhaps some other noble lord, she might have been made Queen or mayhaps the young daemon might have been made king. 

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

On 6/15/2019 at 2:53 PM, Angel Eyes said:

In the early 210s AC, Bloodraven concentrated his efforts on repelling the Blackfyres, seemingly forgetting about the Iron Islands who were threatening the North, Westerlands and Reach. Was it really so important to keep the Blackfyres out and possibly lose parts of three kingdoms?

Dagon Greyjoy and the IB were raiding not trying to conquer the North, Reach or the Westerlands. So yeah BR being more worried about the Blackfyres makes sense, considering the Blackfyre wanted to overthrow the Targaryens. Whenever the Blackfyre threat wasn't that threating, BR and/or the King dealt with Dagon Greyjoy. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Tbh I sometimes believe that the Blackfyres have a better claim to the Iron Throne due to Daemon Blackfyres mother being Daena the defiant, daughter of King Aegon the Dragonbane, and sister to the young dragon. Of course the great council had decided that Daena and her sisters be set aside in favour of their uncle Viserys II. But something tells me if Daemon was a legitimate son of Daena and mayhaps some other noble lord, she might have been made Queen or mayhaps the young daemon might have been made king. 

There was no Great Council after the death King Baelor I as far as we know at this point. Just some (informal?) deliberations about the succession of the late king, possibly only done by the Small Council.

The question what may have happened if Daena had married and Daemon Blackfyre be her legitimate son by a great lord of the Realm is intriguing - if he were still as capable with as striking Valyrian features as the Daemon Blackfyre we know he certainly could have become an important claimant.

But it seems quite clear that a King Aegon IV would have never favored the son of his cousin by an outsider. However, if we assume for a moment that King Viserys II had ruled for, say 30 years after his ascension, outliving his unworthy son, and being faced in old age with the conundrum of his own succession - aging Daeron, Dornish-looking Baelor, or dashing, powerful Daemon - things could have gotten rather interesting.

I'd not be surprised if it turned out that what broke Daena's neck as potential successor of Baelor I was the fact that she became pregnant and birthed Daemon Waters in the first place. Virtue and chastity and the armor of maidens, even more so than courtesy, and Daena even refused to give away the name of the father of her son, making everything worse. That kind of behavior would make it very hard for her to become a queen even if she wasn't the former sister-wife of an extremely pious and somewhat deranged king.

The other thing is that Daena and her sisters were effectively imprisoned throughout their brother's reign, making it impossible for them to make alliances and befriend potential supporters. If either of them had been married to a great lord or the heir of a great house their position(s) would have been quite different by the time of Baelor's death. But they weren't.

However, I'd not be surprised if FaB II is going to have the Blackfyre supporters cite Daemon's descent from Aegon III through Daena as another reason why his claim is stronger. Through Daena, Daemon is a scion of both the older and the younger branch of House Targaryen - Viserys II and his son and grandson are of the younger branch, whereas Daemon is of both the younger and the older. After he was legitimized by his royal father this ancestry should have become more significant.

I once asked George whether this descent played a significant role in Daemon Blackfyre's popularity and claim, but back then he only stressed the importance of the sword.

But it would be stupid if the Blackfyre supporters never pointed out that particular fact about Daemon's parentage.