Why was Septon Eustace the only account to claim Cole held his vows in lower esteem than Rhaenyra?

[FictionIsntReal]

Septon Eustace is the most reliably pro-Green source for The World of Ice and Fire, even saying things about Rhaenyra that would appear to be impossible just thumb the scales against her. It thus seems odd that he's the one to say that it was the Green leader Criston "Kingmaker" Cole who made overtures to Rhaenyra even if it meant breaking his vows, while Rhaenyra comes off as unusually prudent in noting that breaking his Kingsguard vows meant that any vow he might make to her would also be unreliable. To be fair, some of Eustace's slanting involves making Aegon II reluctant so that he had to be persuaded by his mother and Cole into accepting the crown, but Eustace still thinks Rhaenyra was undeserving to the extent that the throne itself rejected her. So you'd think he'd try to make Cole look better than her. Does anyone have any theories about this? I can only think of the Watsonian one that GRRM wanted contrasting accounts and the more ribald one went to Mushroom, who was also able to insert himself into that story. That doesn't explain why he didn't have Munkun/Orwyle do it instead though.

[Lord Varys]

Eustace is not necessarily a Green. He doesn't particularly like Rhaenyra, but that doesn't mean he liked Cole or lied about what Cole did.

The fact that Eustace depicted Cole as he did makes it very likely his account is the most accurate.

In fact, part of Eustace's narrative seems to be to exonerate Aegon II by way of blaming Cole/Alicent/Otto for the coup and betrayal of the will and wishes of Viserys I when it fact it doesn't sound particularly unlikely that Aegon II had no issue whatsoever betraying his half-sister, the rightful heir of his father he had acknowledged as such his entire life.

The slanders about Rhaenyra being rejected by the throne is post hoc nonsense - his history is written after the Dance, so it is hardly surprising that he put signs and portents in there that would foreshadow Rhaenyra's eventual downfall. That isn't necessarily propaganda, more a somewhat biased framing of the narrative.

[James Steller]

I’m more curious as to why Mushroom, being pro-Black, would paint Rhaenyra in such a way that Westerosi society would be slut shaming her. To say nothing of his account of the brothel queen punishment that he claimed Rhaenyra gave to Alicent and Helaena.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, James Steller said:

I’m more curious as to why Mushroom, being pro-Black, would paint Rhaenyra in such a way that Westerosi society would be slut shaming her. To say nothing of his account of the brothel queen punishment that he claimed Rhaenyra gave to Alicent and Helaena.

Mushroom isn't pro-Black. None of the sources is a partisan of the two parties (else the histories would read much different).

Mushroom lived at the court of Viserys I and was with Rhaenyra on Dragonstone when the war started. He knows or claims to know certain things. But when he dictates his testimony years or decades later he no longer has any ties to Targaryens - in fact, as we know he broke with them at the end of the Regency of Aegon III because the boy king was completely unwilling or incapable to laugh about his jokes.

The point of Mushroom's tales is to entertain his audience with ribald tales about long-dead royalty. Some of the stories do contain a grain of truth but anything that sounds ridiculous and is only mentioned by Mushroom is, most likely, a complete fabrication.

And how few connections a man like Eustace had with prominent Greens can be seen when Unwin Peake's dismisses him from royal service to install his own man as the new royal septon. Eustace certainly seems to be biased in favor of a male monarch in principle (and to a point towards Aegon II personally, too) but he does not shy away from covering Green atrocities nor does he much to exonerate any of them - aside from Aegon II when he is allegedly offered the crown.

And it might here be that Aegon the Elder was reluctant - because he knew the succession had long been settled, because he himself was never groomed or prepared for the throne, because his dear mother and grandfather didn't even include him in their plans until after they believed they had settled things, and because his half-sister had more dragons than he did. But it is quite clear that he would have never objected to becoming king on the grounds that Rhaenyra - who seems to have hated from the start - was the rightful heir.

On a personal level Eustace also seems to have issues with Rhaenyra - he doesn't only invent shit about the Iron Throne, he also fat-shames her later on. But we don't hear anything about him throwing dirt at her children or other prominent Blacks - which one would expect from a truly biased source.

People sort of decided who belonged to what camp long before we all read FaB so people are somewhat set in their ways.

It would have been interesting to read some official proclamations and decrees of the two sides in which they were directly attacking each other, or have some speeches or tales the Blacks or Greens gave and spread to throw dirt at the other side. That would then have been real propaganda/lies. But we don't get any of that.

[Eltharion21]

 

Quote

Septon Eustace, who served in the royal sept in the Red Keep during much of this time, and later rose to the ranks of the Most Devout, set down the most detailed history of this period. As a confidant and confessor to King Viserys and his queens, Eustace was well placed to know much and more of what went on. Nor was he reticent about recording even the most shocking and salacious rumors and accusations, though the bulk of The Reign of King Viserys, First of His Name, and the Dance of the Dragons That Came After remains a sober and somewhat ponderous history.

Whereas Septon Eustace records the secrets of bedchamber and brothel in hushed, condemnatory tones, Mushroom delights in the same, and his Testimony consists of little but ribald tales and gossip, piling stabbings, poisonings, betrayals, seductions, and debaucheries one atop the other. How much of this can be believed is a question the honest historian cannot hope to answer...

It is important to see on any occasion is writer present on location where event happened? Is he first hand witness or his information comes from other people, personal bias or how many people could have witnessed event.

In most cases  when only two people are present in closed room it is hard to discern truth of their personal relationship. 

Eustace in his writing has bias in favor of Faith of Seven and also some superstitious elements.

He also seems to give some nobles more virtuous motivations, behavior and less salacious or slanderous description of events. ( "Aegon II not wanting to take her sisters throne", "Rhaenyra having a mother's heart")

From what I gather from him is that royal and religious conformism make up for most of his bias.

What I hugely doubt regarding him is that Ser Cole killed Lord Beesbury during the Small Council after death of Viserys I, since Grand Maester Orwyle who was actually present gives much more plausible explanation.

[FictionIsntReal]

 

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Eustace is not necessarily a Green. He doesn't particularly like Rhaenyra, but that doesn't mean he liked Cole or lied about what Cole did.

The fact that Eustace depicted Cole as he did makes it very likely his account is the most accurate.

Even if Eustace was merely anti-Rhaenyra rather than pro-Cole, wouldn't you expect him to give the account that makes Rhaenyra look worse? If he was willing to lie about the throne, why not just hold his tongue about an incident where she acted contrary to the worst parts of her reputation, even if that's what he thought really happened?

Quote

The slanders about Rhaenyra being rejected by the throne is post hoc nonsense - his history is written after the Dance, so it is hardly surprising that he put signs and portents in there that would foreshadow Rhaenyra's eventual downfall. That isn't necessarily propaganda, more a somewhat biased framing of the narrative.

Both the Princess AND the Queen have an eventual downfall, as did Aegon II, while Rhaenyra's son wound up on the throne. But Eustace only had such a damning fabrication for Rhaenyra. Orwyle wrote his confessions after the Dance, but his/Munkun's account doesn't seem to have any pro-Green/anti-Black slanting. Instead, Orwyle tries to distinguish himself from the rest of the Greens.

8 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

What I hugely doubt regarding him is that Ser Cole killed Lord Beesbury during the Small Council after death of Viserys I, since Grand Maester Orwyle who was actually present gives much more plausible explanation.

Orwyle is the only one to say he objected then, rather than just Beesbury, and since he survived he presumably can't go with the story that dissenters were executed.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Even if Eustace was merely anti-Rhaenyra rather than pro-Cole, wouldn't you expect him to give the account that makes Rhaenyra look worse? If he was willing to lie about the throne, why not just hold his tongue about an incident where she acted contrary to the worst parts of her reputation, even if that's what he thought really happened?

I don't know, but I guess Eustace was more concerned about 'the will of the Seven' and a son betraying his royal father when he exonerated Aegon II of his treason and usurpation rather than motivated by personal preferences.

3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Both the Princess AND the Queen have an eventual downfall, as did Aegon II, while Rhaenyra's son wound up on the throne. But Eustace only had such a damning fabrication for Rhaenyra. Orwyle wrote his confessions after the Dance, but his/Munkun's account doesn't seem to have any pro-Green/anti-Black slanting. Instead, Orwyle tries to distinguish himself from the rest of the Greens.

Well, it was a woman who actually presumed to depose a crowned and anointed king - she had to be put back into her place, one imagines. I mean, Rhaenyra is really wild in the sense that she does not only challenge her brother's claim to the throne but actually deposes him and takes what's her is by right by brute force. That's something men rarely celebrate in a patriarchal society.

And to be sure - Rhaenyra could have been sore and bloody the first time she took the throne. She was up and about for an entire day and a night, wearing armor all the time (which makes it impossible for her to visibly bleed on her legs unless she is wearing so ridiculous an armor we see her wear in FaB on her portrait) which definitely could given her plump body and soft skin more than just a few sore spots.

3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Orwyle is the only one to say he objected then, rather than just Beesbury, and since he survived he presumably can't go with the story that dissenters were executed.

Yeah, Orwyle may have been there but he does have a very good motivation and incentive to downplay the actions of the Green Council and the role he played among them. The chances that he told the truth there is thus not very high.

At least for people who care about what happened and not for those who try to interpret the text according to their own preferences.

In fact, I think there shouldn't have been any novellas made out of the Dance - people start to like or dislike characters and plots on the basis of incomplete information. Bottom line is that there are essentially no sympathetic main characters in the Dance and it makes little sense to side or emotionally invest yourself in this whole pointless struggle.

One can say that there is a right and wrong side there insofar as the beginning/cause of the war is concerned, but afterwards there is little more to salavage there.

[Eltharion21]

7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

Orwyle is the only one to say he objected then, rather than just Beesbury, and since he survived he presumably can't go with the story that dissenters were executed.

It is certainly seems that Orwyle who wrote his confession while he was waiting for trial/execution during "Hour of the Wolf" would had interest to absolve himself and present it in favorable light to the "Blacks". I very much doubt he publicly stated his arguments that Rhaenyra should inherit.

Though whole killing of Lord of Small  council  by cutting is throat is preposterous for following reasons:

Conflict hasn't yet escalated at the time: Arrax and Lucerys were alive, we have example of Unwin Peake thrusting dagger in another Lord's eye at Sacking of Tumbleton, though then is when all discipline was broken by death of Lord and war was culminating.

Lord commander of Kingsguard has proven that he follows chain of command during the conflict, to do something so rash of free volition in front of Hand of the King and other Lords isn't very plausible.

There is also gradation in Ser Cole's  actions after he was named Hand  and death of Lucerys or blood & cheese: Nobles from Black cells were dragged out and given last chance to bend knee or bend neck to the executioner axe, Stokeworth and Rosby had to give men, they surprise attacked Duskendale but still gave men chance to join them , though lord was executed, Rook's Rest was besieged and when taken no mercy was given since they had chance to yield.

 Lord Beesbury was also around 80 year old and Black cells aren't  spa.

There is also blood oath that was made by members of Small Council by words of Orwyle which probably happened, killing the lord and making blood oath too would be kinda overkill, "all was needed were pentagrams made in Beesbury's blood to make image complete".  

Though what I am writing seems like off-topic, to me it points that Eustace had no qualms over making Ser Cole more villainous in his writings. Did he hate man, or he wanted to paint royal family more favorably in contrast , those are questions who are hard to give response with total certainty.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

It is certainly seems that Orwyle who wrote his confession while he was waiting for trial/execution during "Hour of the Wolf" would had interest to absolve himself and present it in favorable light to the "Blacks". I very much doubt he publicly stated his arguments that Rhaenyra should inherit.

It is not all that unlikely that he wanted to send that message considering Cregan Stark made it crystal clear he was Rhaenyra's man determined to destroy her enemies. And he gives many of Beesbury's arguments to himself, meaning he wanted to paint himself as the guy who didn't want a coup or a war and just go through with the late king's wishes.

5 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Though whole killing of Lord of Small  council  by cutting is throat is preposterous for following reasons:

None of the reasons you give here are convincing. For one, if Orwyle - who gave himself many of the Beesbury arguments in his version - wasn't in the dungeons or dead then why was Beesbury - who was as much a Black or less of Black in his account than Orwyle - dead or in the dungeons? By throwing Beesbury just into the dungeons neither the Green Council nor Orwyle himself looked as extreme or treasonous as they were. Not to mention that Orwyle would then not be an accessory to murder.

But the really important reason is that the dungeon was not enough of a reason for any of them to keep quiet. The blood oath is a joke - and if it happened at all Larys Strong likely suggested it to prevent his dear colleagues from giving him the treatment Prince Aemond gave all the Strongs - these folks believed his own brother was the father of Rhaenyra's sons, a fact that would have made him look very suspicious in their eyes. He avoided that suspicion at this point by not saying anything and then suggesting the blood oath.

[Chances are very high that Larys Strong was Daemon's source on the Green Council - he was the guy playing both sides against each other from the start.]

Killing Beesbury at the table showed how serious Otto, Alicent, and Cole were in their treason, and that they would mercilessly kill anyone who would try to sabotage their efforts after the council session was over. Their success hinged on having the time to go through with the coup and prepare the coronation before Rhaenyra could react. If they had separated and so much as one of them - especially Orwyle himself - had sent word to Dragonstone things may have gone very differently.

Killing Beesbury in front of everyone showed them that things were serious and deterred them from doing anything stupid (or rather: morally).

There is also the fact to consider that Eustace's and Orwyle's accounts on the Green Council apparently only disagree when Orwyle changed something (fate of Beesbury, Orwyle's own part in the discussion) which indicates that, if the reports on the council session have any basis in reality, Eustace and Orwyle had access to the same source material/testimony (possibly some notes Orwyle made during the session for the royal archives).

In addition, though, we know Eustace was the confessor of the royal family and court, and it is not unlikely that Alicent or Otto or even Cole ended up confessing what had transpired at the council session to him later on. Say, Alicent could have done that after her son had murdered Lucerys Velaryon, which caused her great distress, not to mention that some of the other councillors could have been abhorred by that murder, unburdening the conscience by talking to the good septon. Even Cole himself may have regretted what he did afterwards (although I don't buy that).

There is no reason to believe Eustace wants to blacken Cole's reputation with that story - he usually doesn't do things like that (unlike Mushroom) whereas Orwyle definitely has every reason to not be a party to murder. After all, if he admitted that there had been a murder Cregan Stark simply might take his head for that even if he cannot prove Orwyle had a Hand in Aegon II's murder.

Cole may not have acted on his own volition but rather on some sign by Alicent or Otto - they must have had a plan how to deal with dissenters before they called the council, but Eustace wasn't actually in the room. If the people he talked to did not mention such things - or not see them - then he wouldn't know about them. The fact that Cole isn't punished by Otto or Alicent for his action - or stopped - certainly shows that the queen and the Hand had no issues with Cole's action in the Eustace narrative.

[Seams]

On 11/26/2019 at 9:46 PM, FictionIsntReal said:

Septon Eustace is the most reliably pro-Green source for The World of Ice and Fire, even saying things about Rhaenyra that would appear to be impossible just thumb the scales against her. It thus seems odd that he's the one to say that it was the Green leader Criston "Kingmaker" Cole who made overtures to Rhaenyra even if it meant breaking his vows, while Rhaenyra comes off as unusually prudent in noting that breaking his Kingsguard vows meant that any vow he might make to her would also be unreliable. To be fair, some of Eustace's slanting involves making Aegon II reluctant so that he had to be persuaded by his mother and Cole into accepting the crown, but Eustace still thinks Rhaenyra was undeserving to the extent that the throne itself rejected her. So you'd think he'd try to make Cole look better than her. Does anyone have any theories about this? I can only think of the Watsonian one that GRRM wanted contrasting accounts and the more ribald one went to Mushroom, who was also able to insert himself into that story. That doesn't explain why he didn't have Munkun/Orwyle do it instead though.

I am so happy you raised this question as it may dovetail with some other puzzles I have been trying to solve.

Of course, my thoughts will be of no use to anyone who is determined to focus on plot elements alone; fair warning that the following comments will include wordplay, theories about GRRM's archetypes and literary analysis. Anyone not interested in those approaches should refrain from reading my posts in general.

My own understanding is greatly enriched by finding the parallels to Westeros legends as well as other plot lines in GRRM's oeuvre. Recently, I realized that characters in the Dunk & Egg story, The Sworn Sword, are parallel to the Night's King and his corpse queen as well as to Brandon Stark and Lady Barbry Dustin. I'm also tentatively examining a link connecting The Sworn Sword and the Quentyn Martell and Janos Slynt story lines in ASOIAF. (If you can stand yet another layer, some time ago I examined the Quentyn Ball and Quentyn Martell parallel, which may bring us back to the Criston Cole kingmaker role in the Dance of the Dragons since Quentyn Ball played a similar role as catalyst in the Blackfyre Rebellion. Follow the links in this post and/or take a look here, here, and here for other posts about the Quentyn / Quentyn symbolism.)

The name of the historian / storyteller Septon Eustace immediately caught my eye because of the unusual (for ASOIAF) name used for both the historian and for The Sworn Sword major character. This is a good hint that GRRM wants us to compare characters and other details of their stories. Possible similarities:

• Eustace Osgrey is a storyteller as is Septon Eustace. Osgrey hangs on to old family mementos that look like junk to other people. These heirlooms remind him of stories that he loves to relate to his hired sellswords. Osgrey gets details wrong - he uses the name Lem to refer to a man whose name was Dake; he can't remember which Lancel Lannister fought single combat with the Little Lion. GRRM deliberately uses the unreliable narrator as a device (so important in understanding the threefold fate of Lord Beesbury in this thread) but each "mistake" or conflicting version of events carries its own significance: even if they can't all be literally true, each variant presents a truth about characters or symbols that can help us to understand larger themes.
• Eustace Osgrey spends most of his time in an upper room of a tower - Standfast. This is a similarity to a current Hightower character, Lord Leyton, who is rumored to stay atop his tower where he studies magic texts. While a different Hightower is a player in the Dance of the Dragons era, GRRM often uses ancestors, scions, heirs and other relatives to tell a continuing or repeating story, or to bring back a symbol associated with a noble House.
• King's Guard man Ser Duncan the Tall is a parallel for King's Guard man Ser Criston Cole.
• Ser Duncan the Tall works for Ser Eustace. EXCEPT he is really sworn to protect and nurture Aegon V Targaryen, who is disguised as his squire. Because of his Targaryen loyalty and because Ser Eustace is understandably reticent to spill all the details of his own past Blackfyre alliance, Dunk's loyalty may be unclear to the average observer; it may even appear that he has changed sides. We see similar elements in Cole's story: sworn to Viserys I but assigned to protect the child, Princess Rhaenyra. Loyal to House Targaryen above all, but switching loyalties from Rhaenyra to Aegon II, her younger half-brother.
• Dunk is also attracted to Lady Rohanne Webber, the head of House Webber who is in conflict with Ser Eustace. While their relationship would be virtually impossible given social expectations and his sense of honor (fealty to House Osgrey), there is definite speculation about Dunk as a suitor by Septon Sefton, possible jealousy from Lucas Inchfield and more than a little flirtation between Dunk and Rohanne. The lack of clarity about Cole or Rhaenyra as the instigator of a flirtation could have arisen from similar speculation and flirtation between and around those parallel characters.
• Dunk is also highly flattered by a comment by Ser Eustace that Dunk is exactly the kind of man he would have wanted his daughter, Alysanne, to marry. Egg points out that this daydream of a marriage is also impossible because the daughter, Alysanne, is dead. I think it is significant, though, that Ser Eustace later puts the Osgrey family cloak on Dunk's shoulders. Presentation of a family cloak is a key moment in a Westeros marriage and Dunk may have symbolically "married" into the Osgrey family when he allowed the cloak to become part of his attire.
• BUT. The cloak was also mostly white. (Or it was white before it turned yellow with age, which is also significant.) We know that Dunk is destined to become the Lord Commander of the King's Guard during the rule of Aegon V. Dunk already has a special ability to cross magical boundaries that seems to be associated with members of the King's Guard. The cloak may not be super important as a turning point in his evolution toward his future vocation but it might be one step stone, to borrow GRRM's metaphor. It might be uniquely significant to the plot of The Sworn Sword, where the magical boundary stream called the Chequy Water is the source of the story's central conflict. The border of the cloak is checked yellow and green, part of the Osgrey colors and the source of the Chequy name for the waterway.
• I recently started to make the case for Ser Eustace as a symbolic representative of Garth Greenhand who is strongly associated with the color green. The House Osgrey colors are green and gold. The House Webber colors are black, argent (silver) and gules (red). Ser Eustace supported Daemon Blackfyre while House Webber fought on the side of House Targaryen during the battle of the Redgrass Field. Criston Cole's eyes are green and his hair is black. The same colors that defined the two sides in the Dance of the Dragons reappear in The Sworn Sword.

I believe that GRRM used an anagram for the name of the Kingmaker:

Ser Criston Cole = Secret in Colors.

Understanding that the Kingmaker can cross boundaries, that he is a parallel to Ser Duncan the Tall, and that he carries both colors (his eyes and his hair) may provide a further clue to explain why he is perceived as disloyal to Rhaenyra.

What about Lord Beesbury? In several separate posts, there is extensive discussion in that Knight of the Seven Kingdoms thread about the symbolism of Lord Beesbury as well as some discussion of honey. Long story short: lemons and honey may be part of GRRM's major theme around the "bittersweet" ending he has promised for the ASOIAF series. Because of the honey association with the Beesbury sigil, the imprisonment or murder of Lyman Beesbury is one iteration of the symbolic "death of sweet". The details of how that "death" occurs are deliberately vague because sweetness will die or be suppressed many times in many different ways throughout the books; sometimes it will come about as part of a joint effort. The Beesburys may be like the red shirt on the away team in Star Trek: destined to die creatively in every show.

An interesting parallel may be represented in Dunk's decision about which horse he will ride. He sells a beloved, sweet horse named Sweetfoot in order to buy armor (bitter steel?) for the tournament at Ashford Meadow. He says he will come back for the horse some day, but he has never mentioned her again in the subsequent stories. Instead, Dunk rides Thunder, the big war horse he inherited from Ser Arlan of Pennytree. The contrast between Sweetfoot and Thunder may represent yet another symbolic trade-off between sweet and bitter.

There may also be parallels in Mushroom the fool / historian, the mushrooms Tyrion hides in his boot and the sigil ring Aegon V / Egg hides in his boot. I'll let someone else lay out the details if this line of thinking is of interest.

[Eltharion21]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is not all that unlikely that he wanted to send that message considering Cregan Stark made it crystal clear he was Rhaenyra's man determined to destroy her enemies. And he gives many of Beesbury's arguments to himself, meaning he wanted to paint himself as the guy who didn't want a coup or a war and just go through with the late king's wishes.

None of the reasons you give here are convincing. For one, if Orwyle - who gave himself many of the Beesbury arguments in his version - wasn't in the dungeons or dead then why was Beesbury - who was as much a Black or less of Black in his account than Orwyle - dead or in the dungeons? By throwing Beesbury just into the dungeons neither the Green Council nor Orwyle himself looked as extreme or treasonous as they were. Not to mention that Orwyle would then not be an accessory to murder.

But the really important reason is that the dungeon was not enough of a reason for any of them to keep quiet. The blood oath is a joke - and if it happened at all Larys Strong likely suggested it to prevent his dear colleagues from giving him the treatment Prince Aemond gave all the Strongs - these folks believed his own brother was the father of Rhaenyra's sons, a fact that would have made him look very suspicious in their eyes. He avoided that suspicion at this point by not saying anything and then suggesting the blood oath.

[Chances are very high that Larys Strong was Daemon's source on the Green Council - he was the guy playing both sides against each other from the start.]

Killing Beesbury at the table showed how serious Otto, Alicent, and Cole were in their treason, and that they would mercilessly kill anyone who would try to sabotage their efforts after the council session was over. Their success hinged on having the time to go through with the coup and prepare the coronation before Rhaenyra could react. If they had separated and so much as one of them - especially Orwyle himself - had sent word to Dragonstone things may have gone very differently.

Killing Beesbury in front of everyone showed them that things were serious and deterred them from doing anything stupid (or rather: morally).

There is also the fact to consider that Eustace's and Orwyle's accounts on the Green Council apparently only disagree when Orwyle changed something (fate of Beesbury, Orwyle's own part in the discussion) which indicates that, if the reports on the council session have any basis in reality, Eustace and Orwyle had access to the same source material/testimony (possibly some notes Orwyle made during the session for the royal archives).

In addition, though, we know Eustace was the confessor of the royal family and court, and it is not unlikely that Alicent or Otto or even Cole ended up confessing what had transpired at the council session to him later on. Say, Alicent could have done that after her son had murdered Lucerys Velaryon, which caused her great distress, not to mention that some of the other councillors could have been abhorred by that murder, unburdening the conscience by talking to the good septon. Even Cole himself may have regretted what he did afterwards (although I don't buy that).

There is no reason to believe Eustace wants to blacken Cole's reputation with that story - he usually doesn't do things like that (unlike Mushroom) whereas Orwyle definitely has every reason to not be a party to murder. After all, if he admitted that there had been a murder Cregan Stark simply might take his head for that even if he cannot prove Orwyle had a Hand in Aegon II's murder.

Cole may not have acted on his own volition but rather on some sign by Alicent or Otto - they must have had a plan how to deal with dissenters before they called the council, but Eustace wasn't actually in the room. If the people he talked to did not mention such things - or not see them - then he wouldn't know about them. The fact that Cole isn't punished by Otto or Alicent for his action - or stopped - certainly shows that the queen and the Hand had no issues with Cole's action in the Eustace narrative.

Court was mostly inhabited by Greens for decade before Viserys I death, and his death was anticipated for some time as claimed  by Eustace.

Killing old man would deter who in the council? 
Alicent, Otto and Cole were certainly against.
Tyland points that he didn't swear oath to Rhaenyra and many lords who did were dead.
Jasper Wylde cited  Great Council 101 ac and other successions that support that.
Larys Strong was only one silent.

Bessbury was only one who insisted on Rhaenyra to succeed her father, by words of Eustace and Mushroom, Orwyle claims he was the one but that isn't plausible unless Beesbury trying to leave got him arrested and Orwyle bent to the will of majority in the council.He also could have been recruited by Hightowers or made to be obedient much earlier ( as we see with Pycelle who was Tywins man)

 

Your claim of conspiracy by Otto, Alicent and Cole to slit throat of any dissenters  is absolutely ridiculous.

Otto Hightower was foremost of the Greens.

He was Hand of the King for Jaehaerys I and Viserys I twice, he held authority above all council , certainly above Lord Commander from "House" Cole and his daughter .

How would he cite reason against Rhaenyra by "Daemon and Maegor the Cruel" in council if his first decision was to order brutal death of Beesbury...

Greens at the time also seem more certain in their success and wider support, they wouldn't need to stoop to such brutality yet, and  it is more than odd  that Beesbury is only one who was made example when other lords were given chance to bend knee again after dungeon.

Orwyle wanted to exonerate himself and save his life, most of the Green council was dead anyway. Alicent was prisoner unable to give account and maybe distressed too, Tyland got pardon as Lannister peace term.

 Orwyle could had just claimed to have said what Beesbery did publicly and when he decided to leave was put in black cells. While Orwyle held his tongue and obeyed majority since he was no lord, and Oldtown could easily dispatch another Maester.

I agree that Larys Strong probably played both sides as evident during" False Dawn" and  in taking of King's Landing by Blacks by surprise, he managed to get away but also evacuate members of royal family. (Only him and Orwyle who was sent to Black Cells were left relatively unhatched)

There are no mentions of Orwyle having made notes during the Council, is role of Grand Maester to take notes during council meetings a glorified scribe?

In novel it is stated that Eustace and Mushroom derive from rumors, hearsay and family legend regarding that event. Eustace and Mushrooms views are only specified regarding Lord Beesbury, his death and not other things.

 

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Court was mostly inhabited by Greens for decade before Viserys I death, and his death was anticipated for some time as claimed  by Eustace.

That is not the case. Otto arrested a lot of people and essentially exchanged the entire leadership of the City Watch. We also have no idea who on the council was on the Green side prior to the first Green Council session.

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Killing old man would deter who in the council? 
Alicent, Otto and Cole were certainly against.
Tyland points that he didn't swear oath to Rhaenyra and many lords who did were dead.
Jasper Wylde cited  Great Council 101 ac and other successions that support that.
Larys Strong was only one silent.

And how are (only possibly) accurate retellings of the statements of those men evidence that they meant what they said? Wylde appears as if he has legal principles (although he apparently did not dare raise those with his king before or else he wouldn't have been on the council) but Lannister doesn't seem to give a damn either way. Telling he never swore a vow doesn't mean he wouldn't have kept his father's vow under other circumstances - or that he weren't unwilling to swear such a vow.

The man ended up as Aegon III's man.

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Bessbury was only one who insisted on Rhaenyra to succeed her father, by words of Eustace and Mushroom, Orwyle claims he was the one but that isn't plausible unless Beesbury trying to leave got him arrested and Orwyle bent to the will of majority in the council.He also could have been recruited by Hightowers or made to be obedient much earlier ( as we see with Pycelle who was Tywins man)

Orwyle was new to the council and neither a Black nor a Green as far as we know.

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Your claim of conspiracy by Otto, Alicent and Cole to slit throat of any dissenters  is absolutely ridiculous.

Not just dissenters. To cow men who would pay lip service to Otto and Alicent and their makeshift king while plotting secretly against them.

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Otto Hightower was foremost of the Greens.

He was Hand of the King for Jaehaerys I and Viserys I twice, he held authority above all council , certainly above Lord Commander from "House" Cole and his daughter .

Otto was just the first among equals, like Ned when he joined the council, and he was never a popular man. He couldn't even satisfy his own grandson.

And it is quite clear that the actual Green cabal (Alicent, Otto, Cole) did have a plan. If the Small Council of Viserys I had been a Green Council even while the king was still alive, then there wouldn't have been a council session to discuss the succession. They would have enacted the plans they had made before. Instead, it is clear that Alicent/Otto/Cole had made some plans and where now taking the next step to get the Small Council on board after which they would take over the rest of the court and eventually crown their king ... and deal with traitors accordingly.

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

How would he cite reason against Rhaenyra by "Daemon and Maegor the Cruel" in council if his first decision was to order brutal death of Beesbury...

Because he was a bloody hypocrite and traitor?

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Greens at the time also seem more certain in their success and wider support, they wouldn't need to stoop to such brutality yet, and  it is more than odd  that Beesbury is only one who was made example when other lords were given chance to bend knee again after dungeon.

Because those other lords were all not taken in after they had learned about the plans of the traitors to stage a coup and usurp the throne but because they were taken into custody without having done anything at all. They were all just arrested because they were considered friends or allies of Rhaenyra's - and they were quite a few people.

The plan was to arrest those people and treat them gently should they switch sides - which some actually did. This was a way to corrupt Rhaenyra's friends to the side of the traitors.

Beesbury on the other hand had been calling out the traitors at their own council table. He was not only having anything to do with their plots he knew a lot about them already and he wanted to preven them. That's why Cole killed him.

Sure, they could also have taken him into custody but that wouldn't have sent the right message to the people at the table. They needed to be made accessory to murder and, after the blood oath shenanigans (if that took place), have the feeling they could only win or die - not walk some middle ground or try to remain neutral in the question of succession.

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Orwyle wanted to exonerate himself and save his life, most of the Green council was dead anyway. Alicent was prisoner unable to give account and maybe distressed too, Tyland got pardon as Lannister peace term.

Alicent certainly could have been questioned by Cregan Stark. No idea if he bothered to read Orwyle's statement at all - nor do we know where exactly the man started his testimony.

Tyland's life wasn't spared because of any terms. He came back after things had already been settled, and they made him Hand to throw a boon Lady Johanna who had offered to restore the Lannister share of the treasury and help rebuild KL.

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

I agree that Larys Strong probably played both sides as evident during" False Dawn" and  in taking of King's Landing by Blacks by surprise, he managed to get away but also evacuate members of royal family. (Only him and Orwyle who was sent to Black Cells were left relatively unhatched)

We can definitely discount Orwyle as a 'half-Black' since Rhaenyra stripped him of his chain early in the Dance - had he been Daemon's guy on the Green Council he wouldn't have acted in that capacity when we learn Daemon had a man among them. Not to mention that a new man at court Orwyle shouldn't have had any ties to Daemon.

Larys is a completely different animal, he was at court long enough to have some sort of past with Daemon.

It seems clear that Strong didn't want the war to end when Rhaenyra took the throne. He wanted it to continue - which is why he shipped Aegon II and the children to safety.

What his ultimate motive was is unclear, but I guess 'King Trystane' and his apparent plans for young Aegon III allow us to make some guess - he wanted a puppet king dependent on him.

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

There are no mentions of Orwyle having made notes during the Council, is role of Grand Maester to take notes during council meetings a glorified scribe?

Gyldayn tells us that Benifer left very meticulous accounts and reports, and George seems to imply implicitly that we got as detailed an account on the early years of the reign of Jaehaerys I because Benifer - unlike Elysar - was a very thorough man.

If all the detailed dialogues and conversations we get are worth anything then somebody must have either made very good notes or at least have written down very good summaries not that late after the event took place.

Orwyle's and Eustace's accounts on the Green Council session would differ completely if they were basing their reports on different sources (or none at all).

18 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

In novel it is stated that Eustace and Mushroom derive from rumors, hearsay and family legend regarding that event. Eustace and Mushrooms views are only specified regarding Lord Beesbury, his death and not other things.

I reread the relevant portions of the chapter - and it seems that not only Eustace but also Mushroom essentially agree with the events given by Orwyle (by way of Munkun) aside from the known points where they differ.

This implies that both had access to official documents or other accurate information given to them by the parties involved (which, in the case of Eustace, could essentially have been all the people attending the council session and in Mushroom's case the imprisoned Alicent and Tyland later on - the latter may not have revealed where the gold was while he was tortured, but he may have revealed other things).

One should also note that George/Gardner decided to put the Eustace version into PatQ - which could, perhaps, be seen as a sign that this the more believable version (although that might not be the case).

Gyldayn, though, clearly believes the Cole version since he talks about Beesbury's blood being the first shed in the Dance and makes it even clear that he believes Beesbury was murdered during the council session:

Quote

As to what happened next, our sources differ.

Grand Maester Orwyle tells us that Lord Beesbury was seized at the door by the command of Ser Otto Hightower and escorted to the dungeons. Confined to a black cell, he would in time perish of a chill whilst awaiting trial.

Septon Eustace tells it elsewise. In his account, Ser Criston Cole forced Lord Beesbury back into his seat and opened his throat with a dagger. Mushroom charges Ser Criston with his lordship’s death as well, but in his version Cole grasped the old man by the back of his collar and flung him out a window, to die impaled upon the iron spikes in the dry moat below.

All three chronicles agree on one particular: the first blood shed in the Dance of the Dragons belonged to Lord Lyman Beesbury, master of coin and lord treasurer of the Seven Kingdoms.

No further dissent was heard after the death of Lord Beesbury.

If Beesbury had truly died of a chill in the dungeons nobody would have spilled his blood. Also, it is rather interesting that Orwyle claims Otto arrested Beesbury. This certainly could be a hint that he gave away the man who commanded/told Cole what to do. Keep in mind that the Eustace account as given to us only states what Cole allegedly did, not who commanded him to do it.

You do have a point that it would be odd for a Kingsguard - even the LC - to just kill a man on the king's council without authorization from the queen or Hand.

It also doesn't strike me as likely there were men outside to arrest Beesbury. Otto and Alicent and Cole had used KG to call the men to the council, involving guardsmen and men-at-arms in this business would have been pretty risky. They successfully kept the king's death a secret even in the castle itself, which implies there were very few people involved in this entire coup. At least at the start.

[FictionIsntReal]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

[Chances are very high that Larys Strong was Daemon's source on the Green Council - he was the guy playing both sides against each other from the start.]

 

I know that Daemon had underworld connections which is how Blood and Cheese were able to assassinate Aegon II's son, but where is the reference to his connections extending to the Green council?

Quote

There is no reason to believe Eustace wants to blacken Cole's reputation with that story - he usually doesn't do things like that (unlike Mushroom)

This makes it all the more odd that his account of Cole and Rhaenyra's falling out is the only one that paints the former in a worse light than the latter.

8 hours ago, Seams said:

• We see similar elements in Cole's story: sworn to Viserys I but assigned to protect the child, Princess Rhaenyra. Loyal to House Targaryen above all, but switching loyalties from Rhaenyra to Aegon II, her younger stepbrother.

Half-brother, not stepbrother.

[FictionIsntReal]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Gyldayn, though, clearly believes the Cole version since he talks about Beesbury's blood being the first shed in the Dance and makes it even clear that he believes Beesbury was murdered during the council session:

If Beesbury had truly died of a chill in the dungeons nobody would have spilled his blood. Also, it is rather interesting that Orwyle claims Otto arrested Beesbury. This certainly could be a hint that he gave away the man who commanded/told Cole what to do. Keep in mind that the Eustace account as given to us only states what Cole allegedly did, not who commanded him to do it.

I think Orwyle lied, but that doesn't necessarily mean Gyldane agrees. He could be speaking a bit colorfully by including Beesbory dying as a result of being thrown in the dungeons as "the first blood shed".

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I know that Daemon had underworld connections which is how Blood and Cheese were able to assassinate Aegon II's son, but where is the reference to his connections extending to the Green council?

In the same paragraph, in fact:

Quote

Let it not be forgotten: in his youth, Daemon Targaryen had been the “Prince of the City,” his face and laugh familiar to every cutpurse, whore, and gambler in Flea Bottom. The prince still had friends in the low places of King’s Landing, and followers amongst the gold cloaks. Unbeknownst to King Aegon, the Hand, or the Queen Dowager, he had allies at court as well, even on the green council…and one other go-between, a special friend he trusted utterly, who knew the wine sinks and rat pits that festered in the shadow of the Red Keep as well as Daemon himself once had, and moved easily through the shadows of the city. To this pale stranger he reached out now, by secret ways, to set a terrible vengeance into motion.

This line did made it into TPatQ and it has been debated a lot back then who might that be ... with FaB being a considerable letdown in not even mentioning this connection again.

However, we can be sure it wasn't Otto Hightower, Jasper Wylde, or Tyland Lannister, or else none of them would have lost their head or other, less important parts. Instead, they would have gotten some reward when Rhaenyra and Daemon took the city. And Orwyle we can, I think, exclude because he was also imprisoned by Rhaenyra and only freed after she left the city (also because he was new to court and had effectively no connection to Daemon whatsoever). That technically leaves Cole ... who is not a very likely suspect and, of course, Larys Strong. Who, in my opinion, is the guy. It wouldn't surprise me if Strong even helped Steffon Darklyn to flee the castle with the crown to really help fuel the war.

19 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

This makes it all the more odd that his account of Cole and Rhaenyra's falling out is the only one that paints the former in a worse light than the latter.

Well, he writes the whole thing in hindsight. It is not unlikely that he really didn't like Cole all that much or despised him for what he did, especially if he confessed to him in a moment of weakness. I mean, I see Cole basically as Littlefinger with strength-at-arms - driven by a similar desire for a advancement (he was born a mere steward's son) and by a similar romantic obsession (Rhaenyra). If Cole let it slip once that he only joined the KG to get access to the princess it doesn't strike me as likely Eustace would approve of things like that.

There is also the fact to consider that Cole is not far behind Otto Hightower insofar as the depth of the betrayal of the late king is concerned. In fact, one could even make a case that Cole is a worse traitor considering he had actually no personal stakes in the whole thing. Otto and Alicent can excuse themselves by claiming they acted for their (grand)children, but Cole's only priority should have been the wishes of his king ... Viserys I.

And it seems as if Eustace does see the usurpation as a major problem - that's why he exonerates Aegon II in his account. But that inevitably shifts more blame in Cole's direction.

But in general a thing like that underlines my original point - that it is very wrong to view Munkun-Orwyle, Eustace, or Mushroom as biased to one of the factions in the war. There are issues with their works and their viewpoints but they are not as simple or straightforward as them favoring one side over another.

In fact, if one asks about Orwyle's motivation to put himself in a better light a main reason here might be that after the end of the Dance people were starting to point fingers at the people who started the whole bloodletting (or did not prevent it). The question whether Rhaenyra or Aegon II should have ruled is not the same as who is guilty of the war - and Orwyle - as a man attending the council session that started the whole thing - certainly shares a decent junk of the blame for there not being a peaceful solution to the succession crisis.

Tyland Lannister paid for his crimes with torture and disfigurement, but Orwyle got off the hook rather easy ... at least until he was imprisoned. And there he may have then decided to defend himself against any accusations that might be thrown against him. Even more so if he actually came to believe that he should have spoken up at the fateful council session.

My take on the true story of Rhaenyra-Cole can be read in one of the more recent Cole threads, I think. I took the time to go through all the conflicting accounts and think I make pretty good case that Eustace has the truth of it whereas Mushroom essentially tells the same salacious lie twice to entertain his audience. Eustace's account is the only story which explains both Daemon's original banishment and later on the falling-out between Rhaenyra and Cole and subsequently Cole's behavior at the wedding tourney.

If Mushroom had the right of it the characters involved should have behaved much differently (Cole wouldn't have been angry and Rhaenyra would have likely done everything in her power to destroy Cole later on rather than vice versa; not to mention that Viserys I would have taken severe steps to separate Cole and Rhaenyra back in 111 AC rather than allow his slutty daughter to keep a sworn shield she desperately tried to seduce).

41 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I think Orwyle lied, but that doesn't necessarily mean Gyldane agrees. He could be speaking a bit colorfully by including Beesbory dying as a result of being thrown in the dungeons as "the first blood shed".

I'd call that then sloppy writing.

[FictionIsntReal]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, he writes the whole thing in hindsight. It is not unlikely that he really didn't like Cole all that much or despised him for what he did, especially if he confessed to him in a moment of weakness. I mean, I see Cole basically as Littlefinger with strength-at-arms - driven by a similar desire for a advancement (he was born a mere steward's son) and by a similar romantic obsession (Rhaenyra). If Cole let it slip once that he only joined the KG to get access to the princess it doesn't strike me as likely Eustace would approve of things like that.

I don't see Cole as that Littlefinger-esque. By joining the Kingsguard, he gives up any hope of rising further, owning any lands and ever having a spouse and children to pass those onto. He might be compared to Varys though, pulling strings behind the scenes and not being concerned with his own dynastic legacy. Joining the Kingsguard in order to have access to the queen-to-be sounds more like dumb teenage Jaime, whereas Cole joined at 23.

Quote

There is also the fact to consider that Cole is not far behind Otto Hightower insofar as the depth of the betrayal of the late king is concerned. In fact, one could even make a case that Cole is a worse traitor considering he had actually no personal stakes in the whole thing. Otto and Alicent can excuse themselves by claiming they acted for their (grand)children, but Cole's only priority should have been the wishes of his king ... Viserys I.

And it seems as if Eustace does see the usurpation as a major problem - that's why he exonerates Aegon II in his account. But that inevitably shifts more blame in Cole's direction.

But Eustace doesn't always make Aegon II look better than Alicent. He writes that Aegon threatened to throw Orwyle in the Black Cells for his suggestion that he go to Rhaenyra to make peace, and only relented when Alicent and Helaena supported Orwyle's plan.

Quote

My take on the true story of Rhaenyra-Cole can be read in one of the more recent Cole threads, I think. I took the time to go through all the conflicting accounts and think I make pretty good case that Eustace has the truth of it whereas Mushroom essentially tells the same salacious lie twice to entertain his audience. Eustace's account is the only story which explains both Daemon's original banishment and later on the falling-out between Rhaenyra and Cole and subsequently Cole's behavior at the wedding tourney.

I'd be curious to read that thread.

Quote

If Mushroom had the right of it the characters involved should have behaved much differently (Cole wouldn't have been angry and Rhaenyra would have likely done everything in her power to destroy Cole later on rather than vice versa; not to mention that Viserys I would have taken severe steps to separate Cole and Rhaenyra back in 111 AC rather than allow his slutty daughter to keep a sworn shield she desperately tried to seduce).

You brought up Cole's behavior at the wedding tourney, so what reason would he have to be angry at Joffrey Lonmouth? If he's hung up on Rhaenyra rejecting him and marrying Laenor, why would he have a problem with Laenor sleeping with Joffrey instead of her? Because while Cole broke some of Harwin Strong's bones, Joffrey got it the worst. And we know that Cole insisted that Rhaenyra and her (bastard) children be kept off the throne because of both her and Laenor's sexual history. So it would actually seem in character for him to despise both members of a newly married couple who intend to continue sleeping with their lovers instead of their spouses, and to punish those lovers for their part when he can't touch the actual royalty. Furthermore, Rhaenyra took Harwin as her sworn shield right after Mushroom claims she tried to seduce Cole and Eustace claimed the reverse, so Cole wasn't her sworn shield and instead became Alicent's after Rhaenyra's wedding.

Thanks for the reference about the spy on the Council.

EDIT:

Is this the thread?

https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/153330-so-what-was-criston-coles-deal/&do=findComment&comment=8309027

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I don't see Cole as that Littlefinger-esque. By joining the Kingsguard, he gives up any hope of rising further, owning any lands and ever having a spouse and children to pass those onto. He might be compared to Varys though, pulling strings behind the scenes and not being concerned with his own dynastic legacy. Joining the Kingsguard in order to have access to the queen-to-be sounds more like dumb teenage Jaime, whereas Cole joined at 23.

True enough, but I meant more in relation to his obsession with a certain woman (Rhaenyra) and in the manly advancement department. He rose to the utmost peak of the chivalric hierarchy - he likely could also have made a pretty fine match instead of joining the KG but he didn't want that.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

But Eustace doesn't always make Aegon II look better than Alicent. He writes that Aegon threatened to throw Orwyle in the Black Cells for his suggestion that he go to Rhaenyra to make peace, and only relented when Alicent and Helaena supported Orwyle's plan.

Yes, but that's after he became king - and him describing a scene he personally witnessed in front of the entire court. There should be multiple testimonies for this scene (sort of like Gyldayn tells us about the many reports about the Luke-Aemond confrontation), meaning that Eustace wouldn't have felt either a need nor a desire to lie about the event.

In fact, it could also be that not he himself came up with his Aegon II apology but his story there goes back to confessions/reports/rumors of the people involved. The crippled and broken Aegon II himself could have whined about how he never wanted to be king in weak moments after his restoration, how it was all his mother's, his grandfather's, and Cole's fault because they pushed him into it - even if he himself wasn't all that reluctant and never loved his half-sister or thought she should rule.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

I'd be curious to read that thread.

I don't recall the name right now but it is the most recent thread on Cole, I think, in the World subforum.

9 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

You brought up Cole's behavior at the wedding tourney, so what reason would he have to be angry at Joffrey Lonmouth? If he's hung up on Rhaenyra rejecting him and marrying Laenor, why would he have a problem with Laenor sleeping with Joffrey instead of her? Because while Cole broke some of Harwin Strong's bones, Joffrey got it the worst. And we know that Cole insisted that Rhaenyra and her (bastard) children be kept off the throne because of both her and Laenor's sexual history. So it would actually seem in character for him to despise both members of a newly married couple who intend to continue sleeping with their lovers instead of their spouses, and to punish those lovers for their part when he can't touch the actual royalty. Furthermore, Rhaenyra took Harwin as her sworn shield right after Mushroom claims she tried to seduce Cole and Eustace claimed the reverse, so Cole wasn't her sworn shield and instead became Alicent's after Rhaenyra's wedding.

If Cole had been so horrified he would have broken with Rhaenyra in 111 AC when she made her first advances - and he would have challenged Daemon to a duel/done everything in his power to destroy this man who had so corrupted a royal princess. Not to mention that Viserys I - who separated Rhaenyra and Harwin after 'the Strong talk' started in 120 AC would have never allowed his daughter a sworn shield who was a knight of the Kingsguard she was trying to seduce.

That Cole had issues with adultery in principle it is very odd that he would stick with Aegon II who was a confirmed adulterer even before he rose to the throne.

The reason why Cole punishes Harwin and Joffrey is that the former is Rhaenyra's lover and the Joffrey is his way to hurt Laenor - Rhaenyra's husband who is clearly not worthy of her. Keep in mind that as per Eustace's story Laenor actually is the reason for their falling-out. Cole wants Rhaenyra to run away with him but Rhaenyra wants the Iron Throne and her father made it clear to her that marrying Laenor is the price she has to pay to one day wear the crown. He symbolizes the problem in whatever relationship they had.

Also, if we truly assumed Cole was 'as chaste as an old septa' as Mushroom claimed, then Rhaenyra would have been the one loathing him for spurning her not once but twice. Yet there is no indication that she ever thought about Cole again after their falling-out.

Just as Cole making Aegon II had basically nothing to do with him making a better/more rightful king - it is his payback for Rhaenyra spurning him. She had the choice between Cole and the Iron Throne/Laenor - and she chose the latter. Thus Cole ensures she is never ever going to get what she wants.

In fact, it is not that unlikely that Cole - like Littlefinger - fueled the hatred between the two factions after he joined Alicent to ensure somebody would prevent Rhaenyra's rise to the Iron Throne. It might be that he was indeed the true architect of the coup, with Otto and Alicent only going through with it because they were nudged and manipulated by him.

It is a pity we have so cursory an account on the reign of Viserys I - especially the later years. Cole remains a pretty superficial character aside from some hints about his ultimate motivation - we may be able to guess what he wanted, but not what he actually did behind the scenes.

[Eltharion21]

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

That is not the case. Otto arrested a lot of people and essentially exchanged the entire leadership of the City Watch. We also have no idea who on the council was on the Green side prior to the first Green Council session.

They did that, though first official decisions were made in Green council as top position in the city and to give more legitimacy to their decision, and went to change those who loyalty was doubted in lower positions. 

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

And how are (only possibly) accurate retellings of the statements of those men evidence that they meant what they said? Wylde appears as if he has legal principles (although he apparently did not dare raise those with his king before or else he wouldn't have been on the council) but Lannister doesn't seem to give a damn either way. Telling he never swore a vow doesn't mean he wouldn't have kept his father's vow under other circumstances - or that he weren't unwilling to swear such a vow.

The man ended up as Aegon III's man.

It is only record we have of their statements.

King Viserys cut the tongues out of last people who told truth about bastardy of his grandchildren. He also sacked Otto when he got annoying about making Aegon his heir. I doubt that he was open to hearing opposing opinions and wise people on positions, who wanted to keep them, probably avoided doing just that.

Tyland means that if he swore vow he would honor it. He isn't his father nor heir of Casterly Rock, also many other lords newer swore it (like Cregan) since it was 23 years ago and probably also was his point.

When he swore to Aegon III he served him faithfully and to best of his abilities during regency, though he suggested his execution to Aegon II earlier. He was a "man of doing what is best for realm"by his own judgment not man of any king or queen specifically. 

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

Orwyle was new to the council and neither a Black nor a Green as far as we know.

Orwyle was sent from Oldtown and he was based in King's Landing where Greens had dominance when Rhaenyra retreated to Dragonstone to raise her children. He probably was the type to go with the flow.

He obviously isn't man of uttermost integrity since he escaped after accepting the black, though he may have kind or good streak to him.

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

Not just dissenters. To cow men who would pay lip service to Otto and Alicent and their makeshift king while plotting secretly against them.

What cow men? Were they present in small council meeting, Since it wasn't public it doesn't make an example except for people in the council.

Since only Orwyle and Larys  seem of dubious intent, and neither were irreplaceable , it is hassle to bloody hands so early just to intimidate those two.

Anyway it doesn't seem like "modus operandi" of Otto and too much brutality would disservice to one's cause as seen with Rhaenyra.

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

Otto was just the first among equals, like Ned when he joined the council, and he was never a popular man. He couldn't even satisfy his own grandson.

And it is quite clear that the actual Green cabal (Alicent, Otto, Cole) did have a plan. If the Small Council of Viserys I had been a Green Council even while the king was still alive, then there wouldn't have been a council session to discuss the succession. They would have enacted the plans they had made before. Instead, it is clear that Alicent/Otto/Cole had made some plans and where now taking the next step to get the Small Council on board after which they would take over the rest of the court and eventually crown their king ... and deal with traitors accordingly

People, especially lords are never truly equal. 
There is huge difference if you belong to Powerful house or you are foreigner or of "lesser" blood. 
For example Jaime Lannister was taken hostage when captured in battle and  was favorite son of Tywin , Cole since he wasn't scion of Great House or valuable hostage  was killed during parley.

This is also how Otto is described, he was brother of Lord of Hightower and Hand of the King three times he held political gravitas aplenty:

Quote

Meanwhile, the tedium of rule was left largely to the king’s small council and his Hand. Ser Otto Hightower had continued in that office, serving the grandson as he had the grandsire; an able man, all agreed, though many found him proud, brusque, and haughty. The longer he served, the more imperious Ser Otto became, it was said, and many great lords and princes came to resent his manner and envy him his access to the Iron Throne.

His grandson wasn't very bright lad himself or very successful political player to make that judgment. He reacted on initial losses while Otto planned to win war with "quills and ravens" which seemed like indecisiveness to him. Though Otto's strategy was far from ideal it still held some value.

There are always talk behind the scenes individually, we see it aplenty in Pov's of Asoiaf, with every person of importance, to discern their attitude, price and who they would support.

While King was alive he could had proclaimed either side traitors if he wanted, since power was still centered around him. He had shown how he deals with those who insist on him dealing with "family issues"  they couldn't make their intention public since realm lacked mechanisms for that, they were partially introduced with Old King  but weren't constant.

Green council did deal with those considered traitors, they put in black cells for those whose loyalty they doubted until Aegon II was crowned, then they  asked them to bend the knee, if they refused they were executed.

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

Because he was a bloody hypocrite and traitor?

He might be considered traitor and hypocrite by those with shallow view on matters of succession or opposing side, but that still doesn't make him cruel and bloodthirsty, he is shown more keen to deal through diplomacy or politics. 

Some quotes by him give credence to his character of a diplomat, but also methodical which is in contrast to rash act of slitting throat of a Lord:

Quote

“Do them no violence, unless they resist,” Ser Otto Hightower commanded. “Such men as bend the knee and swear fealty to King Aegon shall suffer no harm at our hands.”

Quote

Ser Otto Hightower, as methodical a man as ever served as Hand, wanted more time to make preparations, but Queen Alicent knew they could delay no longer.

It is more complex than simply labeling one as hypocrite: Otto  was one first to suggest Rhaenyra should be named heir to Viserys so that Daemon wouldn't become King, when those married just as he was reinstated he was left no option but to ensure Aegon II succeeds by his own belief on safety of his family, himself and even realm. 

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

Because those other lords were all not taken in after they had learned about the plans of the traitors to stage a coup and usurp the throne but because they were taken into custody without having done anything at all. They were all just arrested because they were considered friends or allies of Rhaenyra's - and they were quite a few people.

The plan was to arrest those people and treat them gently should they switch sides - which some actually did. This was a way to corrupt Rhaenyra's friends to the side of the traitors.

Beesbury on the other hand had been calling out the traitors at their own council table. He was not only having anything to do with their plots he knew a lot about them already and he wanted to preven them. That's why Cole killed him.

Sure, they could also have taken him into custody but that wouldn't have sent the right message to the people at the table. They needed to be made accessory to murder and, after the blood oath shenanigans (if that took place), have the feeling they could only win or die - not walk some middle ground or try to remain neutral in the question of succession.

If in custody I doubt old man could have done anything to stop them, except send ravens to warn Rhaenyra. 

What knowledge of plots and plans did he had except those for crowning Aegon ? Which was often asked publicly and easily presumed as possibility by their opponents. 

They started planning details of  their actions after he was removed from the meeting, so he couldn't say nothing about that.  In Black Cells he could have helped no one and they would need to keep him for limited time, until they crowned Aegon .

It is too much of a hassle to do the deed just for the people on the table when most support them anyway.

Blood oaths happen at the end of the meeting by wording of Orwyle, and that seems more to create point, than murder of Beesbury which actually caricaturizes three characters as overly evil (Otto, Alicent and Cole)  just to make one saintly (Rhaenyra). 

Attitude of Otto Hightower is that war could had been won by "quills and ravens" yet without bloodshed, out of arrogance or pride maybe, he is described as having both characteristics.

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

Alicent certainly could have been questioned by Cregan Stark. No idea if he bothered to read Orwyle's statement at all - nor do we know where exactly the man started his testimony.

Tyland's life wasn't spared because of any terms. He came back after things had already been settled, and they made him Hand to throw a boon Lady Johanna who had offered to restore the Lannister share of the treasury and help rebuild KL.

Lannisters requested for Tyland to  get a pardon, Corlys considered it small price for getting gold back probably. There is direct quote:

Quote

"She agreed as well to restore that portion of the royal treasury that Tyland Lannister had sent west for safekeeping, providing that Ser Tyland himself was granted pardon. In return, she asked only that the Iron Throne “command Lord Greyjoy to crawl back to his islands, restore Fair Isle to its rightful lords, and free all the women he has carried off, or at the least all those of noble birth.”

I doubt Cregan had done any exhaustive investigation on matters in King's Landing, he was rather arbitrary and more interested in satisfying his view of honor than true justice.

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

I reread the relevant portions of the chapter - and it seems that not only Eustace but also Mushroom essentially agree with the events given by Orwyle (by way of Munkun) aside from the known points where they differ.

This implies that both had access to official documents or other accurate information given to them by the parties involved (which, in the case of Eustace, could essentially have been all the people attending the council session and in Mushroom's case the imprisoned Alicent and Tyland later on - the latter may not have revealed where the gold was while he was tortured, but he may have revealed other things).

One should also note that George/Gardner decided to put the Eustace version into PatQ - which could, perhaps, be seen as a sign that this the more believable version (although that might not be the case).

Gyldayn, though, clearly believes the Cole version since he talks about Beesbury's blood being the first shed in the Dance and makes it even clear that he believes Beesbury was murdered during the council session:

So you are saying that you give precedence to implied, second or third hand sources over existing first hand sources for Gyldane?

I don't doubt you would consider Tyland's testimony under torture valid if it would exonerate Rhanyra in any way, lol.

George seems to be polishing story in successive editions, adding more content and details. But as I mention often F&B is quasi historical novel from perspective of Grand Maester Glydane writing few centuries after those events using various sources.

Even in Game of Thrones when talked about previous events we have uncertain information regarding: Rhaegar and kidnapping of Lyanna, Death of Aegon in King's Landing, Jaime and killing of King Aerys ect. 

Reason it is being put in PatQ, makes me doubt it even more considering his record of diversion with multiple possibilities and later giving lesser expected one as true version. With more details given in later editions of story we have more to work on in finding out the truth.

Gyldane is certain that whatever the action, outcome is same, Beesbury's death. Figure of speech or blood split by jailers when leading him  roughly in his cell. Gyldane could believe whatever he wants, if has insight about additional information and he hasn't written it in F&B for readers to use , it is irrelevant.

On 11/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, Lord Varys said:

If Beesbury had truly died of a chill in the dungeons nobody would have spilled his blood. Also, it is rather interesting that Orwyle claims Otto arrested Beesbury. This certainly could be a hint that he gave away the man who commanded/told Cole what to do. Keep in mind that the Eustace account as given to us only states what Cole allegedly did, not who commanded him to do it.

You do have a point that it would be odd for a Kingsguard - even the LC - to just kill a man on the king's council without authorization from the queen or Hand.

It also doesn't strike me as likely there were men outside to arrest Beesbury. Otto and Alicent and Cole had used KG to call the men to the council, involving guardsmen and men-at-arms in this business would have been pretty risky. They successfully kept the king's death a secret even in the castle itself, which implies there were very few people involved in this entire coup. At least at the start.

Guards are usually always present on court, especially when having important sessions as that was. They were probably of Hightower household. Hand of the King had his own men and power to select and position whomever he wanted in lesser positions. King was also sick for some time and Hand made decisions that would suit him on the Court especially. 

You put blame for Lyman's death on Otto though he there are no reports to confirm that. Even Alicent ordering would be more plausible, but from every source or edition of novel Cole is presented as culprit, and Otto is never mentioned in ordering that.In story he is  represented as politician, favoring quills over blades in dealing with issues, with no rumors of brutality even by Mushroom.

Though this is my main conclusion about your efforts to disprove my arguments:

From what I see of your posts you tend to believe mostly Eustace above Orwyle, until he writes how Rhaenyra did cut herself on the throne or other damaging claims, regarding Mushroom's claims of Cole's chastity you explain them as  "manic sarcastic satire", any source is flawed if it speaks badly of Rhaenyra. Which speaks of overt favoritism or even obsession.

We could see bias toward Rhaenyra's side even in many of articles of Asioaf wiki which mention dismissing claims to counter damning sources or evidence regarding her, while other side isn't handled same:

From Wiki 

Rhaenyra article:

Quote

 Upon taking the city, Rhaenyra insisted on claiming her father's seat, and so she climbed the Iron Throne and accepted pleas of forgiveness and loyalty from those in the Red Keep all throughout the night. Although Rhaenyra was dressed in armor, Septon Eustace[12] claimed that those present witnessed the throne leaving several cuts on her legs and left hand.

Cole article:

Quote

During the meeting of Viserys's small council after King Viserys's death in 129 AC, Cole slit the throat of Lord Lyman Beesbury, the only member of the council to support crowning Princess Rhaenyra instead of Prince Aegon.

Though lot of fandom share those sentiments, along with many who rather superficially view characters, with "badass" lauded as greatest "virtue", I have other view about the novel.

What most discussion lack is open mindedness and deeper look in intricacies of civil war, without either side having monopoly on doing good or evil deeds. 

 

[Lord Varys]

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

They did that, though first official decisions were made in Green council as top position in the city and to give more legitimacy to their decision, and went to change those who loyalty was doubted in lower positions.

The sacked the previous lord commander of the City Watch along with a number of his officers. That means the court was not in Green hands prior to that.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

It is only record we have of their statements.

You come here and doubt Eustace's account of events but buy other accounts you basically have no reason to consider more viable than Eustace's? What's your standard.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

King Viserys cut the tongues out of last people who told truth about bastardy of his grandchildren. He also sacked Otto when he got annoying about making Aegon his heir. I doubt that he was open to hearing opposing opinions and wise people on positions, who wanted to keep them, probably avoided doing just that.

The father of Rhaenyra Targaryen's sons is Ser Laenor Velaryon. That is the official story and there is evidence or testimony to the contrary.

You yourself confirm that Jasper Wylde must have been a coward and hypocrite, especially if he had legal principles. Because, you know, I would have never accepted the position of Master of Laws if I had a major issue with the king's chosen and anointed heir. And it would have been King Viserys I who granted said office to Lord Wylde, not Otto Hightower.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Tyland means that if he swore vow he would honor it. He isn't his father nor heir of Casterly Rock, also many other lords newer swore it (like Cregan) since it was 23 years ago and probably also was his point.

How do you know what Tyland Lannister thought or what his point was? That's nowhere in the text.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

When he swore to Aegon III he served him faithfully and to best of his abilities during regency, though he suggested his execution to Aegon II earlier. He was a "man of doing what is best for realm"by his own judgment not man of any king or queen specifically. 

Tyland Lannister was personally loyal to Aegon III not 'the Realm'. He rose to high office only after his return to court when the new king was already made and he accepted that. There is no indication he was loyal to some abstract concept. In fact, he effectively pissed on the Realm and his own homelands - the Westerlands - when he focused more on the immediate domains of his king (i.e. KL and the surrounding lands), ignoring the Ironborn threat entirely.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Orwyle was sent from Oldtown and he was based in King's Landing where Greens had dominance when Rhaenyra retreated to Dragonstone to raise her children. He probably was the type to go with the flow.

No textual evidence for that. In fact, what evidence we do have indicates Orwyle was neither a committed Black nor a committed Green. Or do you have insights into Orwyle we all lack?

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

What cow men? Were they present in small council meeting, Since it wasn't public it doesn't make an example except for people in the council.

For the people on the council. Otto, Alicent, and Cole could not trust any of them. They had to get them on board and didn't do that before.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Since only Orwyle and Larys  seem of dubious intent, and neither were irreplaceable , it is hassle to bloody hands so early just to intimidate those two.

I don't think so. And these two aren't the only ones - Lannister and Wylde were new men as well.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Anyway it doesn't seem like "modus operandi" of Otto and too much brutality would disservice to one's cause as seen with Rhaenyra.

How so? They are brutal only behind closed doors, not in public. And honestly they even do have propagandists in the real world it seems...

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

People, especially lords are never truly equal. 
There is huge difference if you belong to Powerful house or you are foreigner or of "lesser" blood. 
For example Jaime Lannister was taken hostage when captured in battle and  was favorite son of Tywin , Cole since he wasn't scion of Great House or valuable hostage  was killed during parley.

I daresay Eddard Stark knows more about the intricacies of court policies and the position of the Hand in the Small Council than you. And he tells us that he is primus inter pares and not some king.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

This is also how Otto is described, he was brother of Lord of Hightower and Hand of the King three times he held political gravitas aplenty:

His grandson wasn't very bright lad himself or very successful political player to make that judgment. He reacted on initial losses while Otto planned to win war with "quills and ravens" which seemed like indecisiveness to him. Though Otto's strategy was far from ideal it still held some value.

It shows Otto didn't have that much personal power. He was no Tywin. He was just a landless knight who successfully put his daughter in the king's bed.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

He might be considered traitor and hypocrite by those with shallow view on matters of succession or opposing side, but that still doesn't make him cruel and bloodthirsty, he is shown more keen to deal through diplomacy or politics. 

Otto Hightower is a bloody traitor and oathbreaker. He swore to uphold Rhaenyra's succession and he broke that vow - a vow that didn't include the caveat that she would only succeed to the throne if the king would die without sons because then no other lord or knight or peasant would have fought for Rhaenyra and she would have ceased to be presumptive heir in 107 AC when Aegon was born.

Otto and Cole are confirmed traitors and oathbreakers. That's just a fact.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

If in custody I doubt old man could have done anything to stop them, except send ravens to warn Rhaenyra. 

And they did not want that, did they?

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

What knowledge of plots and plans did he had except those for crowning Aegon ? Which was often asked publicly and easily presumed as possibility by their opponents. 

That they were actually trying to stage a coup - which wasn't something Rhaenyra and her family were expecting. They trusted those bloody traitors.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

It is too much of a hassle to do the deed just for the people on the table when most support them anyway.

They had no way of knowing that - in fact, they didn't know that even after Beesbury had been dealt with.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Attitude of Otto Hightower is that war could had been won by "quills and ravens" yet without bloodshed, out of arrogance or pride maybe, he is described as having both characteristics.

Nonsense, Hightower also wanted to win the war by battle - but he was smart enough to know they should choose the battlefield and build a united front consisiting of many supporters. Which could help them to dissuade those lords who might want to support Rhaenyra limiting the bloodshed. But it is quite clear that Otto wasn't as stupid as to believe there wouldn't be a war.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Lannisters requested for Tyland to  get a pardon, Corlys considered it small price for getting gold back probably. There is direct quote:

Yeah, I forgot that - but Tyland didn't get the Handship as part of that deal.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

I doubt Cregan had done any exhaustive investigation on matters in King's Landing, he was rather arbitrary and more interested in satisfying his view of honor than true justice.

Considering there was actually a trial and quite a few witnesses this seems to be an opinion that's not exactly in accordance with the facts to put it mildly. But to be sure, Cregan didn't cared about the beginning of the war - unlike what Orwyle may have thought. He was condemned to death because he provided the poison to murder Aegon II.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

So you are saying that you give precedence to implied, second or third hand sources over existing first hand sources for Gyldane?

There is no firsthand source on the thing. Gyldayn only has Munkun's text - which draws for court stuff on Orwyle's testimony, but that text itself is lost - or rather: Gyldayn doesn't have it and never quotes it directly.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

I don't doubt you would consider Tyland's testimony under torture valid if it would exonerate Rhanyra in any way, lol.

I'm sure Tyland wouldn't need to be tortured to tell people that Orwyle wasn't a Black sympathizer at the Green Council.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Gyldane is certain that whatever the action, outcome is same, Beesbury's death. Figure of speech or blood split by jailers when leading him  roughly in his cell. Gyldane could believe whatever he wants, if has insight about additional information and he hasn't written it in F&B for readers to use , it is irrelevant.

As I said, I'd call that sloppy writing. If I write 'the first blood spilled in a war was the blood of the old man' then said old man's blood would have actually been spilled. It would also be likely wrong that he was the first man whose blood was spilled if he lived on in the cells for quite some time considering people started to die rather quickly.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

Guards are usually always present on court, especially when having important sessions as that was. They were probably of Hightower household. Hand of the King had his own men and power to select and position whomever he wanted in lesser positions. King was also sick for some time and Hand made decisions that would suit him on the Court especially.

While you have no evidence to back up this opinion of yours there is no need to discuss it. Bottom line is we are talking about the king's very own apartments here - Maegor's Holdfast. There wouldn't be any Hand guards in there, assuming Otto had such (they are never mentioned) - and if they were bringing them in this would have broadened the circle of the people who knew stuff about the king's death and the planned coup.

In fact, throwing Beesbury in the dungeon would have been a risk since he knew about the king's death and their plans and could have told it to the gaolers and turnkeys in the dungeons.

The men who were arrested later were just arrested - they didn't know anything about the death of the king or the plans of the people who arrested them nor why they were arrested. Beesbury knew all that.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

You put blame for Lyman's death on Otto though he there are no reports to confirm that. Even Alicent ordering would be more plausible, but from every source or edition of novel Cole is presented as culprit, and Otto is never mentioned in ordering that.In story he is  represented as politician, favoring quills over blades in dealing with issues, with no rumors of brutality even by Mushroom.

Could also be Alicent, but Otto was the Hand. He would speak with the King's Voice not the queen.

And no - Cole is merely described as the man who murdered Beesbury. Nowhere is it stated he did it by his own volition. It is certainly not impossible that he did. But as I said - you are right. It would have been improper for Cole to murder a fellow councillor without permission of the guys in charge (Otto and/or Alicent) - especially since such a blatant murder could have easily gotten himself killed for, you know, murder. Thus it seems clear to me that if we go with Beesbury being murdered by Cole - which we should - that he did so with the approval of the Hand and/or the queen.

24 minutes ago, Eltharion21 said:

From what I see of your posts you tend to believe mostly Eustace above Orwyle, until he writes how Rhaenyra did cut herself on the throne or other damaging claims, regarding Mushroom's claims of Cole's chastity you explain them as  "manic sarcastic satire", any source is flawed if it speaks badly of Rhaenyra. Which speaks of overt favoritism or even obsession.

LOL. I certainly am of the opinion - as basically all sensible people are - that the Greens are bloody traitors because they staged a coup and betrayed (or perhaps even murdered) their king. But this doesn't mean the Rhaenyra herself or her gang are great heroes or anything.

Although it is also quite clear - and very satisfying, actually - that the Greens are nearly all scum (and the only Green who isn't total scum, Tyland Lannister, becomes a Black in the end) whereas most of the heroic and decent characters in the Dance of the Dragons are all Blacks.

I'd have expected more nuance there but considering that I liked Rhaenyra more than Aegon II since I first read about the Dance in AGoT I see no great reason to complain there.

But unlike you I can differentiate between my own personal preferences and the text in mind. Eustace throws dirt at Rhaenyra in his account on her and Cole (he has her have sex with Daemon) - but that doesn't affect my take on the history. My analysis on the back story of Cole and Rhaenyra is based on the glaring plot holes in Mushroom's version of events as well as on the fact that all people involved would have behaved much differently if Mushroom's version was correct - starting with King Viserys I himself, Cole, Rhaenyra, Daemon, etc.

But this is not really a question of preferences. Rhaenyra is Stannis and Alicent and Otto are Cersei and Tywin. And Aegon II is Joffrey - he is the wrong king, the usurper who shouldn't rule.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 11/29/2019 at 4:10 PM, Lord Varys said:

True enough, but I meant more in relation to his obsession with a certain woman (Rhaenyra) and in the manly advancement department. He rose to the utmost peak of the chivalric hierarchy - he likely could also have made a pretty fine match instead of joining the KG but he didn't want that.

Littlefinger seems fixated on his backstory, but not so much on Catelyn specifically even if he also says he's only loved her. Sansa can be viewed as a stand-in for her, but she's not her, and when the actual Catelyn dies it's hardly like Inigo Montoya losing his purpose. The knight who receives the favor of a young Targaryen princess but can't get over her marriage to a Targaryen prince sounds more like Bonifer Hasty. Cole was actually quite loyal to Alicent after he openly switched to her side, unlike the chronically treacherous Littlefinger.

Quote

Yes, but that's after he became king - and him describing a scene he personally witnessed in front of the entire court. There should be multiple testimonies for this scene (sort of like Gyldayn tells us about the many reports about the Luke-Aemond confrontation), meaning that Eustace wouldn't have felt either a need nor a desire to lie about the event.

In fact, it could also be that not he himself came up with his Aegon II apology but his story there goes back to confessions/reports/rumors of the people involved. The crippled and broken Aegon II himself could have whined about how he never wanted to be king in weak moments after his restoration, how it was all his mother's, his grandfather's, and Cole's fault because they pushed him into it - even if he himself wasn't all that reluctant and never loved his half-sister or thought she should rule.
 

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Do you not believe the accounts because Eustace is the only source? Are you arguing there are actually multiple sources even though we only see Eustace cited? Because my point was to show that Eustace doesn't always strive to make Aegon II specifically rather than his supporters look good, even if he was a Green himself and generally derides Rhaenyra. And as with the story of Cole going to Rhaenyra, he could have just said nothing.

Quote

I don't recall the name right now but it is the most recent thread on Cole, I think, in the World subforum.

Was it the one I linked to above?

Quote

If Cole had been so horrified he would have broken with Rhaenyra in 111 AC when she made her first advances - and he would have challenged Daemon to a duel/done everything in his power to destroy this man who had so corrupted a royal princess. Not to mention that Viserys I - who separated Rhaenyra and Harwin after 'the Strong talk' started in 120 AC would have never allowed his daughter a sworn shield who was a knight of the Kingsguard she was trying to seduce.

I think it's more plausible if Rhaenyra only made advances shortly before her wedding to Laenor and not earlier, and that at most any flirting she did earlier was not something he regarded as a serious attempt to seduce him.

Quote

That Cole had issues with adultery in principle it is very odd that he would stick with Aegon II who was a confirmed adulterer even before he rose to the throne.

Aegon II was too young to be an adulturer when Cole defected from the Blacks to the Greens. He also married according to his parents wishes and not under a cloud of scandal, and he had three legitimate children as his heirs rather than obvious bastards. We don't know the names of his mistresses or illegitimate children because he was more of a Robert Baratheon than an Aegon IV. He seems to have bedded lowborn women who didn't affect court politics rather than openly favoring any over his actual wife like Rhaenyra/Laenor did during the tourney.

Quote

The reason why Cole punishes Harwin and Joffrey is that the former is Rhaenyra's lover and the Joffrey is his way to hurt Laenor - Rhaenyra's husband who is clearly not worthy of her. Keep in mind that as per Eustace's story Laenor actually is the reason for their falling-out. Cole wants Rhaenyra to run away with him but Rhaenyra wants the Iron Throne and her father made it clear to her that marrying Laenor is the price she has to pay to one day wear the crown. He symbolizes the problem in whatever relationship they had.

Laenor didn't do anything to cause the marriage, it was arranged by King Viserys. Laenor seemed indifferent to letting his wife sleep with her sworn shield instead of her actual husband, so if Cole had remained in his place it's possible he could have lived the life of Harwin Strong/Jaime Lannister. If Cole was primarily mad at Rhaenyra rejecting him, wouldn't you expect his wrath to be much more directed at her champion rather than Laenor's?

Quote

Also, if we truly assumed Cole was 'as chaste as an old septa' as Mushroom claimed, then Rhaenyra would have been the one loathing him for spurning her not once but twice. Yet there is no indication that she ever thought about Cole again after their falling-out.

Cole turned against the Blacks as a whole, and when arguing for Aegon II he denounced Rhaenyra, Laenor and Daemon as reasons not to let any of their children (or "children" in the case of Laenor) on the throne. Rhaenyra is portrayed as a spoiled child who thought herself entitled to whatever she wanted at the moment, so she could well have moved on after Cole rejected her and pre-occuppied herself with Harwin and then Daemon.

Quote

Just as Cole making Aegon II had basically nothing to do with him making a better/more rightful king - it is his payback for Rhaenyra spurning him. She had the choice between Cole and the Iron Throne/Laenor - and she chose the latter. Thus Cole ensures she is never ever going to get what she wants.

I agree he's more anti-Rhaenyra than pro-Aegon II. He became Alicent's sworn shield when her son was just a kid rather than someone who had given much evidence of how he'd behave on the throne.

Quote

In fact, it is not that unlikely that Cole - like Littlefinger - fueled the hatred between the two factions after he joined Alicent to ensure somebody would prevent Rhaenyra's rise to the Iron Throne. It might be that he was indeed the true architect of the coup, with Otto and Alicent only going through with it because they were nudged and manipulated by him.

This isn't just you speculating in the absence of evidence but AGAINST information we actually have. The Blacks and Green were bitterly divided factions back when Cole was still a Black, and the Greens had been pushing to put Aegon II on the throne throughout. Otto had actually been removed as Hand because he kept pushing for that. Alicent had tried to marry her son to Rhaenyra to put him on the throne. Neither of them needed to be convinced by Criston to support their own descendant over Rhaenyra.

Quote

It is a pity we have so cursory an account on the reign of Viserys I - especially the later years. Cole remains a pretty superficial character aside from some hints about his ultimate motivation - we may be able to guess what he wanted, but not what he actually did behind the scenes.

Some people wish GRRM had spent more time fleshing that out, and others wish he had taken the time he spent writing those pseudo-histories and instead finished Winds .

On 11/30/2019 at 5:37 PM, Eltharion21 said:

People, especially lords are never truly equal. 

There is huge difference if you belong to Powerful house or you are foreigner or of "lesser" blood. 
For example Jaime Lannister was taken hostage when captured in battle and  was favorite son of Tywin , Cole since he wasn't scion of Great House or valuable hostage  was killed during parley.

I didn't think there was any parley, it was instead an ambush.

Quote

He might be considered traitor and hypocrite by those with shallow view on matters of succession or opposing side, but that still doesn't make him cruel and bloodthirsty, he is shown more keen to deal through diplomacy or politics.

 

Telling Viserys to name Rhaenys heir as a move against Daemon and then refusing to accept her as heir when it doesn't suit him as well politically does mark him as a hypocrite. And I say that as someone who thinks others could have supported Aegon II out of an honest belief that prior precedent barred a woman from inheriting. Your arguments for it being reasonable/prudent do nothing to make it less hypocritical.

Quote

If in custody I doubt old man could have done anything to stop them, except send ravens to warn Rhaenyra.

How is he going so send any ravens while he's in custody?

Quote

What knowledge of plots and plans did he had except those for crowning Aegon ? Which was often asked publicly and easily presumed as possibility by their opponents.

Aemond also asked if Aegon or Rhaenyra was to be crowned when he heard Viserys died.

Quote

Blood oaths happen at the end of the meeting by wording of Orwyle, and that seems more to create point, than murder of Beesbury which actually caricaturizes three characters as overly evil (Otto, Alicent and Cole)  just to make one saintly (Rhaenyra)

There's no making Rhaenyra look saintly, even if the Greens also look bad.

Quote

You put blame for Lyman's death on Otto though he there are no reports to confirm that. Even Alicent ordering would be more plausible, but from every source or edition of novel Cole is presented as culprit, and Otto is never mentioned in ordering that.In story he is  represented as politician, favoring quills over blades in dealing with issues, with no rumors of brutality even by Mushroom.

Otto was replaced as Hand by Criston precisely because he was a diplomat rather than a warrior. On the other hand, Mushroom is trying to tell entertaining/lurid stories and it could be that Otto lends himself less well to such stories than Criston.

On 11/30/2019 at 6:56 PM, Lord Varys said:

You yourself confirm that Jasper Wylde must have been a coward and hypocrite, especially if he had legal principles. Because, you know, I would have never accepted the position of Master of Laws if I had a major issue with the king's chosen and anointed heir. And it would have been King Viserys I who granted said office to Lord Wylde, not Otto Hightower.

He could have accepted the position in order to do the day-to-day work of it, whatever that happens to be although we don't yet know. He wasn't hired specifically to affirm Rhaenyra's right to inherit.

Quote

Tyland Lannister was personally loyal to Aegon III not 'the Realm'. He rose to high office only after his return to court when the new king was already made and he accepted that. There is no indication he was loyal to some abstract concept. In fact, he effectively pissed on the Realm and his own homelands - the Westerlands - when he focused more on the immediate domains of his king (i.e. KL and the surrounding lands), ignoring the Ironborn threat entirely.

That depends on whether you consider Master of Ships and Master of Coin to be "high office". Tyland seems to have loyally served whoever was giving him orders, thus making him closer to the ideal Varys posed as having but turned out not to when it came time to destabilize the Lannisters. Ignoring the Ironborn because war could happen is a bad idea, but doing so during an actual civil war is more excuseable.

Quote

I don't think so. And these two aren't the only ones - Lannister and Wylde were new men as well.

How long had they been on the council?

Quote

I daresay Eddard Stark knows more about the intricacies of court policies and the position of the Hand in the Small Council than you. And he tells us that he is primus inter pares and not some king.

The Hand is not "equal" to the other members of the council, he can act with the powers of the king in the absence of the king. Robert explicitly said he wanted Ned to run his kingdom for him, and he wasn't the first king of Westeros to leave such responsibilities to his Hand.

Quote

It shows Otto didn't have that much personal power. He was no Tywin. He was just a landless knight who successfully put his daughter in the king's bed.

It shows that the king can replace one Hand with another, just as Aerys replaced Tywin. But Tywin had been regarded as running the kingdom earlier, and his independent position is part of why Aerys regarded him as more of a threat than his subsequent Hands of lower stature, culminating in Rossart.

Quote

Otto Hightower is a bloody traitor and oathbreaker. He swore to uphold Rhaenyra's succession and he broke that vow - a vow that didn't include the caveat that she would only succeed to the throne if the king would die without sons because then no other lord or knight or peasant would have fought for Rhaenyra and she would have ceased to be presumptive heir in 107 AC when Aegon was born.

I don't think the fact that each side had supporters can illegetimize the other side. Here some people thought that precedent supported the king's son, while others thought it supported the king's prerogative of naming his own heir.

Quote

That they were actually trying to stage a coup - which wasn't something Rhaenyra and her family were expecting. They trusted those bloody traitors.

What is the evidence that Rhaenyra trusted people she'd spent years despising? She was at a disadvantage due to being on Dragonstone rather than near the king and because she was giving birth, not because she naively believed the Greens weren't enemies.

Quote

LOL. I certainly am of the opinion - as basically all sensible people are - that the Greens are bloody traitors because they staged a coup and betrayed (or perhaps even murdered) their king. But this doesn't mean the Rhaenyra herself or her gang are great heroes or anything.

What is the reason to think that they murdered him?

Quote

Although it is also quite clear - and very satisfying, actually - that the Greens are nearly all scum (and the only Green who isn't total scum, Tyland Lannister, becomes a Black in the end) whereas most of the heroic and decent characters in the Dance of the Dragons are all Blacks.

I would say that the Caltrops come across looking rather noble. Conversely, the most noble characters on the Black side are the bastards who tried to prove their loyalty even after the actions of the Betrayers turned Rhaenyra against them. I would also give Alicent minor points for suggesting a Grand Council, which is what should have happened in the first place instead of a civil war.

Quote

But this is not really a question of preferences. Rhaenyra is Stannis and Alicent and Otto are Cersei and Tywin. And Aegon II is Joffrey - he is the wrong king, the usurper who shouldn't rule.

Rhaenyra has VERY strong Cersei parallels. She rather shamelessly had bastard children with a knight that didn't resemble her actual husband in the slightest, and her response to people pointing this out was to confirm her fear of the charge by killing them. Her paranoia that led her to order the death of allied dragonrider Nettles and the imprisonment of her arguably most important supporter Corlys are right out of the Cersei playbook in AFFC. Stannis may be a party to the assassination of Renly, but he wasn't actually aware of it, dwelling on how he was asleep when it happened and he realized he loved his brother afterward. What Rhaenyra and Daemon ordered Blood and Cheese to do is cold on another level, and closer to Cersei ordering the deaths of even Robert's infant bastards. Aegon II isn't a bastard and would be the legitimate heir to someone who accepted Jasper Wylde's legal reasoning. He's not a psychopath, though he's definitely a rather shitty guy. Of the dragon-riding Greens, Aemond seems like the biggest asshole, and he's sort of a pale reflection of Daemon. As for who "should rule", I'd say nobody who actually wore a crown during the Dance.