Lord Varys Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. Sure, I'm not saying they are identical. Littlefinger definitely did get over Cat, but Cole never got over Rhaenyra. But unlike Littlefinger Cole never believed Cat loved him, too, and once had sex with him. Nor does Cole have a daughter of Rhaenyra's in his power. Littlefinger's take on Sansa is very complex and weird. We don't know how loyal Cole was to Alicent. In fact, we don't really know whose idea it was to crown Aegon II. Sure, it might be that this was Alicent's/Otto's idea but we cannot dismiss the possibility that Cole was pushing them in that direction. History remembers Cole as the Kingmaker, not Otto Hightower or Alicent Hightower. Granted, it might be Cole got that name just because he literally put the crown on the usurper's head, but it could also indicate that he played a more crucial role in all that behind the scenes. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. My point is that Eustace is not writing a propaganda text. He writes a history. In the case of Aegon II's reluctance to take the throne he may have invented the story - or his sources (the king himself, his family, or the courtiers involved in the coup like Cole) may have simply fooled him. But when Eustace tells events witnessed by many - including himself - he usually keeps to events as they happened. Thus we can be reasonably certain that things like the brothel queens never happened because Eustace never recounts stuff like that - whereas Mushroom liked to repeat stuff like that. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. But nobody ever says that. If you actually analyze the works and the events depicted by the various sources you have to go by the narrative they go with. You cannot pick and choose and say 'Well, I prefer it if only half of Mushroom's narrative were accurate when his overall narrative depends on everything being accurate'. The idea that Daemon would ever just teach his niece to seduce another man sounds completely ridiculous from his POV considering that he actually wants to marry Rhaenyra to get closer to the throne. His goal would be to seduce her, to make her fall in love with him so they can marry. Overall, the only man Rhaenyra ever truly loved was her dear uncle. She may have had a childhood fancy for Cole, but nothing more, and whether she ever had an affair with Harwin Strong we'll never know - if she did, though, it seems he was little more than a sperm-donor in her marriage deal with Laenor (who obviously refused to impregnate or live with her) since there is no indication whatsoever that Rhaenyra grieved for Harwin or was distraught when they were separated. With Daemon, though, there are multiple hints that she loved him since she was a small girl and always wanted him first. Cole and other men were just distractions she entertained to a point while Daemon was away and she had no way of knowing whether he would ever come back. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. It is still clear that Aegon II had fathered and recognized at least two bastards by the time he became king, all of which were fathered after he had married. If Cole truly cared about the sanctity of marriage he has an odd way of showing it. Aegon II is also the first Targaryen king ever to have acknowledged bastards - from the Conqueror to Viserys I no Targaryen king ever had such (although Maegor very much tried). 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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? You are confusing things. We are talking about the wedding tourney. Nobody knew at this point that Laenor and Rhaenyra would not live and sleep together most of the time. The crucial point is that Laenor still is the man Rhaenyra chose. A man who more or less openly keeps a male paramour in Joffrey Lonmouth. This must have hurt him very much. We also have no reason to assume that Cole knew Strong had become Rhaenyra's lover - nor do we know that he ever was that. But we have also to keep in mind that Harwin Strong was the strongest man in the Seven Kingdoms. Cole may have hammered him has much as Lonmouth without achieving the same result. But Strong did get a very good beating nonetheless. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. But we don't have any real evidence that she had any real romantic interest in Cole. That's all Mushroom, and he essentially tells the same ridiculous story twice as if neither Cole nor Rhaenyra were remembering that the ploy she allegedly used in 111 AC didn't work then. Not even Mushroom himself bothers to tell us what Rhaenyra thought about Cole in later years - which strongly indicates that his episode about these two is just a ribald story. I mean, there could have easily been a scene where Rhaenyra curses the ingrate false knight she showed so much favor back in the past when suffers in labor - not to mention later when he causes the death of Rhaenys and Meleys, or after she learns of his death in the Riverlands. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. Well, he may have only joined Alicent to push her in his direction. Keep in mind that originally Rhaenyra and Alicent were friends. They relationship soured slowly and just because they didn't get along very well in the early 110s doesn't mean they would kill each other and plunge the Realm into a civil war two decades later. It seems clear that a very crucial step in all that is the 120 AC when the Aemond incident really started to poison things on a different level. But even then - the fact that neither the Greens nor the Blacks are really prepared for war in 129 AC may indicate that Otto and Alicent did not prepare for a coup for years. And Rhaenyra's party never expected the coup and the subsequent usurpation. Else they would have been prepared for war - which they most definitely weren't. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. Wanting a change in the succession isn't the same as staging a coup, usurping the throne, and starting a civil war. Corlys and Rhaenys also wanted to see Laenor on the throne, but they didn't start a war over that, did they? You are using hindsight knowledge to explain the actions and plans of people 1-2 decades before the events. We do have very good evidence that Alicent never loved Viserys I, but we don't have evidence that both she and her father were willing to do everything in their power to see Aegon the Elder become king back, say, in the 110s. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. I didn't say he did, but nobody needed anyone to affirm Rhaenyra's right to anything. She was the Heir Apparent. Period. If Wylde had an issue with that he shouldn't have served his king in the office at all. I sure wouldn't have if I felt this king was not upholding what I thought was 'law'. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. Master of Ships and Master of Coin are among the highest offices in the Seven Kingdoms. Serving the Realm means something altogether differently than serving a specific king. It is, at least in my opinion, akin to serving the common good (obviously as you see it), and serving Aegon III in any capacity wasn't really serving the common good because this broken boy was just not very good kingly material. I see Tyland more as a more positive version of Tyrion as Joffrey's Hand - Tyrion sticks to Joff out of family loyalty, knowing fully well that Joff is going to be a very bad king and should, for the good of the Realm, never actually rule in his own right. Tyland would be a true monarchist, a man who obeys whoever is king - at least the post -torture version of him - but not the Realm as such. And Tyland ignored the Ironborn even after the war was over. He put Aegon III's interests before those of his own sister-in-law and the West. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How long had they been on the council? We don't know. But we know Tyland was a child in Rhaenyra's days, and we know Lyonel Strong was Master of Laws before Wylde. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. There is that aspect to the Handship as well, but Ned himself makes it clear he cannot presume to make dictatorial decisions. To be sure, with the king dead Otto had more powers now, but he wanted to get the others on board with his plans. If he wanted to dictatorial approach he could have arrested all the men of the council to move forward without involving any of them. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. The idea here is that Otto was basically a nobody without his daughter the dowager queen. He had no banners to raise, no household knights to marshal, etc. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. Otto Hightower was the first to swear the vow to uphold Rhaenyra's succession. He is an oathbreaker and a traitor. If he hadn't sworn a vow he wouldn't be in that position - but he did. And even if he didn't swear the vow - any man woman and child ever acknowledging Rhaenyra Targaryen as Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne from 107-129 AC and then crowning Aegon II instead would have been a traitor. And we can be very sure that Alicent, Otto, and their descendants all did not publicly - and in front of the eyes of the king - declare Rhaenyra was neither Princess of Dragonstone nor Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. If they had all cut ties with court to return to their country estates until the king died - sort of like Maekar does when Bloodraven is named Hand - we would have a different scenario. But we don't. The overall gist is - while Alicent asked her husband to change the succession a couple of times, the matter was settled. It is only opened again after the king's death. While Viserys I was alive and well nobody was questioning Rhaenyra's right to take the throne. Just like nobody questioned Aegon the Uncrowned's right to follow his father Aenys on the throne, or like nobody questioned Joffrey's right to follow Robert (not even Stannis and Renly). 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. The fact that they had made no preparations for a succession war. Corlys and Daemon prepared armies in 101 AC, when the Old King was still alive. Yet Rhaenyra and Daemon never did anything to hire troops and prepare for war despite the fact that Viserys I had been ailing for years. They didn't even make sure that crucial great houses were on their side - they had to do that belatedly, after the king had died. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What is the reason to think that they murdered him? Here I think Mushroom may have a case. Viserys I died at a very opportune time for the Greens. But since there is no evidence it might have been just a happy coincidence for them. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I would say that the Caltrops come across looking rather noble. People like Peake and Roxton are noble? People conspiring to poison and murder their allies? Not in my book. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. And here you see the hypocrisy again - Alicent only suggests a Great Council when she thinks this can help her confirm the usurpation after the fact. If she and Otto had thought a Great Council could give Aegon II his crown they would have used the advantage they had not to murder and arrest people and prepare for a coup and a subsequent war, but they would have called the lords of the Realm to KL to discuss the succession. If Rhaenyra had heard that there was a Great Council in KL rather than that her half-brother had been crowned king she would have had no choice but to present her claim there. Why they didn't do that is never addressed - but one imagines that they feared that Rhaenyra would win the day. Or there would be no clear decision. After all, half the Realm and more actually rose for Rhaenyra even after Aegon II had already been crowned and anointed king. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. Rhaenyra never authorized Blood and Cheese. Daemon did. There is no proof that Rhaenyra's sons aren't Laenor's nor that they resemble Harwin Strong. Even if they were not Laenor's seed - he acknowledged them as his - and their grandfather Lord Corlys did, too - and that should be enough for everyone. Not to mention that as Rhaenyra's sons they do have Targaryen blood and can be seen as her heirs even if they weren't Laenor's children. The situation is completely different from Cersei's. Rhaenyra turning against Addam and Nettles is ugly, but she is pushed in that direction by shitty advisors. It is not she who runs around wanting to persecute or destroy imagined enemies. And, to be sure, it is not surprising that they got paranoid after First Tumbleton. Dragons are very dangerous weapons. But my point was the start of the war - not what people later did. And there it is clear that the Greens stated a coup and usurped the throne and Rhaenyra just fought back to claim what was hers by right. Like Stannis presumes to do. Rhaenyra demanding the executions of various people doesn't change the fact that she has the better claim, that she was the chosen and anointed successor to the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltharion21 Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I didn't think there was any parley, it was instead an ambush. "Calling for a peace banner, King Aegon’s Hand rode out to treat with them. Three came down from the ridge to meet him." During that meeting he was killed by hidden archers. 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. Circumstances had changed, with marriage of Rhaenyra and Daemon without consent of the king. Viserys also didn't have trueborn sons when he asked for her to become his heir. It may be hypocritical but to me it is understandable, even so more with threat to life of his family and even realm stability existed. 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: How is he going so send any ravens while he's in custody? Yes, that was the point I tried to say, Beesbury wasn't any more of a threat than any other lord imprisoned in black cells who eventually got chance to bend the knee or die. Killing him to impress or intimidate few small council members is rather implausible, and doesn't go with how Otto's character is represented. 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aemond also asked if Aegon or Rhaenyra was to be crowned when he heard Viserys died. Aemond wasn't included in political decisions or ruling the realm, or showed much reason, foresight or intelligence in many of his decisions. On the other hand Corlys, Rhaenys or even Daemon by his years alone should be more insightful and able to predict possibilities as Rhaenyra's allies as they dealt with succession crisis during Great Council even gathering men to defend their claims. 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There's no making Rhaenyra look saintly, even if the Greens also look bad. Cole is only one presented as guilty for death of Beesbury by Eustace and Mushroom, Orwyle claims he died in black cells of a chill, he was only there and 80 years old which is plausible explanation. Lord Varys to counter my support of Orwyle's account by reason that Otto was in charge to imply Alicent and him ordered murder of Lyman or whoever else supported her. Which has no basis in novel or their current situation when conflict hasn't escalated. Lord Varys is also one of last vehement defenders of Rhaenyra's children were all true born theory, so my remark was directed to him. 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: 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. It could be so, though Eustace (considered to favor the Greens) claims similar thing but Orwyle who was present on the meeting doesn't. We also in more detailed account of story can see that Kingmaker's role and moniker are inflated when compared to information given in Asoiaf and true Kingmakers are leading people in House Hightower and Velaryon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted December 8, 2019 Author Share Posted December 8, 2019 On 12/4/2019 at 11:25 AM, Lord Varys said: We don't know how loyal Cole was to Alicent. In fact, we don't really know whose idea it was to crown Aegon II. Sure, it might be that this was Alicent's/Otto's idea but we cannot dismiss the possibility that Cole was pushing them in that direction. History remembers Cole as the Kingmaker, not Otto Hightower or Alicent Hightower. Granted, it might be Cole got that name just because he literally put the crown on the usurper's head, but it could also indicate that he played a more crucial role in all that behind the scenes.We don't know how loyal Cole was to Alicent. In fact, we don't really know whose idea it was to crown Aegon II. Sure, it might be that this was Alicent's/Otto's idea but we cannot dismiss the possibility that Cole was pushing them in that direction. History remembers Cole as the Kingmaker, not Otto Hightower or Alicent Hightower. Granted, it might be Cole got that name just because he literally put the crown on the usurper's head, but it could also indicate that he played a more crucial role in all that behind the scenes. We know that Otto earlier lost his position as Hand because he'd already been pushing to make Aegon heir. Cole could not have given him an idea he already had. There's really no evidence for Cole being this sort of Littlefinger-esque figure of persuasion, rather than a blunt-force partisan. His nickname seems intended to reflect Jaime's "Kingslayer", and Jaime was just a kid with a sword when he acquired that name. Cole is thought of in terms of what kind of Lord Commander he was, and since most of them didn't intervene much within political disputes he serves as a warning not to. Quote My point is that Eustace is not writing a propaganda text. I disagree and point to the story of Rhaenyra being cut by the throne despite others noting she was fully armored. I don't think we're supposed to regard any of the sources on the Dance as being wholly objective. This is also why I doubt his claim about Aegon II's reluctance. If you believe Eustace's claim, then Aegon's decision sounds motivated by self-defense rather than ambition. Ran has indicated that we should take Eustace's claims with a grain of salt: Quote But when Eustace tells events witnessed by many - including himself - he usually keeps to events as they happened. Rhaenyra being cut by the throne was a public event with many witnesses, so we have Gyldayne telling us details which contradict Eustace's account. Quote If you actually analyze the works and the events depicted by the various sources you have to go by the narrative they go with. You cannot pick and choose and say 'Well, I prefer it if only half of Mushroom's narrative were accurate when his overall narrative depends on everything being acc urate'. I don't think I have to pick one source and say everything they write is reliable. Instead I evaluate particular claims and ask whether they actually sound plausible or self-serving, and fitting in with other sources' claims rather than just their own can result in that. Quote The idea that Daemon would ever just teach his niece to seduce another man sounds completely ridiculous from his POV considering that he actually wants to marry Rhaenyra to get closer to the throne Daemon was already married to Rhea Rhoyce at the time, and Cole was prohibited from marrying anyone. Rhaenyra sleeping with another sworn shield didn't get in the way of marrying Laenor to form a political alliance with the Velaryons. And if Viserys had found out about Cole doing anything untoward with Rhaenyra, he would have just gotten rid of Cole. If Cole refused, as Mushroom claimed, I don't see why Daemon would think he'd hurt his chances with her going forward. Viserys certainly wouldn't approve of them marrying, but they married without his approval. Quote whether she ever had an affair with Harwin Strong we'll never know I don't think there's any reason to doubt it. No source seems to argue against it, and this isn't just hind-sight but instead something Vaemond died over and his sons lost their tongues for, even though Mellos indicated Viserys himself came to belief the rumors he was quashing. This is a rather explicit callback to Cersei trying to remove the tongues from people truthfully asserting the illegitimacy of her own children, and arguably Aerys removing Ilyn Payne's tongue. Quote it seems he was little more than a sperm-donor in her marriage deal with Laenor He had her favor at the tourney, just like Joffrey had Laenor's. And was written as accompanying her everywhere. Quote who obviously refused to impregnate or live with her So you agree Laenor wasn't the father of her kids? Since they are all said to look the same, I think we can infer they shared the same biological father, and Harwin is very strongly implied to be that man with no other candidates we know of. Quote It is still clear that Aegon II had fathered and recognized at least two bastards by the time he became ki ng Fathered, yes, recognized, no. We never get any names for them, and just low occupations for the mothers. Quote all of which were fathered after he had married Fathered in the same year, although the ordering isn't specified. It's stated that he continued bedding women after his marriage, so the basic point about him being an adulterer does indeed hold. Quote If Cole truly cared about the sanctity of marriage he has an odd way of showing it It's been said that hypocrisy is the due that vice pays to virtue, and the open way in which Rhaenyra and Laenor favored their lovers over their spouses at their own marriage meant not bothering to pay dues at all. This continued with Harwin being at Rhaenyra's side more often than her husband and present at the births of their illegitimate children. If we look at Cole's objection to Rhaenyra's succession in the council, he refers to her bastards and also says "No man's daughter will be safe, nor any man's wife". Aegon II has not been accused, as far as we know, with sleeping with anyone's wife or the daughters of any nobles. Unlike Daemon, he also hasn't been accused of knocking anyone off so he could marry/sleep with their partner. Quote Nobody knew at this point that Laenor and Rhaenyra would not live and sleep together most of the time You're right that it wasn't known for a fact, although it had already been brought up as an objection to the marriage which was dismissed by Mellos. Quote The crucial point is that Laenor still is the man Rhaenyra chose A man she chose to marry while both of them made plain their preference for their own lovers. And again Laenor doesn't seem to be faced with any real choice regarding marriage, he just submitted to what was arranged. Viserys really bears responsibility for it. Quote A man who more or less openly keeps a male paramour in Joffrey Lonmouth. This must have hurt him very much Normally when a married person is revealed to be cheating, this is regarded as an embarrassment for the spouse that their partner would betray them in that way. They're supposed to be the ones who are hurt. It wouldn't be regarded as any sort of embarrassment for Harwin that Rhaenyra married Laenor instead of him, nor would Rhaenyra's husband having a male paramour be hurtful to Harwin (although I suppose if he wanted to brag about cuckolding her husband it would diminish the nature of his accomplishment). If we accepted the story that it was Cole who came onto Rhaenyra, then yes her rejection would hurt. But her rejection there has nothing to do with the merits of Laenor over Cole but instead that Cole would have to violate his kingsguard oath and thereby devalue any oath including that of marriage he subsequently took. Quote We also have no reason to assume that Cole knew Strong had become Rhaenyra's lover - nor do we know that he ever was that Per Mushroom's story, Rhaenyra went to Harwin immediately after Cole rejected her. Neither Rhaenyra nor Laenor ever seemed to go to any effort into disguising their relationships with their paramours, but instead publicly drew attention to them. We as readers are led to regard these things as basically common knowledge, despite your caveats, and I see no reason to regard Cole as ignorant of these facts and instead just thrashing knights for receiving (in his mind) non-romantic favors. Quote But we have also to keep in mind that Harwin Strong was the strongest man in the Seven Kingdoms. Cole may have hammered him has much as Lonmouth without achieving the same result. But Strong did get a very good beating nonetheless. That is a good point. Perhaps that suggests some equality in animus on Cole's part. Quote But we don't have any real evidence that she had any real romantic interest in Cole Gyldayne wrote that as a child she took a fancy to him, calling him "my white knight", and asking Viserys to name him her sworn shield. He also writes "It was said in later years that the princess only had eyes for Ser Criston, but there is reason to doubt that this was wholly true." without saying it was just Mushroom. Queen Alicent is also noted to have asked "Ser Criston protects the princess from her enemies, but who protects the princess from Ser Criston?" in response to Rhaenyra's infatuation with him. In this way, Rhaenyra attempting to seduce Criston is not something which seems to come out of nowhere in Mushroom's account but has been set up earlier. And her sleeping with her sworn shield is shown to be something she does with Harwin. Quote They relationship soured slowly and just because they didn't get along very well in the early 110s doesn't mean they would kill each other and plunge the Realm into a civil war two decades later They didn't fight a civil war due to an accumulation of slights but because there were rival claims to the throne, neither of which had enough power to dominate the other. The Blackfyre Rebellion didn't occur due to personal animus between Daemon Blackfyre and Daeron II but because of Aegon IV casting doubt on his legitimate son's parentage (though not explicitly naming a different heir, perhaps because that precedent had been undermined in the Dance) and legitimizing his bastards put them on equal footing as well as those claimants coming to be associated with factions that developed over the shaky peace with Dorne. Quote It seems clear that a very crucial step in all that is the 120 AC when the Aemond incident really started to poison things on a different level And since there's no evidence that Cole had anything to do with that, you're free to speculate that he was in fact the mastermind behind it Quote And Rhaenyra's party never expected the coup and the subsequent usurpation. Else they would have been prepared for war - which they most definitely weren't. They were at a disadvantage because Rhaenyra was giving birth, but they did have more than twice as many dragons. Quote Wanting a change in the succession isn't the same as staging a coup, usurping the throne, and starting a civil war. Corlys and Rhaenys also wanted to see Laenor on the throne, but they didn't start a war over that, did they? Why would they? They got Laenor married to Viserys' heir, which is just what Alicent tried to do with Aegon. If Viserys dies before that marriage, it's a different story. Quote We do have very good evidence that Alicent never loved Viserys I What evidence is that? Quote we don't have evidence that both she and her father were willing to do everything in their power to see Aegon the Elder become king back, say, in the 110s Otto did everything within his power to get Aegon named heir, which resulted in him losing said power when he was removed as Hand. I don't know what more you want from him while Viserys is alive. Alicent at least remained his wife, but the only king to set aside his wife so far has been Baelor, who had never consummated the marriage in the first place and insisted on holy celibacy. Quote serving Aegon III in any capacity wasn't really serving the common good because this broken boy was just not very good kingly material Aegon III's issues don't prevent his regents and counsellors from doing the best job they can. Quote To be sure, with the king dead Otto had more powers now, but he wanted to get the others on board with his plans. If he wanted to dictatorial approach he could have arrested all the men of the council to move forward without involving any of them. The only one who objected as Beesbury, so there was no need to trouble any of the others. According to Orwyle he did arrest Beesbury, but I've already given my reasons for doubting that. Quote [The idea here is that Otto was basically a nobody without his daughter the dowager queen. He had no banners to raise, no household knights to marshal, etc. He wasn't Lord of House Hightower, but his nephew was and brought the wealth of that house to the Green cause, and that alone outmatched every member of the Black council. Quote People like Peake and Roxton are noble? People conspiring to poison and murder their allies? Not in my book. Hobert Hightower drank two glasses of poison to convince Ulf to drink it as well, showing that he prioritized his cause above self-preservation. The Betrayers had just betrayed their own allies, with Hugh later claiming a crown for himself with Aegon II missing despite Daeron being right there, resulting in the killing of Roger Corne and some other knights. Roxton could have waited for Hugh and his dragon to help fend off the Greens during the second battle of Tumbleton. Alicent only gets minor points for suggesting a Grand Council late, but since she's the only one to suggest it that elevates her above others in my book. Quote Why they didn't do that is never addressed - but one imagines that they feared that Rhaenyra would win the day We know that they looked at the records of the previous Grand Council, and concluded that the defeated faction which supported Rhaenys would more likely support Rhaenyra. Alicent claimed that Rhaenyra would kill her and her children to prevent her bastards from being excluded from succession, just as she'd had Vaemond Velaryon killed. She recommended the peace offering by which Rhaenyra's children would be recognized as legitimate heirs to Dragonstone and Driftmark. Rhaenyra would not permit the Hightowers to live after that, so there was a war and little chance that a Council could be assembled during it, which is another reason why Alicent's proposal only gets minor points in my book. Really, Viserys should have had a Grand Council after his son became a rival for the throne so a precedent could be set during peacetime. Quote Even if they were not Laenor's seed - he acknowledged them as his - and their grandfather Lord Corlys did, too - and that should be enough for everyone Robert Baratheon went to his grave thinking Cersei's children were his own, but their illegitimacy still caused a civil war. Rhaenyra's bastards had already resulted in the killing of Vaemond and the mutilation of his children. Quote Not to mention that as Rhaenyra's sons they do have Targaryen blood and can be seen as her heirs even if they weren't Laenor's children If Robert Baratheon had acknowledged Gendry as "Gendry Waters", he would still be a bastard excluded from inheritance. If Aegon IV was correct that Daeron was actually fathered on his wife by Aemon the Dragonknight, his purely Targaryen heritage wouldn't mean he still got to inherit, just as it wasn't enough for Daemon Blackfyre absent the legitimation on Aegon's deathbed. Quote Like Stannis presumes to do. Rhaenyra demanding the executions of various people doesn't change the fact that she has the better claim, that she was the chosen and anointed successor to the Iron Throne. There is a clear Stannis parallel, though Stannis himself regards her as a traitor who died a traitor's death. Stannis calls for death for anyone who opposes his claim to the throne, though he also makes peace with Renly's men who come over to his side despite thinking they have less justification than men who mistakenly believe Joffrey to be the rightful heir. The difference between Stannis and Rhaenyra is that Joffrey is a bastard with no right to anything, whereas Aegon had a claim compatible with prior precedent. On 12/4/2019 at 2:33 PM, Eltharion21 said: "Calling for a peace banner, King Aegon’s Hand rode out to treat with them. Three came down from the ridge to meet him." During that meeting he was killed by hidden archers. Cole might have been trying to parley, but the Blacks never indicated any interest in negotiation, including the taking of any hostages rather than just the son of a steward. Quote Cole is only one presented as guilty for death of Beesbury by Eustace and Mushroom, Orwyle claims he died in black cells of a chill, he was only there and 80 years old which is plausible explanation. Only two out of three sources on that event? It's plausible that an old man could die in the dungeon, but suspicious that Orwyle is the only one who claims he also spoke out alongside Beesbury despite his own survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We know that Otto earlier lost his position as Hand because he'd already been pushing to make Aegon heir. Cole could not have given him an idea he already had. There's really no evidence for Cole being this sort of Littlefinger-esque figure of persuasion, rather than a blunt-force partisan. His nickname seems intended to reflect Jaime's "Kingslayer", and Jaime was just a kid with a sword when he acquired that name. Cole is thought of in terms of what kind of Lord Commander he was, and since most of them didn't intervene much within political disputes he serves as a warning not to. You have to differentiate, in my opinion, between Otto and Alicent's desire to make Aegon the Heir Apparent and their eventual decision to stage a coup and crown Aegon II against the late king's wishes, plunging the Realm into a civil war. Those are two separate things. The Velaryons also wanted to see Laenor on the Iron Throne but they accepted the ruling of the Great Council. Otto and Alicent could have also accepted their king's ruling on the matter - and perhaps they would have done that but for Criston Cole (and other crucial events like the Aemond incident and Rhaenyra's marriage to Daemon). I give them the benefit of the doubt insofar that twenty years are a long time and that they weren't hell-bent on preventing Rhaenyra's rise to the throne under any circumstances from the start. We can be sure, for instance, it wouldn't have come to war if Rhaenyra had had only daughters who could have been wed to Alicent's sons, or if Rhaenyra herself had been compelled to wed Aegon the Elder after the death of Laenor. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I disagree and point to the story of Rhaenyra being cut by the throne despite others noting she was fully armored. I don't think we're supposed to regard any of the sources on the Dance as being wholly objective. This is also why I doubt his claim about Aegon II's reluctance. If you believe Eustace's claim, then Aegon's decision sounds motivated by self-defense rather than ambition. Ran has indicated that we should take Eustace's claims with a grain of salt: Well, the Rhaenyra portrait in FaB gives us an interpretation how she could have worn armor while cutting herself (although I agree that she likely never wore that kind of armor in the story ;-)). And I'm not necessarily saying she couldn't have bled after she came down from the throne. She wouldn't have been accustomed to wearing armor and she had worn that for hours and hours while riding Syrax and sitting the throne. It is not inconceivable she bled underneath and left some drops of blood when she walked out of the hall - that she cut herself on the throne is very unlikely, though (but Eustace wouldn't have seen that happening from down in the throne room unless she shrieked from the pain and had herself bandaged before she continued with her audience - and he never mentions anything of that sort). Her hand she could have easily cut, though. And not being accustomed to throne as she was that likely happened to any Hand or king on the throne once or twice (Ned must be very careful while he sits up there in AGoT). My take is that with the bleeding the bias creeps in from Eustace's framing/interpretation of the event - that it is a sign that she is a false queen and her reign will be short and bloody - not so much from the event itself. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't think I have to pick one source and say everything they write is reliable. Instead I evaluate particular claims and ask whether they actually sound plausible or self-serving, and fitting in with other sources' claims rather than just their own can result in that. I don't think a critical assessment of historical sources works that way. If you assess a narrative you have to keep in mind that the author wrote the whole piece and that all events listed are part of that narrative. It is naive to say, for instance, that one of the gospels or some saint's life is historically accurate sans miracles. Mushroom is, for the most part, a guy who dictated ribald stories for entertainment purposes long after the fact. One imagines he produced anecdotes on cue for the amusement of the scribe he hired (or, more likely, who had tracked him down) and the audience he entertained with those stories. We know that rumors about Rhaenyra and Cole float still around among the people who do not seem to have read Mushroom (Arianne and Arys Oakheart, for instance), so one assumes that the idea that they may have been in love is something that has entered sort of the collective memory of the Seven Kingdoms. Which is why I certainly could see our scribe ask Mushroom about the truth behind those rumors ... after which he then starts to tell 'the real story' behind what the public thinks they know. Mushroom's story about Cole and Rhaenyra is that she tried two times to seduce this man in more or less exactly the same manner - and the especially suspicious event is that her first attempt to seduce Cole had no consequences whatsoever for her when the rumor about Harwin Strong later led to her permanent separation. And, for some reason, only the second attempt to seduce Cole caused him to cut ties with her. Why didn't he become Alicent's sworn shield back in 111 AC? Things like that give Eustace's account much more credence - not to mention the ridiculous 'sex-training episode' there. That's stolen directly from Chaderlos de Laclos (and is already pretty ridiculous there). You have to keep in mind that Mushroom is mostly funny crap. Very few stories of his are accurate. And it doesn't do to just remove him and his member from his stories and says they happened that way. At least not when you really try to apply historical criticism the way a real world historian would do. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Daemon was already married to Rhea Rhoyce at the time, and Cole was prohibited from marrying anyone. Rhaenyra sleeping with another sworn shield didn't get in the way of marrying Laenor to form a political alliance with the Velaryons. And if Viserys had found out about Cole doing anything untoward with Rhaenyra, he would have just gotten rid of Cole. If Cole refused, as Mushroom claimed, I don't see why Daemon would think he'd hurt his chances with her going forward. Viserys certainly wouldn't approve of them marrying, but they married without his approval. Mushroom account of 111 AC has Viserys I learn all about what transpired - yet he only punished Daemon not also his daughter. Which he would have had she pulled off something like that. Cole was a sworn brother of the Kingsguard. It seems also quite clear that Alicent and her Greens would have learned of that, too, and used the knowledge of Daemon turning her into a slut as a means to destroy her completely. Dragons or no, a royal princess would have never survived that. A clandestine affair with Daemon, sure, but what Mushroom claims she did - never. Also, you have to keep in mind that Eustace's scenario of Arryk Cargyll finding Rhaenyra and Daemon abed together after they had sex helps explain the Erryk-Arryk tragedy. I'd say that if Arryk had had no reason to loath Rhaenyra and Daemon he would have never agreed to murder her or her children, nor attack his own twin in the process of it. In fact, I'd say he would have then defected to Rhaenyra's side while being at Dragonstone - something I'd have done in his position if I had been forced to do something this shitty as a knight of the Kingsguard - unless I had my own reasons to agree with Cole's plan. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't think there's any reason to doubt it. No source seems to argue against it, and this isn't just hind-sight but instead something Vaemond died over and his sons lost their tongues for, even though Mellos indicated Viserys himself came to belief the rumors he was quashing. This is a rather explicit callback to Cersei trying to remove the tongues from people truthfully asserting the illegitimacy of her own children, and arguably Aerys removing Ilyn Payne's tongue. My point just is that we have no conclusive evidence. We have literary references and parallels but they are not actual evidence. Vaemond's cousins lost their tongues, his sons kept them (Daenaera's father was Daeron, one of the sons of Vaemond). Vaemond jumped on the chance the Strong rumors gave him to try to steal Driftmark - the wealthiest lordship in all of Westeros at the time - from Corlys' descendants (which also included Laena's daughters). It is remarkably easy to throw dirt at Rhaenyra's sons considering their looks and the fact that their father was a known homosexual. I expect that Renly would have had similar problems 'to prove' that Margaery's children were his seed if they didn't resemble him. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He had her favor at the tourney, just like Joffrey had Laenor's. And was written as accompanying her everywhere. Which is, in the end, the duty of a sworn shield. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: So you agree Laenor wasn't the father of her kids? Since they are all said to look the same, I think we can infer they shared the same biological father, and Harwin is very strongly implied to be that man with no other candidates we know of. The only Strong whose description we know is Ser Lucamore - and he was blond. If Harwin actually looked like Rhaenyra's sons things would have been different. Instead all we know is that they did not resemble either Laenor or Rhaenyra. But we do know that both have non-Valyrian ancestors themselves. Rhaenyra is descended from Rodrik Arryn (and he didn't look very impressive) and his Vale ancestors whereas Laenor has Baratheon and Stormlanders among his ancestors on his mother's side and whatever non-Valyrian Corlys Velaryon has on his father's and unknown mother's sides. If you look at the features of the children of Alysanne (and Alysanne herself) it is actually not that unusual for an incest couple to produce children who do not look alike. And Rhaenyra and Laenor were not that closely related nor of pure-blooded Valyrian descent. We don't even know whether Queen Aemma Arryn had Valyrian features - she could have been brown-haired, brown-eyed, and pug-nosed, resembing either her Arryn father or his maternal/paternal ancestors. Bottom line is - we don't have as much evidence for a Harwin-Rhaenyra affair (much less for the parentage of her children) than we have for some of the other clandestine affairs in FaB. We do have considerable evidence for the actual feelings Rhaena had for her favorites (and vice versa) especially in the case of Elissa Farman. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Fathered, yes, recognized, no. We never get any names for them, and just low occupations for the mothers. History mentions them as his children - which means he recognized them. Recognition means he said they were his children, nothing more. Gaemon Palehair was not among those, although I guess he was actually the father of that one, too, considering they spared his life. They had to make him a false bastard to unmake him as a king, but I think they would have killed him if Aegon II had been sure he wasn't his seed. And even Eustace says Aegon II was not in his marital bed the night his father died but with some mistress. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's been said that hypocrisy is the due that vice pays to virtue, and the open way in which Rhaenyra and Laenor favored their lovers over their spouses at their own marriage meant not bothering to pay dues at all. This continued with Harwin being at Rhaenyra's side more often than her husband and present at the births of their illegitimate children. If we look at Cole's objection to Rhaenyra's succession in the council, he refers to her bastards and also says "No man's daughter will be safe, nor any man's wife". Aegon II has not been accused, as far as we know, with sleeping with anyone's wife or the daughters of any nobles. Unlike Daemon, he also hasn't been accused of knocking anyone off so he could marry/sleep with their partner. Cole doesn't know what he wants at the council meeting. He just knows he doesn't want Rhaenyra on the throne: Quote Ser Criston Cole spoke up. Should the princess reign, he reminded them, Jacaerys Velaryon would rule after her. “Seven save this realm if we seat a bastard on the Iron Throne.” He spoke of Rhaenyra’s wanton ways and the infamy of her husband. “They will turn the Red Keep into a brothel. No man’s daughter will be safe, nor any man’s wife. Even the boys…we know what Laenor was.” Laenor's wanton ways would be irrelevant if he wasn't the father of Rhaenyra's sons, would they? 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You're right that it wasn't known for a fact, although it had already been brought up as an objection to the marriage which was dismissed by Mellos. That Laenor had no interest in women was the objection, not that he actually had homosexual affairs. Nor was it an objection that Rhaenyra and Laenor would not live together for most of their married life - that's something that happened only after the wedding, in part most likely because Cole himself ruined the wedding by killing Ser Joffrey. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A man she chose to marry while both of them made plain their preference for their own lovers. And again Laenor doesn't seem to be faced with any real choice regarding marriage, he just submitted to what was arranged. Viserys really bears responsibility for it. There is no indication for any of that. Laenor's thoughts on his marriage are completely unknown - which is why we don't really know whether he was the father of his children or not. But I doubt he had any objection to become the prince/king consort of Westeros. He may not have wanted to be the man who fathered Rhaenyra's heir but I cannot imagine any reason why he should have objected to the marriage as such - and if he did he wouldn't have married Rhaenyra. Viserys I had no means to force him, and I doubt Corlys and Rhaenys would have done it despite the fact it would have closed the old wound. Men are men in this world, they can and do defy their fathers and other people on marriage issues if they feel like it. Women don't have that luxury, especially not Rhaenyra who was dependent on her father to remain his heir. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Normally when a married person is revealed to be cheating, this is regarded as an embarrassment for the spouse that their partner would betray them in that way. They're supposed to be the ones who are hurt. It wouldn't be regarded as any sort of embarrassment for Harwin that Rhaenyra married Laenor instead of him, nor would Rhaenyra's husband having a male paramour be hurtful to Harwin (although I suppose if he wanted to brag about cuckolding her husband it would diminish the nature of his accomplishment). If we accepted the story that it was Cole who came onto Rhaenyra, then yes her rejection would hurt. But her rejection there has nothing to do with the merits of Laenor over Cole but instead that Cole would have to violate his kingsguard oath and thereby devalue any oath including that of marriage he subsequently took. If Cole worshipped Rhaenyra and very much wanted her then it most definitely counts as a humiliation in Cole's eyes if those gorgeous woman has to suffer this caricature of a man as a husband when she could have had him. But there is also just the thing that Cole could basically lash out at everybody by punishing Joffrey. At Laenor for being Rhaenyra's husband, at Rhaenyra by extension of hurting Laenor, at Strong for having taken his place at Rhaenyra's side. If he had been just disgusted by Rhaenyra one expects to him to not enter the tourney at all or to even have asked Alicent's leave to not attend the wedding at all. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Per Mushroom's story, Rhaenyra went to Harwin immediately after Cole rejected her. Neither Rhaenyra nor Laenor ever seemed to go to any effort into disguising their relationships with their paramours, but instead publicly drew attention to them. We as readers are led to regard these things as basically common knowledge, despite your caveats, and I see no reason to regard Cole as ignorant of these facts and instead just thrashing knights for receiving (in his mind) non-romantic favors. Neither of them ever had sex openly, nor did Laenor ever kiss any of his friends in front of other people as far as we know. This is not very much in anyone's face. And Mushroom claims he found Harwin and Rhaenyra abed together - which isn't that strange considering he was a rather close confidant of Rhaenyra's. But it doesn't mean Rhaenyra wanted the lackwit dwarf jester to witness her doing this. You also have to keep in mind that Rhaenyra have sex shortly before her wedding to a man she didn't love isn't that big of a deal. If you look at Daenerys she ended her affair with Daario after marrying Hizdahr - which Rhaenyra could have done, too. We have no evidence that Rhaenyra continued to have sex with Harwin after her wedding even if Mushroom's claim that he found them abed together is accurate. There ribald stories about her and Harwin/Laenor and even Laena having orgies and such, but there is no clear testimony of context given. You also have to consider the overall situation of Rhaenyra around that time. Her father had put enormous pressure on her to force her into the marriage. It is hardly surprising if she had some sex then to blow off steam - some sort of bachelor party if you will. But this tells us nothing about her marital life. And we can safely assume that Laenor and Rhaenyra were at the same place around the time their children were conceived, or else Rhaenyra would have been properly accused of adultery by some Green. If Laenor couldn't have been the father of his children then he would have been a cuckold publicly and even if he was fine with that - which he would be if he wasn't the father of his children - he and his house and the king could not ignore that even if they wanted to. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Gyldayne wrote that as a child she took a fancy to him, calling him "my white knight", and asking Viserys to name him her sworn shield. He also writes "It was said in later years that the princess only had eyes for Ser Criston, but there is reason to doubt that this was wholly true." without saying it was just Mushroom. Queen Alicent is also noted to have asked "Ser Criston protects the princess from her enemies, but who protects the princess from Ser Criston?" in response to Rhaenyra's infatuation with him. In this way, Rhaenyra attempting to seduce Criston is not something which seems to come out of nowhere in Mushroom's account but has been set up earlier. And her sleeping with her sworn shield is shown to be something she does with Harwin. All that says is that a young girl took a fancy in Cole, not that she was deeply in love with him. If she was, one assumes, she wouldn't have switched from Cole to Daemon as soon as the latter came back, nor would she then have replaced Cole with Harwin as quickly as she supposedly did. It also shows that Alicent was originally jealous/wary of the power/influence Cole had over Rhaenyra, not the other way around. She thought this man might seduce and dishonor the princess, not the other way around. We have no indication that Rhaenyra had any deep feelings for Cole that went beyond a childhood infatuation. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They didn't fight a civil war due to an accumulation of slights but because there were rival claims to the throne, neither of which had enough power to dominate the other. The Blackfyre Rebellion didn't occur due to personal animus between Daemon Blackfyre and Daeron II but because of Aegon IV casting doubt on his legitimate son's parentage (though not explicitly naming a different heir, perhaps because that precedent had been undermined in the Dance) and legitimizing his bastards put them on equal footing as well as those claimants coming to be associated with factions that developed over the shaky peace with Dorne. See above. And I would definitely maintain that the Blackfyre Rebellion broke out because Daemon wanted the throne and felt slighted, not because he had any actual reason to think he should or had a right to be king (or a reason to believe Daeron II did not). It is also quite clear that Aegon IV could have named another heir if he had wanted to - just Aerys II could have disinherited Rhaegar. Aegon IV feared such an act would cause a war with Dorne which he did not want, but there was no legal problem to that. There is no law of succession for the Iron Throne in Westeros. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: And since there's no evidence that Cole had anything to do with that, you're free to speculate that he was in fact the mastermind behind it I never said Cole caused things he had nothing to do with - I merely suggested he may have played a more active role in helping Otto and Alicent decide they would ignore the wishes of Viserys I and crown Aegon II. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They were at a disadvantage because Rhaenyra was giving birth, but they did have more than twice as many dragons. Those dragons were their only advantage. They had made literally no preparations for a coup or war obviously not expecting the Greens would steal the throne. If they had, Rhaenyra wouldn't have been forced to send Daemon and her sons to recruit loyalists to her cause. She would have just sent a couple of ravens to inform her followers that the war they had all expecting would now begin. Stannis, for example, prepared for war for months after he found about about Cersei's children. Rhaenyra and Daemon did nothing of that sort. It is a major plot point in the Dance that they are not prepared for war, didn't even ensure the Baratheons or Arryns would stand with them. This indicates that the Dance of the Dragons came actually as a surprise to the Black faction. They didn't prepare for war nor did they want a war. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why would they? They got Laenor married to Viserys' heir, which is just what Alicent tried to do with Aegon. If Viserys dies before that marriage, it's a different story. Sure, they got their bone in 113 AC with the marriage. But they did not rise in rebellion in 103 AC when the Old King went into his grave, did they? Nor in 103-113 AC - or in 92 AC when Aemon died or in the years in-between. Wanting somebody on the throne/feeling you have been cheated doesn't necessitate you have to go to war or stage a coup. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What evidence is that? Quote In her last days the Queen Dowager seemed to become more lucid. “I want to see my sons again,” she told her septa, “and Helaena, my sweet girl, oh…and King Jaehaerys. I will read to him, as I did when I was little. He used to say I had a lovely voice.” (Strangely, in her final hours Queen Alicent spoke often of the Old King, but never of her husband, King Viserys.) The Stranger came for her on a rainy night, at the hour of the wolf. The idea here is that a person approaching death speaks the truth/talks about people and things that were important to her. Alicent never once mentioning the man who had been her husband for 23 years, and the father of those children she is looking forward to be seeing soon (and also the guy whose corpse she let rot in Maegor's Holdfast for days), is very telling. She didn't love him, didn't miss him, may have even loathed him. I find that a very sad and ugly passage - prior to FaB I had thought Alicent had been in love with Viserys I. Rhaenyra also references only her father's love for Alicent as her reason to spare her life - not Alicent's love for her father. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Otto did everything within his power to get Aegon named heir, which resulted in him losing said power when he was removed as Hand. I don't know what more you want from him while Viserys is alive. Alicent at least remained his wife, but the only king to set aside his wife so far has been Baelor, who had never consummated the marriage in the first place and insisted on holy celibacy. He didn't do everything in his power. He just asked his son-in-law repeatedly to change the succession. Anyone can do that. Stannis and Renly could also have asked Robert to change the succession in their favor for some reason. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aegon III's issues don't prevent his regents and counsellors from doing the best job they can. I'd actually say any man having the interests of the Realm at heart should and would have removed Aegon III from the Iron Throne. He simply wasn't the kind of person you would want to rule a kingdom. Any such person would have replaced him with one of his half-sisters, Alyn Velaryon, or, especially, his younger brother Viserys after he came back. Aegon III was just damaged goods. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The only one who objected as Beesbury, so there was no need to trouble any of the others. According to Orwyle he did arrest Beesbury, but I've already given my reasons for doubting that. But the point of the council was to get everybody on board, even Beesbury, no? Else why talk to them at all. The talk as such proves they had made no proper preparations for this day within the larger body of the council. Cole, Otto and Alicent, sure, they were a cabal. But the rest was recruited then, not before. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He wasn't Lord of House Hightower, but his nephew was and brought the wealth of that house to the Green cause, and that alone outmatched every member of the Black council. He still was no lord in his own right, and thus not nearly as powerful as a great lord of the Realm serving as Hand. The Lord of Oldtown can cut his ties with his uncle if he isn't his uncle which he wasn't ;-). 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Hobert Hightower drank two glasses of poison to convince Ulf to drink it as well, showing that he prioritized his cause above self-preservation. The Betrayers had just betrayed their own allies, with Hugh later claiming a crown for himself with Aegon II missing despite Daeron being right there, resulting in the killing of Roger Corne and some other knights. Roxton could have waited for Hugh and his dragon to help fend off the Greens during the second battle of Tumbleton. Sure, Hobert is a more decent asshole and betrayer, but he still poisoned an ally. The Two Betrayers betrayed their allies to join the Greens, and they were apparently approached by Green agents to do so. We never see any Blacks recruited people to betray the other side only then to kill those men - but this is a modus operandi with thre Greens. Not just with Caltrops but also with Larys Strong who basically propped up Trystane Truefyre as his pawn and then betrayed him. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Alicent only gets minor points for suggesting a Grand Council late, but since she's the only one to suggest it that elevates her above others in my book. True enough, but one expects both her suggestions were actually attempts to undermine Rhaenyra in the long run - a ploy to make a truce or peace for the time being, only to then later strike again once they had the upper hand again. That also goes for her ridiculous idea of splitting up the Realm between both pretenders - neither side would have accepted that for long. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We know that they looked at the records of the previous Grand Council, and concluded that the defeated faction which supported Rhaenys would more likely support Rhaenyra. Alicent claimed that Rhaenyra would kill her and her children to prevent her bastards from being excluded from succession, just as she'd had Vaemond Velaryon killed. She recommended the peace offering by which Rhaenyra's children would be recognized as legitimate heirs to Dragonstone and Driftmark. Rhaenyra would not permit the Hightowers to live after that, so there was a war and little chance that a Council could be assembled during it, which is another reason why Alicent's proposal only gets minor points in my book. Really, Viserys should have had a Grand Council after his son became a rival for the throne so a precedent could be set during peacetime. There is no textual evidence given that the fears of Otto and Alicent regarding their own safety under Rhaenyra's rule were justified. They would have lost all power and would have been forced to retire to Oldtown, most likely, but they wouldn't have been killed. Rhaenyra didn't even kill Alicent when she could, not even when she abandoned the city. So that fear was just in head - or perhaps not even there but a lie they used to justify their power grab. That the Greens come up with a peace offer after their successful coup is hardly surprising. Once Aegon II wore his crown they no longer had a need for war or violence, right? Rhaenyra would have betrayed herself and her late father had she agreed to something like that. Just like Stannis would have had he accepted the deal Lord Alester made with Tywin. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Robert Baratheon went to his grave thinking Cersei's children were his own, but their illegitimacy still caused a civil war. Rhaenyra's bastards had already resulted in the killing of Vaemond and the mutilation of his children. Vaemond's power grab caused his death, and the mutilation of his cousins. As Viserys I said - they were warned. They should have known better than to say what they did. Viserys I didn't arbitrarily command their tongues being ripped out - he had announced that he would do that to anyone, even members of the royal family, should they repeat what Aemond and Aegon had said. If the head of House Velaryon accepts his grandsons as trueborn Velaryons that should be enough for anyone. Family ties are not necessarily defined by blood alone - else Jon Arryn would have gladly cut off the sons of his former foster sons. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If Robert Baratheon had acknowledged Gendry as "Gendry Waters", he would still be a bastard excluded from inheritance. If Aegon IV was correct that Daeron was actually fathered on his wife by Aemon the Dragonknight, his purely Targaryen heritage wouldn't mean he still got to inherit, just as it wasn't enough for Daemon Blackfyre absent the legitimation on Aegon's deathbed. If Rhaenyra's sons were bastards - which they cannot really be since they were born in wedlock - then Rhaenyra herself, as queen, could easily legitimize them. Problem solved. That's what sets this case apart from Cersei's children - who weren't the children of the king and thus had no royal blood. But if the mother is the monarch then the father is pretty much irrelevant. To cast doubt on the parentage of children born in wedlock - who are born trueborn simply because their mother is married and not unmarried which makes a child a bastard - the father has to challenge the claim that the children are his. If he doesn't do that - and Laenor never did that - then anyone opposing this thing simply has no cards. If some guy said Robert's children weren't his or Aegon IV's son Daeron and the king in question had made it clear that they were then the issue would have been over. And so it effectively was in the case of Rhaenyra's children. Laenor never doubted the parentage of his children and Viserys I confirmed the parentage of the children in his ruling. Thus this case was closed - regardless of the actual facts which cannot be proven one side or another anyway. 10 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There is a clear Stannis parallel, though Stannis himself regards her as a traitor who died a traitor's death. Stannis calls for death for anyone who opposes his claim to the throne, though he also makes peace with Renly's men who come over to his side despite thinking they have less justification than men who mistakenly believe Joffrey to be the rightful heir. The difference between Stannis and Rhaenyra is that Joffrey is a bastard with no right to anything, whereas Aegon had a claim compatible with prior precedent. Viserys I decided what claim his son Aegon had to the throne. And he didn't think he had better claim than Rhaenyra, did he? Stannis' family betrayed Rhaenyra during the Dance, explaining why he considers her a traitor - not to mention that he apparently views anybody who failed at what they tried to accomplish and was executed as a traitor. His view of justice seems to be that factual reality (i.e. the justice of the victor) is justice. By his standard he definitely would see himself as a traitor, too, if he ultimately failed. And Rhaenyra has more claim to the throne than Stannis has at this point - she knew her father wanted her to succeed him. She was the anointed heir. Stannis just assumes or believes Cersei's children are not Robert's. He has no proof, nor can he claim to know that his brother King Robert wanted him to succeed him. We don't know whether Robert would have wanted to see Stannis on the Iron Throne even if he had found out that he had no legitimate children. Somehow I doubt that - I could see him legitimizing Mya or Edric on his deathbed rather than naming a man like Stannis his heir. Hell, he might have even preferred Renly to Stannis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltharion21 Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Cole might have been trying to parley, but the Blacks never indicated any interest in negotiation, including the taking of any hostages rather than just the son of a steward. They could have easily killed him before he started to talk or engage in battle at their whim as they were in superior position, they also came from their position and met him below ridge. It was a parley regardless of intent. Generally black side didn't take hostages at all until Corlys took over their leadership, they were intent mostly on murder, which increases possibility that Helaena was also killed. Cole was king's hand and member of a small council, but yes son of a steward, if he was son of a great lord he might had been captured as Jaime was. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Only two out of three sources on that event? It's plausible that an old man could die in the dungeon, but suspicious that Orwyle is the only one who claims he also spoke out alongside Beesbury despite his own survival. Orwyle is only one present on the meeting of the three sources. Mushroom was way in Dragonstone and defenestration would be antithesis of keeping things silent. Orwyle claims that he "spoke out for Rhaenyra" which might be to become spared by Black regime. He might be saying truth about one thing and lie about other, but can he be blamed if Beesbury got murdered by Cole if they don't blame Alicent, Tyland or Larys Strong. He doesn't claim he personally asked for Beesbury to be sent to black cells , but that he was saying what Beesbury did and "showing himself in a favorable light and absolve himself of any blame for what was to follow" points that he embellished latter. Quote Grand Maester Orwyle was less fortunate, for he had confessed under torture to having given the poison to the Clubfoot. “My lord, I did not know what it was for,” Orwyle protested. “Nor did you ask,” Lord Stark replied. “You did not wish to know.” The Grand Maester was judged to be complicit and sentenced to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted December 14, 2019 Author Share Posted December 14, 2019 On 12/8/2019 at 3:38 PM, Lord Varys said: The Velaryons also wanted to see Laenor on the Iron Throne but they accepted the ruling of the Great Council. It's been said that democracy substitutes for war, as it counts up how many people might fight on each side. The Velaryons knew they would lose, as they were supposedly outnumbered by more than twenty to one. Quote Otto and Alicent could have also accepted their king's ruling on the matter - and perhaps they would have done that but for Criston Cole (and other crucial events like the Aemond incident and Rhaenyra's marriage to Daemon). I find the factor of Daemon much more plausible than Criston: we know Hightower had long opposed him, and this opposition had led to Rhaenyra being named heir over him in the first place. Alicent claimed to be afraid that she and her children would be killed with Rhaenyra on the throne, and Daemon made that much more likely. In contrast, we don't really get evidence that the Hightower's put much stock in Cole's opinions, as opposed to his arms. Aegon II is another story, as he chose Criston specifically over his grandfather. Quote It is naive to say, for instance, that one of the gospels or some saint's life is historically accurate sans miracles The way I would approach an historical saint would be to start with the existing sources and discard the really implausible claims like miracles. Similarly with the Trojan War, it seems like something of the sort happened even if it didn't involve deities. Quote Mushroom is, for the most part, a guy who dictated ribald stories for entertainment purposes long after the fact. One imagines he produced anecdotes on cue for the amusement of the scribe he hired (or, more likely, who had tracked him down) and the audience he entertained with those stories. I agree that Mushroom's stories have a tendency to seem calculated for entertainment value/sensationalism, but at the same time much of what he said seems credible. In the case of Beesbury for instance, the agreement between Eustace and Mushroom that Cole killed him suggests that part is true, while the specific method of dagger vs defenestration sounds like Mushroom choosing to spice up a real event with something he thinks sounds more interesting. I say this even while agreeing with you that I think he sometimes took stories that had been passed around and then added his own spin. And in the case of Daemon's exile I think Mushroom just re-used an existing story to explain it. On a meta-textual level, Mushroom's stories are often there to make the reader laugh, but not always. His theory that Corlys was behind the fire at Harrenhall which killed the Strongs might seem salacious because it hinges on Laenor being cuckolded by Harwin, but Grand Maester Mellos' theory that it might have been King Viserys with the same motivation is no less sensational and isn't from someone we have reason to think of as a sensationalist. I think the various theories for that, not all of which even have attributions, are supposed to muddy the waters and not be like Yandel vs Barth where we should just assume one is right. Quote Also, you have to keep in mind that Eustace's scenario of Arryk Cargyll finding Rhaenyra and Daemon abed together after they had sex helps explain the Erryk-Arryk tragedy. I'd say that if Arryk had had no reason to loath Rhaenyra and Daemon he would have never agreed to murder her or her children, nor attack his own twin in the process of it. In fact, I'd say he would have then defected to Rhaenyra's side while being at Dragonstone - something I'd have done in his position if I had been forced to do something this shitty as a knight of the Kingsguard - unless I had my own reasons to agree with Cole's plan. I don't think we need an explanation: Viserys ordered that Harwin be sent away and Erryk replace him as Rhaenyra's sworn shield. Most of the kingsguard just continued where they were, with only Steffon Darklyn going from King's Landing to Dragonstone after Viserys' death. We don't get any special explanation for why Rickard Thorne and and Willis Fell didn't do likewise, so you can't simply assume based on your own introspection that any other kingsguard would have done the same. It seems like Rhaenyra being away from King's Landing resulted in people there being less supportive of her, so only one kingsguard and one council member turned out to be Blacks. Quote My point just is that we have no conclusive evidence. We have literary references and parallels but they are not actual evidence. It is evidence, even if you don't regard it as conclusive. In the absence of paternity tests, we aren't going to get that. However, in the very first book the fact that Cersei's three* children are all blondes rather than black-haired Baratheons is supposed to be what convinced Jon Arryn and Ned Stark that the a priori implausible theory that they were bastards born of incest was true. And then we as readers learn that's exactly what happened. Here we don't get an admission from Rhaenyra like we would from Cersei since it's a history rather than POV chapter, but we don't have the usual incest taboo and we do get repeatedly reminded that Laenor was not sexually interested in women. If Margery had given birth prior to marrying anyone other than Renly, and the child didn't look like him, then yeah I would say we're supposed to conclude it's not his. *The exact same number as the Strong/Velaryon brothers. Quote Vaemond jumped on the chance the Strong rumors gave him to try to steal Driftmark He had a self-interested reason to argue for such rumors, but we also get from Mellos that Viserys himself seems to have believed the very rumors he was suppressing. Quote from Corlys' descendants (which also included Laena's daughters). Rhaenyra's children being bastards has nothing to do with the inheritance rights of Laena's daughters. Their place behind Vaemond would just be a result of male-preference primogeniture. Quote The only Strong whose description we know is Ser Lucamore - and he was blond George doesn't strictly adhere to real-world genetics, hence the super-dominance of Baratheon black hair, but blond hair is considered a recessive trait. We know Rhaenyra was blonde, so she was less likely to carry genes for darker hair. Silver hair is treated within the books as sort of like a more extreme version of blond hair associated with inbreeding, so we can consider Laenor to have recessive genes as well. The presence of brown hair and eyes suggests the intrusion of some dominant genes, with Harwin the most plausible candidate. Quote We don't even know whether Queen Aemma Arryn had Valyrian features - she could have been brown-haired, brown-eyed, and pug-nosed, resembing either her Arryn father or his maternal/paternal ancestors. What are the odds that ALL THREE children share those three traits of hair, eyes and nose of their grandmother rather than their mother or father? Quote History mentions them as his children - which means he recognized them No, it doesn't. Mya Stone is known by Catelyn and Cersei to be Robert's bastard, but Mya herself doesn't know who her father is because Robert didn't officially recognize her like he did Edric. The history which mentions them cites Mushroom regarding who their mothers were, and unlike with Delena Florent they weren't noble women for whom recognition by their father would be expected. We don't get any more information about them, not even their names unlike Gaemon. Quote Gaemon Palehair was not among those, although I guess he was actually the father of that one, too, considering they spared his life. His mother confessed that his father was a Lysene oarsman, and his life was spared he was only four and it was his mother who bore responsibility. Quote And even Eustace says Aegon II was not in his marital bed the night his father died but with some mistress. I think Eustace was right about that, although that doesn't establish that he recognized any bastards either. Quote Cole doesn't know what he wants at the council meeting. He just knows he doesn't want Rhaenyra on the throne His opposition to her taking the throne motivates him, and at the same time the awful reputations of Daemon and Rhaenyra resulted in opposition to them coming to power. Quote Laenor's wanton ways would be irrelevant if he wasn't the father of Rhaenyra's sons, would they? No, it means that Rhaenyra's court on Dragonstone permitted the flagrant immorality of both spouses and that they would bring the same decadence to King's Landing. Quote Nor was it an objection that Rhaenyra and Laenor would not live together for most of their married life - that's something that happened only after the wedding, in part most likely because Cole himself ruined the wedding by killing Ser Joffrey. Why attribute their separation to the death of Joffrey? He had no connection to Rhaenyra other than through Laenor, and it's not like Qarl Correy or whoever the favorite that replaced him was couldn't be on Dragonstone with both of them. Quote Viserys I had no means to force him, and I doubt Corlys and Rhaenys would have done it despite the fact it would hav e closed the old wound. Patriarchy means fathers get to tell their sons what to do as well, these aren't modern western nuclear families. The king gets his way too, and Laenor didn't have any other arrangement blocking it. Stannis married Selyse because Robert told him to, and Brandon couldn't marry Barbrey after his father betrothed him to Catelyn. Quote If Cole worshipped Rhaenyra and very much wanted her then it most definitely counts as a humiliation in Cole's eyes if those gorgeous woman has to suffer this caricature of a man as a husband when she could have had him. There hadn't been any precedent for Cole "worshipping" Rhaenyra, though as kingsguard and sworn shield he had long served her. And the supposed plan of them running off together isn't comparable to marrying Laenor, since the former would make an oathbreaker deserving of death (Lucamore was gelded and sent to the Wall, but he hadn't offended against the king so directly) along with sending them both to exile. Petyr Baelish may have been humiliated when he lost in a duel to Brandon and had his life spared because of Catelyn, but he still mistakenly thinks she preferred him to her fiance and only didn't go with him because her father ordered it. He brags about his conquests of both Tully sisters, and doesn't feel humiliated by their marriages. And Peter's someone that's merely minor nobility vs a daughter of a Great House rather than a steward's son forbidden from marrying anyone vs the King's eldest child and chosen heir. Bonifer Hasty may have been really unhappy that Rhaella had to marry Aerys, but there's no indication that he regarded it as a humiliation or that he lashed out at either of them. It's implied that his low-station made it generally understandable that he had no chance, and that's without a prior oath prohibiting marriage. Quote But there is also just the thing that Cole could basically lash out at everybody by punishing Joffrey. At Laenor for being Rhaenyra's husband, at Rhaenyra by extension of hurting Laenor, at Strong for having taken his place at Rhaenyra's side. Punishing Joffrey hurts Laenor, but I don't see how it has any effect on Rhaenyra or Harwin. That's what punishing Harwin does. Quote If he had been just disgusted by Rhaenyra one expects to him to not enter the tourney at all or to even have asked Alicent's leave to not attend the wedding at all. What? Aemon the Dragonknight entered a tourney in disguise to spite Aegon IV rather than refusing to enter. The Blacks and Greens got their names from the tourney where Criston wore Rhaenyra's favor and defeated all comers, including Alicent's relatives. Now he fights with Alicent's favor and becomes her sworn shield, very publicly breaking from his former faction. Having one of her biggest supporters of old switch sides like that is a big blow to Rhaenyra/the Blacks and there's no way Alicent would pass up the opportunity to show off that she now had the greatest knight on her side. Someone could refuse to attend a wedding to show their distaste for the families involved or because they didn't regard it as legitimate, but Criston was joining the Greens and wouldn't boycott a wedding they weren't boycotting. Rhaenyra's marriage to Daemon would be another story, since it was done quickly and without Viserys' approval. Quote If you look at Daenerys she ended her affair with Daario after marrying Hizdahr - which Rhaenyra could have done, too She sent him as a hostage to the Yunkai, whereas Harwin spent more time with Rhaenyra than Laenor did up until Viserys sent him back to Harrenhall with Erryk as his replacement. And since you mentioned refusing to attend a wedding, that's what Daario did when he was unhappy that Daenerys married Hizdahr. He wasn't disgusted with Daenerys being willing to have sex with him prior to marrying another man. So I don't know why you tried to use Criston's attendance as evidence that he was jealous rather than disgusted. Similarly, Rhaenys refusing to attend Viserys' wedding to Alicent was because her daughter was spurned rather than due to disgust. Quote We have no evidence that Rhaenyra continued to have sex with Harwin after her wedding even if Mushroom's claim that he found them abed together is accurate The three "Velaryon" boys are all evidence, particularly when combined with Laenor's absence and preferences, and per Mellos that evidence was credible event to Viserys. Quote It is hardly surprising if she had some sex then to blow off steam - some sort of bachelor party if you will. But this tells us nothing about her marital life. If she takes that same guy who deflowered her prior to her wedding, gives him her favor, makes him her sworn shield, and then has him present at the birth of all of her children, I'd say that's mighty suggestive. Quote And we can safely assume that Laenor and Rhaenyra were at the same place around the time their children were conceived He visited infrequently, and the Westerosi aren't really up to the task of scientifically proving paternity. Viserys Plumm was suposedly conceived after Ossifer was dead, but it just resulted in jokes rather than Viserys actually being considered a bastard rather than a Plumm. Quote If she was, one assumes, she wouldn't have switched from Cole to Daemon as soon as the latter came back, nor would she then have replaced Cole with Harwin as quickly as she supposedly did. She "switched to Daemon" after Cole had publicly switched sides and both Harwin and Laenor had died. And I don't see why it's so implausible that she would fall into the arms of a comparable knight after her favorite rejected her, particularly if being deflowered prior to her wedding was one of her motivations. Quote And I would definitely maintain that the Blackfyre Rebellion broke out because Daemon wanted the throne and felt slighted , not because he had any actual reason to think he should or had a right to be king (or a reason to believe Daeron II did not). Why did he feel "slighted"? He didn't come onto Daeron II and then get rejected, and it wasn't Daeron but Aegon IV that arranged for Daemon's marriage to Rohanne of Tyrosh, which itself produced so many children prior to the rebellion I'm skeptical of claims he was unsatisfied with it. Furthermore, Aegon IV made very clear his preference for Daemon over Daeron, so Daemon is arguably closer to Rhaenyra than Criston here. Really, Fireball and Bittersteel are closer to being the analogues to Criston and the other Green leaders. Quote It is also qu ite clear that Aegon IV could have named another heir if he had wanted to - just Aerys II could have disinherited Rhaegar. Aegon IV feared such an act would cause a war with Dorne which he did not wan t But Aegon DID want a war with Dorne, which he attempted multiple times! The problem is that trying to disinherit Daeron in favor of a bastard would have probably produced a civil war with Daeron's supporters. Quote I never said Cole caused things he had nothing to do with - I merely suggested he may have played a more active role in helping Otto and Alicent decide they would ignore the wishes of Viserys I and crown Aegon II. There's exactly as much evidence for one as the other. Quote Those dragons were their only advantage. They had made literally no preparations for a coup or war obviously not expecting the Greens would steal the throne. If they had, Rhaenyra wouldn't have been forced to send Daemon and her sons to recruit loyalists to her cause. Aemond was also sent on a dragon to arrange a marriage alliance with the Baratheons. It would have been nice for the Greens to have arranged that earlier, but when Viserys died both sides had to scramble. And Lucerys still wound up at the same place with Aemond to attempt an alliance despite the delay. Families try to build alliances even during normal times, but during war everything is sped up and becomes more urgent. Quote Stannis, for example, prepared for war for months after he found about about Cersei's children If Stannis had informed Eddard and Robert about Cersei's kids being bastards, he would have been the new heir. And even after all those months Stannis didn't have much in the way of bannermen, even compared to his younger brother. He did have many ships, but I think Rhaenyra also had a naval advantage. Stowing away on Dragonstone away from the center of power is not an especially good way of winning the throne, but it is a similarity between Stannis and Rhaenyra. They're both not very good at politics, but out of opposite personality flaws. Quote But they did not rise in rebellion in 103 AC when the Old King went into his grave, did they? They had already lost by twenty to one during the Great Council of 101. Quote He didn't do everything in his power. He lost the power that he had, so I take that as evidence that he went beyond the limits of what he could achieve. I don't know what you expected him to do that he didn't do while Viserys was alive. Quote Anyone can do that. Stannis and Renly could also have asked Robert to change the succession in their favor for some reason. And if Robert made Tommen the Lord of Storm's End or Prince of Dragonstone I would say Robert's brother similarly went beyond the limits of his power. Quote I'd actually say any man having the interests of the Realm at heart should and would have removed Aegon III from the Iron Throne. The realm had just fought a giant civil war over succession, setting the precedent that eldest through the male line inherits! Trying to remove a king they'd already crowned in an attempt to achieve peace would be insane. Quote But the point of the council was to get everybody on board, even Beesbury, no? Else why talk to them at all. The talk as such proves they had made no proper preparations for this day within the larger body of the council. Cole, Otto and Alicent, sure, they were a cabal. But the rest was recruited then, n ot before. I think the Green faction was fairly solidified in King's Landing, and exceptions like Beesbury could be dealt with individually. Although they might not have expected Cole to do so via immediate death. They might not have even thought of themselves as a cabal: they were mostly surrounded by their own supporters and expected people around them to support Aegon over Rhaenyra by default. Although I suppose social media didn't exist yet to produce echo-chambers of misleading popularity Quote The Lord of Oldtown can cut his ties with his uncle if he isn't his uncle which he wasn't ;-). I'm confused: are you saying Ormund wasn't the nephew of Otto? Quote The Two Betrayers betrayed their allies to join the Greens, and they were apparently approached by Green agents to do so. It's written that we don't know why they switched sides. We know that Daemon had suggested giving the Baratheon and Lannister seats to them but was turned down, and that after the betrayal Ulf wanted Highgarden instead of Bitterbridge while Hugh wanted the Iron Throne. If anyone did approach them, it doesn't seem like they were acting on the authority of anyone who could actually grant them anything or that any promises were so vague as to be unsettled. Quote We never see any Blacks recruited people to betray the other side only then to kill those men That is what Mushroom claims about Daemon and Qarl Correy. Rhaenyra also betrayed her dragonseed allies, and while that wasn't pre-planned, I think the betrayal of the Betrayers was the result of their behavior after the Betrayal rather than something planned beforehand like Correy. Quote True enough, but one expects both her suggestions were actually attempts to undermine Rhaenyra in the long run - a ploy to make a truce or peace for the time being, only to then later strike again once they had the upper hand again A council giving victory to Rhaenyra could actually solidify rather than weaken her position. The preceding council establishing a preference for a male-line heir had bolstered the Greens, and this would be the realm as a whole explicitly repudiating that. Quote That also goes for her ridiculous idea of splitting up the Realm between both pretenders - neither side would have accepted that for long . Perhaps, but the possibility of them separating and then later uniting through marriage still sounds better than what actually happened in which they continued to kill each other. Quote There is no textual evidence given that the fears of Otto and Alicent regarding their own safety under Rhaenyra's rule were justified Vaemond was killed for claiming Rhaenyra's children were bastards just as Alicent had, Otto was executed when King's Landing fell, and Alicent's grandson was sadistically murdered in front of his mother and younger brother by one of Daemon's agents. There's also the story that Alicent was spared because Mysaria decided on a crueller punishment. Furthermore, Alicent can't inherit the throne, so her life doesn't pose the threat to bastard inheritance that her children do. Quote That the Greens come up with a peace offer after their successful coup is hardly surprising. Once Aegon II wore his crown they no longer had a need for war or violence, right? Rhaenyra would have betrayed herself and her late father had she agreed to something like that. Just like Stannis would have had he accepted the deal Lord Alester made with Tywin. If the Lannisters had been able to offer credible peace deals to their opponents rather than fighting a civil war, it would be a different story. Joffrey is to blame for part of that. And you're right that Stannis likely wouldn't have accepted, though the irony is that he would have seen his decision as grounded in the idea that traitors like Rhaenyra need to die rather than be tolerated on the throne. Quote Vaemond's power grab caused his death, and the mutilation of his cousins. As Viserys I said - they were warned. They should have known better than to say what they did. Viserys I didn't arbitrarily command their tongues being ripped out - he had announced that he would do that to anyone, even members of the royal family, should they repeat what Aemond and Aegon had said. Cersei and Joffrey might agree with that approach, but Tywin and Tyrion would tell you otherwise. It just indicates that you fear what others have to say. Robin Hanson isn't talking about the exact same thing, but he explains some of the logic here. People weren't convinced that Rhaenyra's kids were legitimate and should inherit the throne, but instead that people who said otherwise would be killed if they didn't seize power first. Quote Family ties are not necessarily defined by blood alone - else Jon Arryn would have gladly cut off the sons of his former foster sons. The inheritance of the Eyrie actually is determined by blood. Westeros is not the early Roman empire trying to avoid the appearance of kings with inherited thrones via adopted successors. Jon Arryn refused to hand over his foster children to be killed, which is an analogy that could have some application to Cersei's incestuous bastards rather than Rhaenyra's more usual ones which would have been permitted to live. Quote If Rhaenyra's sons were bastards - which they cannot really be since they were born in wedlock - then Rhaenyra herself, as queen, could easily legitimize them. No, Cersei's children are bastards even though they were officially born in "wedlock". As for her legitimizing them: Quote To so name them, of course, was tantamount to saying they were bastards, with no rights of succession ... and that she herself was guilty of high treason If they had been first acknowledged as bastards and legitimized by Viserys, then they could have come somehwere in line for an inheritance, but Aegon II would come before them for the Iron Throne. Quote But if the mother is the monarch then the father is pretty much irrelevant Having claims on both sides helped boost their legitimacy, and ultimately Aegon III inherited through his father. Quote To cast doubt on the parentage of children born in wedlock - who are born trueborn simply because their mother is married and not unmarried which makes a child a bastard - the father has to challenge the claim that the children are his Robert never did that, yet his kids were challenged anyway. And the result was civil war. Quote And Rhaenyra has more claim to the throne than Stannis has at this point - she knew her father wanted her to succeed him. She was the anointed heir. Stannis just assumes or believes Cersei's children are not Robert's. Stannis' belief about Cersei's children is correct. Cersei really is a traitor and two King's Hands died as a result. Robert stopped thinking of Stannis as his heir once Joffrey was born, and while he disliked Joffrey he didn't actually seem to like Stannis much or want him in charge of anything but the navy. That's all irrelevant. Joffrey can't inherit because he's a bastard, unless Stannis decided to legitimize him. Quote I could see him legitimizing Mya or Edric on his deathbed rather than naming a man like Stannis his heir. Hell, he might have even preferred Renly to Stannis. Even after legitimation, the ordering would still be Stannis before Renly before Edric before Mya if she counts at all, unless Robert additionally disinherited the people he'd previously granted Dragonstone and Storm's End. Legitimizing Aegon IV's bastards didn't automatically put them ahead of Daeron either. On 12/8/2019 at 3:44 PM, Eltharion21 said: Orwyle is only one present on the meeting of the three sources. Mushroom was way in Dragonstone and defenestration would be antithesis of keeping things silent. Mushroom was indeed far away and defenestration seems unlikely, but Eustace was in the Red Keep on hand to crown Aegon II and is more likely to have known something about what happened with Beesbury. Quote Orwyle claims that he "spoke out for Rhaenyra" which might be to become spared by Black regime. I would say "might" would be putting it VERY lightly. His account stands out as being unlike the others and painting himself in that different light, and we already know he prioritized self-preservation over honesty. Quote He might be saying truth about one thing and lie about other, but can he be blamed if Beesbury got murdered by Cole if they don't blame Alicent, Tyland or Larys Strong. Larys Strong was executed for poisoning Aegon II while Orwyle was held culpable for assisting while claiming to have no knowledge of what the poison would be used for. He's not being blamed for the death of Beesbury, instead his claim that dissent resulted in imprisonment rather than death is a cover story to make his own survival compatible with his claim that he dissented alongside Beesbury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltharion21 Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mushroom was indeed far away and defenestration seems unlikely, but Eustace was in the Red Keep on hand to crown Aegon II and is more likely to have known something about what happened with Beesbury. Eustace was in Red Keep but wasn't in small council so he got information from either remote sources or simple gossip. I doubt at the beginning people knew what was happening, and only after Beesbury died in Black cells , Greens might have even tried to cover it up as he was respected lord and even though they didn't murder him directly they contributed to his demise by locking him up so he wouldn't talk. Whole concept of killing Beesbury with throat slit is opposite of doing it secretly, there should be lot of blood to clean, body to carry, and it doesn't seem like how Otto Hightower run things, Tyland Lannister seems like a man on who that would have opposing effect, Ironrod was on board and just to intimidate Larys and Orwyle is far fetched. Also Lucerys didn't die yet so Greens didn't fully expect for bloodshed to escalate, there were negotiations and Otto and Alicent both showed distaste for how Aemond killed Lucerys. Whole story started with Kingmaker and mention of throat slit, but when we look at details it becomes more and more dubious. 4 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Larys Strong was executed for poisoning Aegon II while Orwyle was held culpable for assisting while claiming to have no knowledge of what the poison would be used for. He's not being blamed for the death of Beesbury, instead his claim that dissent resulted in imprisonment rather than death is a cover story to make his own survival compatible with his claim that he dissented alongside Beesbury. Orwyle was arrested when Cregan did imprison also : Larys Strong the Clubfoot, Seasnake, Ser Perkin the Flea, and Septon Eustace, along with half a hundred others, both highborn and low. He started working on his confessions during the time Cregan was in charge. He got sentenced since he given poison true. On execution block he asked to take the black, but later escaped from going North. He was found in brothels working as a healer and janitor, when he tried to learn some young girls how to read. Tyland Lannister knowing him, made sure he didn't get executed and gave him comfortable chambers on pretense that King's justice wasn't still named where he continued his confessions, where he wrote for two years. He worked tirelessly and saved many during the Winter Fever. Until that idiot Unwin Peake executed him. Orwyle is also main source for intrigues in " Short, Sad Reign of Aegon II" where he implicates Aegon II, Alicent and Larys Strong in their conspiracy to get rid of Lord Corlys in time and even Aegon the Younger, why should he paint them in bad light then but not during that small council: Quote “Kill the old snake and we lose the young one,” the Clubfoot said, “and all those fine swift ships of theirs as well.” Instead, he said, they must move at once to make amends with Lord Corlys, so as to keep House Velaryon on their side. “Give him his betrothal, Your Grace,” he urged the king. “A betrothal is not a wedding. Name Young Aegon your heir. A prince is not a king. Look back at the history and count how many heirs never lived to sit the throne. Deal with Driftmark in due course, when your foes are vanquished and your tide is at the full. That day is not yet come. We must bide our time and speak to him gently.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's been said that democracy substitutes for war, as it counts up how many people might fight on each side. The Velaryons knew they would lose, as they were supposedly outnumbered by more than twenty to one. Them being smart enough not to rebel doesn't mean they couldn't have been as shitty as Otto and Alicent and still try a rebellion. They didn't do that because they could live with Viserys I as king after all. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I find the factor of Daemon much more plausible than Criston: we know Hightower had long opposed him, and this opposition had led to Rhaenyra being named heir over him in the first place. Alicent claimed to be afraid that she and her children would be killed with Rhaenyra on the throne, and Daemon made that much more likely. In contrast, we don't really get evidence that the Hightower's put much stock in Cole's opinions, as opposed to his arms. Aegon II is another story, as he chose Criston specifically over his grandfather. We have no longer any real reason to think there was that great a personal issue between Daemon and Otto - especially on Daemon's side. Otto apparently thought he would be a lousy king (I agree with that assessment), but there was no Alicent-Daemon fling after all, and in the end Daemon can actually thank Otto for making Rhaenyra the Heir Apparent considering he became her consort. I see no reason to assume that they had real reason to fear for their lives - but even if they did: so what? Being afraid the future monarch is going to target you for real or imagined reasons doesn't give you the right to steal the throne. It explains why you might want to, but that doesn't make it right. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The way I would approach an historical saint would be to start with the existing sources and discard the really implausible claims like miracles. Similarly with the Trojan War, it seems like something of the sort happened even if it didn't involve deities. That is not a very professional approach. There may be historical events certain fairy-tales are based on - like the Illiad - but that doesn't mean any of the events given in the fairy-tale did actually happen. While we have no other sources we cannot pretend to know that Priamos or Agamemnon existed, much less that any of the events described in the Iliad happened even remotely in that fashion or at all. And just to clarify: There are saints like the famous St. Martin where the only source(s) we have on his life are saints lives. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I agree that Mushroom's stories have a tendency to seem calculated for entertainment value/sensationalism, but at the same time much of what he said seems credible. In the case of Beesbury for instance, the agreement between Eustace and Mushroom that Cole killed him suggests that part is true, while the specific method of dagger vs defenestration sounds like Mushroom choosing to spice up a real event with something he thinks sounds more interesting. I say this even while agreeing with you that I think he sometimes took stories that had been passed around and then added his own spin. And in the case of Daemon's exile I think Mushroom just re-used an existing story to explain it. On a meta-textual level, Mushroom's stories are often there to make the reader laugh, but not always. His theory that Corlys was behind the fire at Harrenhall which killed the Strongs might seem salacious because it hinges on Laenor being cuckolded by Harwin, but Grand Maester Mellos' theory that it might have been King Viserys with the same motivation is no less sensational and isn't from someone we have reason to think of as a sensationalist. I think the various theories for that, not all of which even have attributions, are supposed to muddy the waters and not be like Yandel vs Barth where we should just assume one is right. The examples you liked are superficial at best - do we assume Laenor may have been gay? Yes (although we have no credible evidence he ever had sex with another man so perhaps he wasn't - he could have just been preferred the company of men to that of women, like Stannis, say). But do we buy that Mushroom tried to mount Silverwing, do we believe the brothel queens, Aegon II watch his goons fuck court women to entertain him, that Mushroom and his member were involved in pretty much any salacious story he gives us? Not if we are smart. There are instances where Mushroom can be considered very credible - like with the parentage of Addam and Alyn of Hull - but there are many other instances where his perspective is just another stupid story - and we don't know what happened at all. In fact, almost most of the Mushroom stuff is just garbage. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't think we need an explanation: Viserys ordered that Harwin be sent away and Erryk replace him as Rhaenyra's sworn shield. Most of the kingsguard just continued where they were, with only Steffon Darklyn going from King's Landing to Dragonstone after Viserys' death. We don't get any special explanation for why Rickard Thorne and and Willis Fell didn't do likewise, so you can't simply assume based on your own introspection that any other kingsguard would have done the same. It seems like Rhaenyra being away from King's Landing resulted in people there being less supportive of her, so only one kingsguard and one council member turned out to be Blacks. But we do have an explanation in the Eustace story there, don't we? 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It is evidence, even if you don't regard it as conclusive. In the absence of paternity tests, we aren't going to get that. However, in the very first book the fact that Cersei's three* children are all blondes rather than black-haired Baratheons is supposed to be what convinced Jon Arryn and Ned Stark that the a priori implausible theory that they were bastards born of incest was true. And then we as readers learn that's exactly what happened. Here we don't get an admission from Rhaenyra like we would from Cersei since it's a history rather than POV chapter, but we don't have the usual incest taboo and we do get repeatedly reminded that Laenor was not sexually interested in women. If Margery had given birth prior to marrying anyone other than Renly, and the child didn't look like him, then yeah I would say we're supposed to conclude it's not his. *The exact same number as the Strong/Velaryon brothers. I can see the ham-fisted literal parallel. But it isn't the same story, it is a parallel - meaning we cannot equate the two completely. Rhaenyra's story echoes Cersei's story and vice versa. But while we, the readers, do know Jaime is the father of Cersei's children (or to be precise: we know Cersei and Jaime both believe he is the father of the children), we don't know the same for Rhaenyra's children. If George had wanted us to know who fathered Rhaenyra's children he would have given us the same evidence he gave us for Cersei's children - and this would have been possible in his setting. For instance, in the case of the Hull boys Corlys being the father is much more likely than the Laenor story. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He had a self-interested reason to argue for such rumors, but we also get from Mellos that Viserys himself seems to have believed the very rumors he was suppressing. Mellos doesn't give any evidence for his speculation. He just speculates wildly. This isn't any credible evidence - it were if he had pointed to how and through whom Viserys I supposedly arranged the fire. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Rhaenyra's children being bastards has nothing to do with the inheritance rights of Laena's daughters. Their place behind Vaemond would just be a result of male-preference primogeniture. Which isn't the law for lordships - and also not for the Iron Throne, as it happens. If Laenor's sons weren't his heirs then Laena's children would come next, not some nephew. You see what a grasping traitor Vaemond was when he tried to steal Driftmark not only from Rhaenyra's sons but also from Laena's daughters. And that House Targaryen would never tolerate something like that if the blood of the dragon themselves - through both Rhaenyra's sons and Daemon's daughters - would lose the richest lordship in the entire Realm goes without saying. The silent Velaryons can be happy that Viserys I didn't execute them for their presumptions. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: George doesn't strictly adhere to real-world genetics, hence the super-dominance of Baratheon black hair, but blond hair is considered a recessive trait. We know Rhaenyra was blonde, so she was less likely to carry genes for darker hair. Silver hair is treated within the books as sort of like a more extreme version of blond hair associated with inbreeding, so we can consider Laenor to have recessive genes as well. The presence of brown hair and eyes suggests the intrusion of some dominant genes, with Harwin the most plausible candidate. But Harwin is never described. We don't even know whether he had brown hair or brown eyes. We also do not know why Alysanne had common blond hair and Princess Alyssa mismatched eyes - with one of them being green, a color we never see in the Targaryen family tree. How do we account for that? How do we account for the strange variations within the Valyrian colors the Targaryens show - some of them having more gold and some of them having more silver in their hair (and then even some of them having completely strange hair like Princess Elaena)? We can't, it is just a fact of history in this world. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What are the odds that ALL THREE children share those three traits of hair, eyes and nose of their grandmother rather than their mother or father? I don't know - but we know from Alysanne's children that even incestuous Targaryen couples do not always produce Valyrian looking children. Just as not all of the Targaryens being born of a non-incestuous union look non-Valyrian - two of Daeron II's sons do have confirmed Valyrian features and only one is confirmed to look like his mother, of Egg's children only Duncan seemed to have resembled his mother, and the famed Baratheon black hair could not stand against the strength of Corlys Velaryon's Valyrian blood. The idea we can systematize this just doesn't work. You can believe Rhaenyra's sons were not Laenor's - but you cannot prove that or consider it a truth rather than just a possibility. I mean, why not ask how likely it is that the daughter of Daeron Velaryon and Hazel Harte - who both should have very diluted Valyrian blood - should have as striking Valyrian features as Daenaera Velaryon? That should be very unlikely but it happened nonetheless. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: No, it doesn't. Mya Stone is known by Catelyn and Cersei to be Robert's bastard, but Mya herself doesn't know who her father is because Robert didn't officially recognize her like he did Edric. The history which mentions them cites Mushroom regarding who their mothers were, and unlike with Delena Florent they weren't noble women for whom recognition by their father would be expected. We don't get any more information about them, not even their names unlike Gaemon. Mya Stone is a recognized bastard of King Robert. Else she wouldn't be a Stone. Mya's mother was a commoner, so she would not get the name of a noble bastard if no nobleman had recognized her as his seed. Nobody may have told Mya, but the authorities in the Vale (i.e. Jon Arryn back then and other lords and people of note) did know and granted the child that name. Robert even talked about bringing Mya to court later on. If something like bastard children enter history, this implies that there was some sort of official or semi-official recognition going on. Else history would not mention such claims. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: His mother confessed that his father was a Lysene oarsman, and his life was spared he was only four and it was his mother who bore responsibility. She confessed under torture - which opens up the possibility of her having confessed exactly what Aegon II wanted her to say. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I think Eustace was right about that, although that doesn't establish that he recognized any bastards either. I'm pretty sure Mushroom's account on where Aegon II was in correct there ;-). It is just more fun. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: His opposition to her taking the throne motivates him, and at the same time the awful reputations of Daemon and Rhaenyra resulted in opposition to them coming to power. No, it means that Rhaenyra's court on Dragonstone permitted the flagrant immorality of both spouses and that they would bring the same decadence to King's Landing. This is not accurate in the case of Laenor since he resided at High Tide on Driftmark, not at Dragonstone. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why attribute their separation to the death of Joffrey? He had no connection to Rhaenyra other than through Laenor, and it's not like Qarl Correy or whoever the favorite that replaced him was couldn't be on Dragonstone with both of them. Because it ruined the wedding and had Ser Laenor spend his entire time at Joffrey's sickbed until the man died. Afterwards he left or stayed at home - it is not clear where exactly Rhaenyra's wedding took place. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Patriarchy means fathers get to tell their sons what to do as well, these aren't modern western nuclear families. The king gets his way too, and Laenor didn't have any other arrangement blocking it. Stannis married Selyse because Robert told him to, and Brandon couldn't marry Barbrey after his father betrothed him to Catelyn. You would have to give us textual evidence for the claim that King Viserys I could command Laenor Velaryon to marry Princess Rhaenyra if he was opposed to that idea. His parents may have been able to force Laenor - but we don't know that they did - but not a king who could barely master his own daughter, much less his brother. Laenor could have just refused to marry at all - like the gay Prince Daeron later did or like Brynden Tully did. Men can do that to their lords, brothers, and even their kings. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There hadn't been any precedent for Cole "worshipping" Rhaenyra, though as kingsguard and sworn shield he had long served her. And the supposed plan of them running off together isn't comparable to marrying Laenor, since the former would make an oathbreaker deserving of death (Lucamore was gelded and sent to the Wall, but he hadn't offended against the king so directly) along with sending them both to exile. Petyr Baelish may have been humiliated when he lost in a duel to Brandon and had his life spared because of Catelyn, but he still mistakenly thinks she preferred him to her fiance and only didn't go with him because her father ordered it. He brags about his conquests of both Tully sisters, and doesn't feel humiliated by their marriages. And Peter's someone that's merely minor nobility vs a daughter of a Great House rather than a steward's son forbidden from marrying anyone vs the King's eldest child and chosen heir. Bonifer Hasty may have been really unhappy that Rhaella had to marry Aerys, but there's no indication that he regarded it as a humiliation or that he lashed out at either of them. It's implied that his low-station made it generally understandable that he had no chance, and that's without a prior oath prohibiting marriage. Eustace makes it rather clear that Cole was in love with Rhaenyra, not the other way around. The idea with Cole is that he was the kind of guy who was hurt by Rhaenyra's rejecting him - he offered to break his vow and run off with her and she threw that sacrifice in his face. Such things can cut very deep wounds. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Punishing Joffrey hurts Laenor, but I don't see how it has any effect on Rhaenyra or Harwin. That's what punishing Harwin does. If you hurt the spouse of a princess or prince you hurt them by extension. That's not that difficult to understand. Beating up Harwin would have meant less to Rhaenyra considering there was no deep or official connection there (if there was any at all). I mean, you are aware that Rhaenyra included the Velaryon arms in her personal sigil, right? Her connection to Laenor was important to her - or else she would have chosen a different personal sigil. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: What? Aemon the Dragonknight entered a tourney in disguise to spite Aegon IV rather than refusing to enter. The Blacks and Greens got their names from the tourney where Criston wore Rhaenyra's favor and defeated all comers, including Alicent's relatives. Now he fights with Alicent's favor and becomes her sworn shield, very publicly breaking from his former faction. Having one of her biggest supporters of old switch sides like that is a big blow to Rhaenyra/the Blacks and there's no way Alicent would pass up the opportunity to show off that she now had the greatest knight on her side. Someone could refuse to attend a wedding to show their distaste for the families involved or because they didn't regard it as legitimate, but Criston was joining the Greens and wouldn't boycott a wedding they weren't boycotting. Rhaenyra's marriage to Daemon would be another story, since it was done quickly and without Viserys' approval. He could also just ask the leave of the king to stay out of the affair. Or decide he would not enter the lists because he had to guard the king, etc. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: She sent him as a hostage to the Yunkai, whereas Harwin spent more time with Rhaenyra than Laenor did up until Viserys sent him back to Harrenhall with Erryk as his replacement. And since you mentioned refusing to attend a wedding, that's what Daario did when he was unhappy that Daenerys married Hizdahr. He wasn't disgusted with Daenerys being willing to have sex with him prior to marrying another man. So I don't know why you tried to use Criston's attendance as evidence that he was jealous rather than disgusted. Similarly, Rhaenys refusing to attend Viserys' wedding to Alicent was because her daughter was spurned rather than due to disgust. I guess Rhaenyra didn't have any Yunkishmen on hand who needed Harwin as a hostage. She also only chose Daario as a hostage when she needed such, the decision to end the affair was made first. Daario isn't Cole - he didn't start to hate/despise Rhaenyra or wanted to punish her, he was simply very hurt and had severe problems coping with being dumped. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The three "Velaryon" boys are all evidence, particularly when combined with Laenor's absence and preferences, and per Mellos that evidence was credible event to Viserys. Even if we took Mellos' speculation as evidence - which I don't - then Viserys I believing something doesn't make it true, either. False rumors could be just as damaging as true rumors, right? 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If she takes that same guy who deflowered her prior to her wedding, gives him her favor, makes him her sworn shield, and then has him present at the birth of all of her children, I'd say that's mighty suggestive. It can also just mean they all got along very well. We have no information on the inner workings of Rhaenyra's court at the time - and you have to keep in mind she stayed at KL for quite some time after her marriage, and only removed herself to Dragonstone some time later. Her first two children were born at the Red Keep, not on Dragonstone. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He visited infrequently, and the Westerosi aren't really up to the task of scientifically proving paternity. Viserys Plumm was suposedly conceived after Ossifer was dead, but it just resulted in jokes rather than Viserys actually being considered a bastard rather than a Plumm. Because the king and a royal princess were the alleged parents. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: She "switched to Daemon" after Cole had publicly switched sides and both Harwin and Laenor had died. And I don't see why it's so implausible that she would fall into the arms of a comparable knight after her favorite rejected her, particularly if being deflowered prior to her wedding was one of her motivations. Because the entire Mushroom narrative is internally contradictory and implausible. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Why did he feel "slighted"? He didn't come onto Daeron II and then get rejected, and it wasn't Daeron but Aegon IV that arranged for Daemon's marriage to Rohanne of Tyrosh, which itself produced so many children prior to the rebellion I'm skeptical of claims he was unsatisfied with it. Furthermore, Aegon IV made very clear his preference for Daemon over Daeron, so Daemon is arguably closer to Rhaenyra than Criston here. Really, Fireball and Bittersteel are closer to being the analogues to Criston and the other Green leaders. We know there were clashes between Daeron II and Daemon before the rebellion. So stuff happened. Aegon IV did not make it clear he preferred Daemon to Daeron - that would have meant that he would have changed the succession in Daemon's favor which he never did. Instead he intentionally sent mixed signals. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: But Aegon DID want a war with Dorne, which he attempted multiple times! The problem is that trying to disinherit Daeron in favor of a bastard would have probably produced a civil war with Daeron's supporters. One time, early in his reign did he try to war with Dorne. After the wooden dragons fiasco he never again spoke of Dorne. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There's exactly as much evidence for one as the other. Yeah, sure, that's why it is speculation. I think I pointed out why I like the avenue here. It would give more depth to Cole if he had had some brains. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Aemond was also sent on a dragon to arrange a marriage alliance with the Baratheons. It would have been nice for the Greens to have arranged that earlier, but when Viserys died both sides had to scramble. And Lucerys still wound up at the same place with Aemond to attempt an alliance despite the delay. Families try to build alliances even during normal times, but during war everything is sped up and becomes more urgent. The Green cabal had prepared for the king's death and their coup but the Blacks had prepared for nothing. That's just how it is. Whether this makes much sense in context is a different issue - but we cannot really assert that there was any reason to believe the Blacks even expected a coup or a war. And thus also didn't make any plans for a war of their own. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If Stannis had informed Eddard and Robert about Cersei's kids being bastards, he would have been the new heir. And even after all those months Stannis didn't have much in the way of bannermen, even compared to his younger brother. He did have many ships, but I think Rhaenyra also had a naval advantage. Stowing away on Dragonstone away from the center of power is not an especially good way of winning the throne, but it is a similarity between Stannis and Rhaenyra. They're both not very good at politics, but out of opposite personality flaws. Rhaenyra only had the Velaryons - who she had since her marriage to Laenor and then even more after she had betrothed her sons to Laena's daughters. She did not prepare for war at all - Stannis did, he hired Lyseni and Myrish sellsails (something you don't do with a phone call), he had Davos inquire whether the Stormlords would rise for him, he closed the harbor of Dragonstone months ago, etc. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They had already lost by twenty to one during the Great Council of 101. They also had lost back in 92 AC. And the way to take the throne would not necessarily involve an all-out war. Just a quick raid on KL, kill Viserys I, and seat Laenor in his place. Usurpation complete. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He lost the power that he had, so I take that as evidence that he went beyond the limits of what he could achieve. I don't know what you expected him to do that he didn't do while Viserys was alive. That is a non-argument. If you assess a situation you check what possibilities are actually on the table, you don't use how things turned out as confirmation that they did everything they (possibly) could do. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The realm had just fought a giant civil war over succession, setting the precedent that eldest through the male line inherits! Trying to remove a king they'd already crowned in an attempt to achieve peace would be insane. Oh, I was thinking about murdering him, not removing him. Unwin Peake tried that. A man serving the interests of the Realm would not have seen Aegon III as the means to do that. And Tyland really doesn't strike me as that kind of guy. He wasn't thinking of the Realm when he pushed for the murder of Aegon the Elder during the Dance - the only sense I can make of him is that he was a monarchist/king's man in the sense that he was loyal to the office as such. That can also explain why he put the needs of KL and his king before those of the Westerlands later on. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I think the Green faction was fairly solidified in King's Landing, and exceptions like Beesbury could be dealt with individually. Although they might not have expected Cole to do so via immediate death. They might not have even thought of themselves as a cabal: they were mostly surrounded by their own supporters and expected people around them to support Aegon over Rhaenyra by default. Although I suppose social media didn't exist yet to produce echo-chambers of misleading popularity The Green traitors wouldn't have to imprison as many Black courtiers or men suspected of Black sympathies if they had been 'fairly solidified'. Originally I believed it was as you suggest here. But FaB changed that - just look how many City Watch officers and other lords and people they imprison. As I maintain: The council session had two purposes: (1) to get everyone aboard the Aegon II band wagon, and (2) ensure they stayed there by means of intimidation - which would be the reason why I think Beesbury was intentionally killed there at the table so everybody knew the price of treason. The idea that all the men there already were Greens and not willing to betray them for the slightest reason isn't very likely. We do know Daemon had an informer on the council even after the blood oath. This was a pretty small cabal who rather methodically took over the government and the castle and tried to take over the kingdom while nobody even knew the king was dead. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: I'm confused: are you saying Ormund wasn't the nephew of Otto? No, I said that Ormund as Lord of Oldtown not being Otto - his own uncle - could more easily cut ties with Otto than Otto could if he were the Lord of Oldtown. The reasons the Hightowers as a house survived the Dance mostly intact is due to the fact that Otto Hightower and Alicent were not the Lord of Oldtown and his daughter. The original point was that Otto wasn't as powerful a Hand as, say, Tywin, because he was just a landless knight, not a lord in his own right. Which means that even Oldtown's allegiance was not guaranteed - Lord Ormund could cut ties with him more easily than if Otto himself had been the Lord of Oldtown. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's written that we don't know why they switched sides. We know that Daemon had suggested giving the Baratheon and Lannister seats to them but was turned down, and that after the betrayal Ulf wanted Highgarden instead of Bitterbridge while Hugh wanted the Iron Throne. If anyone did approach them, it doesn't seem like they were acting on the authority of anyone who could actually grant them anything or that any promises were so vague as to be unsettled. We don't know, but various explanations indicate that it was due to Green agents. Even Larys Strong is mentioned there. That is not confirmation but much more likely than your idea which is not actually suggested by anyone. Granted, we can certainly assume that Rhaenyra being not as open-handed to Ulf and Hugh as she could have been contributed to the betrayal. But it doesn't strike me as very belieavable that they would have betrayed her without knowing the other side would reward them. And we do know for a fact that there were Green traitors in Tumbleton - which could have given them the opportunity to approach Hugh and Ulf before the betrayal. In fact, Ran has gone as far as to doubt that ridiculous suggestion about Casterly Rock and Storm's End ever took place - there is no source mentioned for that claim and it is awfully similar to Daemon's well-attested suggestion to give them Rosby and Stokeworth. This would technically be the same kind of indication to smell shit as we have with Mushroom's Cole-Rhaenyra story. We have her twice use the same routine to seduce a guy who had already rejected her once. If you buy that you are effectively sucking Mushroom's enormous member yourself... ;-) 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: That is what Mushroom claims about Daemon and Qarl Correy. Rhaenyra also betrayed her dragonseed allies, and while that wasn't pre-planned, I think the betrayal of the Betrayers was the result of their behavior after the Betrayal rather than something planned beforehand like Correy. I don't really buy that Correy story. If there was only the slightest hint that Daemon was involved in Laenor's death Corlys and Rhaenys would have turned Green not Black. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A council giving victory to Rhaenyra could actually solidify rather than weaken her position. The preceding council establishing a preference for a male-line heir had bolstered the Greens, and this would be the realm as a whole explicitly repudiating that. But Rhaenyra would have to put forth her claims against the claim of a king who had already been crowned and anointed. That would have been rather difficult since people wouldn't have sudden forgotten that there already had been a war fought over the issue, no? The much more interesting issue is that Otto and Alicent didn't make Aegon II a Great Council king - apparently they did not trust the idea that the lords would choose Aegon against the explicit wishes of the late king Viserys I. Else the coup wouldn't have prepared Aegon II's coronation but would have been used to convene a Great Council at KL. If Alicent can think of a Great Council later on they must have realized that they could have convened one in early 129 AC, too. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Perhaps, but the possibility of them separating and then later uniting through marriage still sounds better than what actually happened in which they continued to kill each other. Oh, I'm sure they would have never intermarried again. Aegon II wanted to see Rhaenyra's line destroyed, and she intended to do the same with Alicent's line (and eventually succeeded thanks to the great Green Unwin Peake). 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Vaemond was killed for claiming Rhaenyra's children were bastards just as Alicent had, Otto was executed when King's Landing fell, and Alicent's grandson was sadistically murdered in front of his mother and younger brother by one of Daemon's agents. There's also the story that Alicent was spared because Mysaria decided on a crueller punishment. Furthermore, Alicent can't inherit the throne, so her life doesn't pose the threat to bastard inheritance that her children do. This all happened during a war started by the Greens. The Blacks only fought back against Green presumption and aggression. On Dragonstone Rhaenyra and Daemon had had time and opportunity to prepare for war if they had believed that necessary. The ailing, dragonless Viserys I would be no danger to them there ... Otto and Alicent were acting under the king's very nose, meaning they had to be more careful. This explains why they only reach out to key lords after they have secured the castle and the capital. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If the Lannisters had been able to offer credible peace deals to their opponents rather than fighting a civil war, it would be a different story. Joffrey is to blame for part of that. And you're right that Stannis likely wouldn't have accepted, though the irony is that he would have seen his decision as grounded in the idea that traitors like Rhaenyra need to die rather than be tolerated on the throne. No, his decision is explicitly based on the idea he is the rightful king - despite the fact that he can neither know nor prove that, unlike Rhaenyra. Stannis doesn't want to remain the Lord of Dragonstone - he wants the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Cersei and Joffrey might agree with that approach, but Tywin and Tyrion would tell you otherwise. It just indicates that you fear what others have to say. Robin Hanson isn't talking about the exact same thing, but he explains some of the logic here. People weren't convinced that Rhaenyra's kids were legitimate and should inherit the throne, but instead that people who said otherwise would be killed if they didn't seize power first. I'm aware of that kind of thing - but it is still the case that King Viserys I had already publicly decreed how he would treat anyone who would repeat the lies about Rhaenyra's sons. And in this setting one has to actually follow through with one's proclamations and promises or else one is seen as either weak or a liar. And the series treats things like this ambiguously. Words are wind - or they are not. The Daemon Blackfyre thing illustrates that really well. Sometimes you cannot afford to allow people to spread and repeat a story, be it true or false. It might have come in handy for Daeron II if Bittersteel, Fireball, and Daemon himself were lacking a tongue before 196 AC, no? I agree that overall it shows you are a more enlightened person if you do not punish people for expressing opinions (and I certainly think George wants to send that message) but he keeps it ambiguous in the sense that he doesn't believe doing nothing in such cases is always the right choice. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The inheritance of the Eyrie actually is determined by blood. Westeros is not the early Roman empire trying to avoid the appearance of kings with inherited thrones via adopted successors. Jon Arryn refused to hand over his foster children to be killed, which is an analogy that could have some application to Cersei's incestuous bastards rather than Rhaenyra's more usual ones which would have been permitted to live. Well, Jeyne Arryn's freak heir sort of puts that into perspective, doesn't it? And actually, adoption is a thing in Westeros, too: Quote Daemon Velaryon, the lord admiral, suggested that Jaehaerys might marry the widowed Queen Elinor, of House Costayne. How better to show that Maegor’s supporters had been forgiven than by taking one of his Black Brides to queen, mayhaps even adopting her three sons by her first marriage. Queen Elinor’s proven fertility was another point in her favor, he argued. If such an adoption had happened, then the Iron Throne of Westeros would have likely passed to a boy who was born a Bolling but adopted into House Targaryen. We also see this concept implicitly when Sharra Arryn asks Aegon I to name her son Ronnel his heir if she were to marry him. Granted, this doesn't seem to happen often but it is clearly not an unknown concept. I imagine that before the Conquest many a childless king actually adopted a more distant cousin if he chose him to be his heir to strengthen the chosen heir's claim to succeed the king. But that's just speculation at this point. If we were to believe that Laenor's children weren't his - we cannot know for certain - then we certainly do know now that the Corlys Velaryon viewed his grandsons as his grandsons. If he had no issues with how his son Laenor may have gotten himself some fine Velaryon lads then I see no reason why we should care. We would just perpetuate the shitty Westerosi culture thing of almost dehumanizing illegitimate children. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: No, Cersei's children are bastards even though they were officially born in "wedlock". As for her legitimizing them: Bastardy is a legal concept, it is not just a fact of reality. Children born in wedlock are considered to be legitimate because they are born in wedlock. After all, the only difference between legitimate and illegitimate birth is that the parents are married in one scenario and not married in the other. The default status of children born to a married woman is that her husband is also the father - and this remains so until proven otherwise. In Westeros this would mean that some kind of authority (the king in the case of Rhaenyra's children and Cersei's children) would have to rule that this is not the case. But this never happened. One could also imagine that some sort of other trial could establish bastardy - if the parties involved agreed to it. Cersei children might finally be declared bastards by the Seven themselves if she were to lose her trial-by-combat. We do know Cersei's children are not Robert's children but Jaime's - but they are still not bastards because they have not been declared such. And if Robert had known that they weren't his seed but had continued to treat them as his children never mind that fact they would have never become bastards. Vice versa, a king like Aegon IV using a bastard story could have made his legitimate son his brother's bastard if the Dragonknight had lost that trial-by-combat. Rhaenyra's children lived and died as the sons of Laenor Velaryon - thus they were neither born as bastards nor ever declared such during their lives. In fact, even Aegon II acknowledged them as Laenor's sons - why else would he have offered Rhaenyra to confirm Lucerys Velaryon as rightful heir to Driftmark if he believed the boy to not be Laenor Velaryon's son? 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: If they had been first acknowledged as bastards and legitimized by Viserys, then they could have come somehwere in line for an inheritance, but Aegon II would come before them for the Iron Throne. Not really. The point there seems to be that people thought Viserys I wouldn't have been able/willing to keep Rhaenyra as his heir if it had turned out that Laenor's children weren't his. Whether this was actually the case or not is not clear. I also don't see the treason there - Cersei committed treason because she cuckolded the king and pretended her children were his when they were not. But if Rhaenyra and Laenor had agreed that they would not have children together and Laenor would acknowledge any children Rhaenyra had as his then we don't really have any treason there. After all, it is Rhaenyra who was to continue the royal bloodline, not Laenor. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Having claims on both sides helped boost their legitimacy, and ultimately Aegon III inherited through his father. That is just in your head. Nobody in FaB ever cites Aegon III's claim through his father as a reason why he is allowed to ascend the throne. In fact, even after his ascension there are people who think Jaehaera has a better claim than he does as Aegon II's last living child. The fact that he rather than Jaehaera is crowned (he could have just been the prince consort at her side) is that the Blacks won the war and whatever 'Greens' there were still at court turned Black to a man, murdered the king, and used their previous scheme to force Aegon II to name Aegon the Younger and Jaehaera co-heirs as pretext to justify the installation of the Black pretender on the Iron Throne. After all, if Aegon II himself anointed Aegon the Younger as his heir then even the remaining Greens could not really argue against his rise to the throne - despite the fact that this only happened because the Blacks had won the war and Aegon II only was murdered because he men abandoned him and switched to the Black faction. But if Aegon II had just choked on some pie and the Greens had been in as favorable a position as the Blacks were at the end of the war then we can be reasonably certain that Aegon the Younger would have never been crowned king. The only guy who seems to care about the Great Council nonsense is Munkun later on when the regents discuss the succession of Aegon III with Tyland - and there the Hand even ridicules this idea because there are no Targaryens through the male line left at this point - which means the throne either will have to go to a woman or to the son of a Targaryen woman. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Robert never did that, yet his kids were challenged anyway. And the result was civil war. Which was all treason. Stannis and Renly are both traitors - Renly openly and proudly, Stannis in his repressed way. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Stannis' belief about Cersei's children is correct. Cersei really is a traitor and two King's Hands died as a result. Robert stopped thinking of Stannis as his heir once Joffrey was born, and while he disliked Joffrey he didn't actually seem to like Stannis much or want him in charge of anything but the navy. That's all irrelevant. Joffrey can't inherit because he's a bastard, unless Stannis decided to legitimize him. That's misreading things. Sure, Stannis happens to be correct, but if I shoot you because I think you try to kill me but cannot really prove that claim then I'm still guilty of murder if you do not stupidly reveal at court that I was right in my assumption that you wanted to kill me. [And even then there is to consider whether I had actual a good enough reason to believe that you wanted to kill me. Just accidentally being correct doesn't mean my actions are justified.] Just because Stannis says something doesn't make it so (and he learned that the hard way). He could have gotten Joffrey declared a bastard via Robert - all by himself he can't. He cannot even make himself a proper king until he has killed his niece and nephews because as per Robert Baratheon's own will Joffrey Baratheon is supposed to succeed him on the Iron Throne. What Robert would have done had he known or only believed his children weren't his children we never know. But even that would have meant that Robert publicly denounce his children as bastards, disinherit them in the process, and formally naming a new heir. 9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Even after legitimation, the ordering would still be Stannis before Renly before Edric before Mya if she counts at all, unless Robert additionally disinherited the people he'd previously granted Dragonstone and Storm's End. Legitimizing Aegon IV's bastards didn't automatically put them ahead of Daeron either. Apples and oranges. Children come before siblings. If Robert had legitimized Mya and Edric on his deathbed then Edric would have been his heir, followed by Mya, and then Stannis and Renly (or the women behind the men, we don't really know - after all, Stannis offers Renly to name him his heir instead of Shireen, indicating that up until that offer Stannis himself saw his daughter as his heir rather than his brother). Dragonstone and Storm's End have nothing to do with the succession of the Iron Throne. Those were just power bases these two ingrates used to plot against the children of their brother and sister-in-law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 Daeron was Aegon 4 firstborn, Daemon was born the same year Baelor Breakspear did, so even with the legitimization, Daeron remained the older and heir. Vaemond was pulling a very stupid move, Rhaenys was around there with her huge ass dragon and wouldn't have let her daughters being passed over even if the law dictated, which in fact it didn't, Laena was ahead Vaemond and all the Velaryon cousins and nephews. Every bastard that we know of are called snow, hill etc, not only noble bastards, when bastards aren't named that is often because no one can prove them bastards, but Mya was known to be Robert's bastard in all the Vale. Outside the Greens or the Velaryons, whom had a very motivation behind it, no one cares or even seemed to believe about the bastardy of the Strongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted December 20, 2019 Author Share Posted December 20, 2019 On 12/14/2019 at 6:27 AM, Eltharion21 said: Whole concept of killing Beesbury with throat slit is opposite of doing it secretly, there should be lot of blood to clean, body to carry, and it doesn't seem like how Otto Hightower run things Cole seems to have been more blunt than Hightower, which his why he replaced him as hand. Quote Also Lucerys didn't die yet so Greens didn't fully expect for bloodshed to escalate, there were negotiations and Otto and Alicent both showed distaste for how Aemond killed Lucerys. I think the attempt to send Orwyle to make a truce with Rhaenyra supports the idea that they were hoping to avoid fighting a civil war, but it was just a hope and not any confidence that she'd actually accept the offer and all bloodshed would be avoided. Quote Whole story started with Kingmaker and mention of throat slit, but when we look at details it becomes more and more dubious. We've got three separate stories according to Eustace, Mushroom and Orwyle but we don't really have a temporal ordering. Quote Orwyle is also main source for intrigues in " Short, Sad Reign of Aegon II" where he implicates Aegon II, Alicent and Larys Strong in their conspiracy to get rid of Lord Corlys in time and even Aegon the Younger, why should he paint them in bad light then but not during that small council: Two things: that's not actually "a conspiracy to get rid of Lord Corlys", conspiring requires more than saying "Deal with him later". Secondly, Orwyle was NOT trying to make the Greens look good once Black forces arrested him, but rather to make HIMSELF look good. That's why he claims that he joined the late Beesbury in arguing against the Green members of the council. On 12/14/2019 at 1:19 PM, Lord Varys said: Them being smart enough not to rebel doesn't mean they couldn't have been as shitty as Otto and Alicent and still try a rebellion I don't think it's a mattery of differing degrees of shittiness, rather that the Greens had reason to think they'd win and as far Stannis views things they actually did. I agree that the suggestion that Daemon deflowered Alicent seems unlikely and instead the dispute was likely political rather than personal. But I doubt Daemon simply took Otto's opposition in stride: he was ambitious and fearsome to his enemies. And since Rhaenyra was named as heir in response to Daemon offending Viserys, I think we can be sure that Daemon didn't reconsider his stance on Otto much later when he actually married her. Quote I see no reason to assume that they had real reason to fear for their lives - but even if they did: so what? Being afraid the future monarch is going to target you for real or imagined reasons doesn't give you the right to steal the throne. Daemon killed Laena's fiance in order to marry her, is suspected of killing having Laenor and Harwin killed in order to marry Rhaenyra, and had Vaemond killed for claiming Rhaenyra's children were bastards, a claim which was repeated by Alicent's children without the same result because Viserys was their father and still king. If Rhaenyra wanted to avoid a succession crisis after her own reign, it would actually be reasonable for her to try to neutralize the rival claimants in Alicent's children, and she was not inclined to rely on a Great Council for that. Your second point about justification is actually relevant to Robert's rebellion. Thomas Hobbes' is considered a relatively absolutist political thinker, unlike Locke he didn't think that violating the social contract was sufficient to justify rebellion. However, even he didn't take a king was owed any loyalty by someone he was trying to kill. In the case of Robert's rebellion, the king had already executed a number of nobles before demanding the heads of Ned and Robert, whereas in this case you're right that it's more speculative. However, in the Dance you also have the Master of Laws saying that the succession legally belonged to Aegon II, making him not a rebel at all. Quote While we have no other sources we cannot pretend to know that Priamos or Agamemnon existed There's an old joke that Shakespeare's plays were not written by Shakespeare but another man who happened to have the same name. The idea is that the name for us primarily refers to the person who wrote those works. And if the leaders of the two sides in the war had other names, I don't know if that makes much of a difference. In the case of the Dance, making up characters is less of an issue. Quote The examples you liked are superficial at best I don't know what makes things "superficial" in your view. Quote he could have just been preferred the company of men to that of women, like Stannis, say Stannis appears to be something of a misogynist uncomfortable with the idea of sex, but he also doesn't seem to be good company with anybody and thus we don't hear any rumors about him being gay. Quote But do we buy that Mushroom tried to mount Silverwing, do we believe the brothel queens, Aegon II watch his goons fuck court women to entertain him, that Mushroom and his member were involved in pretty much any salacious story he gives us? As with the linked post, I doubt Mushroom's fabled member was involved in all those stories. However, I don't find it out of character for the seriously injured Aegon II self-medicating with heavy alcohol use and resorting to living vicariously through watching others. The story of trying to mount Silverwing does sound like the sort of silly bit made up to entertain, and the only thing that gives me pause before dismissing it is that Mushroom's job of entertaining likely involved acting foolish rather than just speaking foolishly. The brothel queens story sounds outrageous, but the escalating awfulness of the Dance led to a number of outrages, and Helaena's children actually were threatened with rape by Blood and Cheese. Quote There are instances where Mushroom can be considered very credible - like with the parentage of Addam and Alyn of Hull - but there are many other instances where his perspective is just another stupid story - and we don't know what happened at all. In fact, almost most of the Mushroom stuff is just garbage. I also agree on the parentage of the Hull bastards. I take his claims on a case by case basis. And you can say his perspective is "just another stupid story", but the stories GRRM himself tells bear a certain resemblance to Mushroom's, though they're not quite so exaggerated. They often serve to contradict the sort of courtly romanticism that Sansa would believe in before somebody corrected her, with Arryk vs Erryk being one obvious case in point. Quote But we do have an explanation in the Eustace story there, don't we? Not for every other Green Kingsguard. Arryk and Erryk were twins, who tend to be close, so it would seem likely that Arryk would have told Erryk what had found and that the latter would have thus started out sharing a similarly negative opinion about Rhaenyra and Daemon. Explaining each Kingsguard's actions by instead just having them continue to serve wherever they were stationed by default works for most of them. Quote I can see the ham-fisted literal parallel. But it isn't the same story, it is a parallel - meaning we cannot equate the two completely. Why do you think GRRM made use of such a ham-fisted literal parallel? My view it was to drastically put his thumb on the scales for readers without having to resort to the sort of thing he could provide in POV chapters rather than a fake history. Quote or to be precise: we know Cersei and Jaime both believe he is the father of the children Cersei actually took steps to ensure that was the case, so I don't think readers need to reserve judgment. Quote If George had wanted us to know who fathered Rhaenyra's children he would have given us the same evidence he gave us for Cersei's children - and this would have been possible in his setting. For instance, in the case of the Hull boys Corlys being the father is much more likely than the Laenor story. I don't understand why you think the Hull boys are so much more obviously not Laenor's compared to the Velaryon/Strong boys. In both cases Laenor's homosexuality makes it unlikely that he's the father. In both cases we've got another candidate known to be in that location more often than Laenor seems to have been. In one case there are three boys who all lack the Valyrian look, while in another there are two who both look Valyrian because the official and suggested father did as well. Quote Mellos doesn't give any evidence for his speculation. He just speculates wildly. This isn't any credible evidence - it were if he had pointed to how and through whom Viserys I supposedly arranged the fire. I'm not arguing that it was Viserys, even within his family I think Daemon is the more likely candidate. But my point is that Mellos wasn't pushing Green propaganda or trying to steal Driftmark for himself, he just noted privately to himself that he thought Viserys took the rumors that seriously. This contradicts your position that it was just people acting out of self-interest who said such things. Quote You see what a grasping traitor Vaemond was when he tried to steal Driftmark not only from Rhaenyra's sons but also from Laena's daughters. He didn't say anything about Laena's daughters, nor did anyone else say anything about them during that dispute. Quote But Harwin is never described. We don't even know whether he had brown hair or brown eyes. It's true that we don't know that, but we can guess that he had no Valyrian ancestry and wasn't silver-haired or purple-eyed. We also know that Rhaenyra's later children with Daemon didn't have those "common" traits, nor did Laena's with him, nor did the Hull bastards attributed to Laenor but probably fathered by Corlys. Quote We also do not know why Alysanne had common blond hair and Princess Alyssa mismatched eyes My impression is that silver-hair is sort of a more extreme version of blondism, so it's not that odd for a Targaryen to have that. Mismatched eyes sounds like a de novo mutation or some individual quirk in development. We don't hear of sets of siblings with mismatched eyes. Quote The idea we can systematize this just doesn't work. You can believe Rhaenyra's sons were not Laenor's - but you cannot prove that or consider it a truth rather than just a possibility. It's an OVERWHELMING probability. You keep giving examples of "diluted" Valyrian blood still being expressed in the phenotype, which makes it all the more striking that the three Velaryon/Strong brothers were lacking in them and instead featured common non-Valyrian traits. Quote Robert even talked about bringing Mya to court later on. If he had brought her to court, then she'd be a recognized bastard. But she isn't, which is why she hasn't received the same sort of attention from political figures as Edric Storm or even Barra. Mya Stone is an open secret rather than anything official, which is how she herself can remain ignorant. Quote If something like bastard children enter history, this implies that there was some sort of official or semi-official recognition going on. Else history would not mention such claims. The Dance of the Dragons included not only Gaemon Palehair but also Trystane Truefyre at the same time, neither of whom were ever recognized by their purported father. In contrast, there were no "Waters" trying to claim the throne. Quote She confessed under torture - which opens up the possibility of her having confessed exactly what Aegon II wanted her to say. So you think that Aegon II actually did recognize Gaemon but then shortly afterward rescinded his recognition? Why wasn't he already known as Gaemon Waters? Why did he live in a brothel with his mother? Quote This is not accurate in the case of Laenor since he resided at High Tide on Driftmark, not at Dragonstone. The Velaryons of High Tide would have also been part of Rhaenyra's regime, and all of them along with her seemed to be fine with Laenor's rather open flouting of his disinterest in his spouse relative to his household knights/squires, even at the cost of his supposed children appearing illegitimate. Contrast Baelor's wife trying to shame him for not doing his duty. Their example showed that they would not follow any rules of propriety but would kill anyone who called them out on it. Quote Afterwards he left or stayed at home How can that be attributed to Joffrey? Quote You would have to give us textual evidence for the claim that King Viserys I could command Laenor Velaryon to marry Princess Rhaenyra if he was opposed to that idea. His parents may have been able to force Laenor - but we don't know that they did - but not a king who could barely master his own daughter, much less his brother. Viserys did force his daughter to marry when she didn't want to. His brother Daemon didn't want to marry his first wife, but Queen Alysanne decided on Rhea Royce for him. Daemon spent his time away from the Vale during his marriage, just as Laenor did for Dragonstone, and had no children with Rhea though he tried to claim her lands on her death anyway. Quote Laenor could have just refused to marry at all - like the gay Prince Daeron later did or like Brynden Tully did Aegon V was an unusual king in that he had married for love rather than political reasons, and this made it harder for him to make his children do as he said rather than as he did. Brynden Tully was not being ordered by a king, and actually became the Knight of the Gate for his niece so that he wouldn't be under his brother's authority anymore. Quote Eustace makes it rather clear that Cole was in love with Rhaenyra, not the other way around. We've got one incident via Eustace from which this entire thread sprung (one could just as easily claim that Mushroom made it "clear" it was the opposite way "not the other way around"). Nothing else suggests that's in-character for Cole, who otherwise seems to have taken his vow of celibacy and position as Lord Commander very seriously and not something to be discarded. Quote If you hurt the spouse of a princess or prince you hurt them by extension I think Robert and Cersei would disagree. Quote Beating up Harwin would have meant less to Rhaenyra considering there was no deep or official connection there (if there was any at all) The official connection is that he was her sworn shield and wore her favor, but since Laenor didn't have Joffrey's sigil on his arms we must conclude that the knight's death meant little to him. Whether or not the connection was deep is something you need to argue for rather than assuming the conclusion. Quote I mean, you are aware that Rhaenyra included the Velaryon arms in her personal sigil, right? Sigils are political symbols, and her alliance with the Velaryons was the most important one she had. Quote He could also just ask the leave of the king to stay out of the affair. Or decide he would not enter the lists because he had to guard the king, etc. KINGSGUARD ENTER THE LISTS ALL THE TIME! They are supposed to be the most prestigious knights in the seven kingdoms, and that includes demonstrating their prowess in tourneys, particularly ones where the royals attend. Assigning Jaime the responsibility of guarding his wife and son in King's Landing rather than competing is just something Aerys did to be a dick. Cole actually wore Queen Alicent's favor because she was at the wedding/tourney rather than somewhere else he could have been sent to. And since he won, he definitely seems like the sort of person who should be competing. A great tourney knight within the kingsguard not competing in a royal wedding's tourney would be strange, and as I mentioned before refusing to attend has been more consistent with the sort of snubbing I'm arguing against rather than disgust. Quote Daario isn't Cole You're right that he isn't: he's a mercenary with naked ladies as knife-handles who brags that his day isn't complete unless he's laid with a woman. Whereas Cole appears to have led an entirely celibate life and railed against others for their flouting of the norms of marriage. Daario is a greedy man who has angled himself up to paramour of a conqueror, while Cole was appointed Lord Commander simply due to his behavior as a knight and never exhibited any of the Littlefinger-esque traits of ambition you've imagined for him outside the text. None of this does anything to contradict my argument about the result of spurning vs disgust. Quote Even if we took Mellos' speculation as evidence - which I don't - then Viserys I believing something doesn't make it true, either. False rumors could be just as damaging as true rumors, right? A rumor that nobody would believe isn't very damaging. My point bringing up Mellos was that it wasn't just people making self-interested claims like Vaemond or Alicent and her children who took the charges of illegitimacy seriously. Quote Because the entire Mushroom narrative is internally contradictory and implausible. You've said that before, doing nothing to explain why it's as implausible as you claimed for Rhaenyra to immediately switch to Harwin conditional on her being rejected by Cole. During the time that you regard her as being fixated on Daemon, she seems to have been on good terms with his wife Laena, who was not in a sexless pseudo-marriage like her brother Laenor. Quote Aegon IV did not make it clear he preferred Daemon to Daeron - that would have meant that he would have changed the succession in Daemon's favor which he never did. Instead he intentionally sent mixed signals. He sent NO signals favorable to Daeron. Daeron was simply legitimate while Daemon was not, but Aegon worked to undermine Daeron's advantage by spreading the rumor that Aemon was his father and legitimizing all his bastards on his deathbed. Aegon giving Blackfyre to Daemon was another way of demonstrating his preference. Quote One time, early in his reign did he try to war with Dorne. After the wooden dragons fiasco he never again spoke of Dorne. No, there was also an attempted naval invasion. The reason Daemon was betrothed to Rohanne of Tyrosh was for Tyroshi naval assistance in war with Dorne. War with Dorne was a recurring goal for him, abandoned only after he was thoroughly humiliated. It was not something he ever tried to avoid. Quote It would give more depth to Cole if he had had some brains. It would give more depth to Gregor and Victarion as well, but that doesn't make it any more likely. Quote They also had lost back in 92 AC. And the way to take the throne would not necessarily involve an all-out war. Just a quick raid on KL, kill Viserys I, and seat Laenor in his place. Usurpation complete. Targaryen civil wars aren't that simple. Rhaenyra actually did attack KL, and it didn't end the war even after the city fell. Quote That is a non-argument. If you assess a situation you check what possibilities are actually on the table, you don't use how things turned out as confirmation that they did everything they (possibly) could do. It's informative about the limits of someone's power. What do you think Otto could have done that he didn't do? Quote Oh, I was thinking about murdering him, not removing him. Unwin Peake tried that. A man serving the interests of the Realm would not have seen Aegon III as the means to do that. And Tyland really doesn't strike me as that kind of guy. You had earlier been talking about what a worthless scumbag Unwin Peake was, but now he's serving the realm better than Tyland? And really, what was so bad about Aegon III? Quote just look how many City Watch officers and other lords and people they imprison. It's not surprising the City Watch was a stronghold of Blacks since Daemon had given the goldcloaks their gold cloaks and made them into his own personal criminal organization. Quote We do know Daemon had an informer on the council even after the blood oath. Your view is that it was Larys, who could have ended the war much more quickly if he actually favored the Blacks. Instead he's the one who manages to keep the Green cause alive after the fall of KL so that Aegon II can have his half-sister fed to his dragon. If you believe that he was responsible for the fire that killed his father and his brother, then he has good reason to be wary of the woman whose lover he had killed and want her off the throne. I think Larys is suspicious enough that he could have arranged for information to be passed along to Daemon insofar as he found that convenient. Right now what info Daemon had access to is undefined. Quote No, I said that Ormund as Lord of Oldtown not being Otto - his own uncle - could more easily cut ties with Otto than Otto could if he were the Lord of Oldtown. The reasons the Hightowers as a house survived the Dance mostly intact is due to the fact that Otto Hightower and Alicent were not the Lord of Oldtown and his daughter. Ormund did not cut ties with Otto, but instead fought and died on behalf of the Greens. Quote But it doesn't strike me as very belieavable that they would have betrayed her without knowing the other side would reward them. They weren't rewarded and the rewards they angled for would never have been accepted by the Green leadership. Quote And we do know for a fact that there were Green traitors in Tumbleton - which could have given them the opportunity to approach Hugh and Ulf before the betrayal. I think we can assume Roger Corne didn't offer the Iron Throne to Hugh, since Hugh nailed three horseshoes to his skull after Roger knocked an iron crown off his head. Owain Bourney seemed to believe he was responsible for the victory and thought he should be made leader of the Green forces there, but that never seemed likely considering how many more men the Hightowers had, so Unwin stabbed him in the eye while denouncing turncloaks. It is possible that Bourney talked with the two dragonseeds beforehand to arrange for their flip, since we don't know of any conflict between him and them. Quote In fact, Ran has gone as far as to doubt that ridiculous suggestion about Casterly Rock and Storm's End ever took place Could you link to that? Quote I don't really buy that Correy story. If there was only the slightest hint that Daemon was involved in Laenor's death Corlys and Rhaenys would have turned Green not Black. Daemon is a risk-taker, and sometimes that paid off. What do you think the truth was about Laenor's death? Quote But Rhaenyra would have to put forth her claims against the claim of a king who had already been crowned and anointed. That would have been rather difficult since people wouldn't have sudden forgotten that there already had been a war fought over the issue, no? She is quoted as saying "Do you mistake me for Mushroom? We both know how this council would rule", indicating that she expected that she would lose. Quote The much more interesting issue is that Otto and Alicent didn't make Aegon II a Great Council king - apparently they did not trust the idea that the lords would choose Aegon against the explicit wishes of the late king Viserys I. Else the coup wouldn't have prepared Aegon II's coronation but would have been used to convene a Great Council at KL. If Alicent can think of a Great Council later on they must have realized that they could have convened one in early 129 AC, too. We know that they looked over the records to see which houses had supported which claimants, and on the assumption that those who supported Rhaenys were more likely to support Rhaenyra they sent Aemond to Storm's End to get a marriage alliance with the Baratheons. I think they wanted to make sure they could line up all their ducks, but didn't anticipate that Lucerys would arrive to get killed by Aemond. I think their first preference was for Rhaenyra to accept the terms of truce so that Aegon's coronation wasn't even disputed by the most obvious rival, even if she could still just change her mind later if she thought Aegon's hold had weakened or she had assembled a stronger coalition. Quote Oh, I'm sure they would have never intermarried again. Aegon II wanted to see Rhaenyra's line destroyed, and she intended to do the same with Alicent's line (and eventually succeeded thanks to the great Green Unwin Peake). Unwin Peake destroyed Alicent's line because Aegon II's daughter actually was married to Aegon III, even if Aegon the Elder grumbled about it. If there were a truce, and Aegon II wound up with no male heirs, then I think even Rhaenyra would agree to that same betrothal. Quote This all happened during a war started by the Greens. Vaemond wasn't killed during any war. And the first military action of the war was arguably Daemon seizing Harrenhall from House Strong. Quote No, his decision is explicitly based on the idea he is the rightful king - despite the fact that he can neither know nor prove that, unlike Rhaenyra. Stannis doesn't want to remain the Lord of Dragonstone - he wants the Iron Throne and the Seven Kingdoms. Stannis would have preferred to have Storm's End rather than Dragonstone, but he did his duty. He never disobeyed Robert. He rebelled because he knew Cersei's children were illegitimate, and we know him to be correct about that. Quote And in this setting one has to actually follow through with one's proclamations and promises or else one is seen as either weak or a liar. Which is a reason not to make foolish proclamations. Quote It might have come in handy for Daeron II if Bittersteel, Fireball, and Daemon himself were lacking a tongue before 196 AC, no? We know that multiple Blackfyre rebellions happened afterward despite Bloodraven enacting something of a police state that killed men for saying things he didn't like. There's also the claim that Daemon himself rebelled once he heard Bloodraven was about to have him arrested. Quote he keeps it ambiguous in the sense that he doesn't believe doing nothing in such cases is always the right choice. When Cersei suggests punishing anyone who repeats Stannis' claims about her bastards, Tyrion tells her why that would be foolish, and Littlefinger comes up with something other than "doing nothing" by fighting words with other words. Littlefinger's proposed rumor about Patchface is just made-up propaganda, so it's not seen as especially moral, but I think GRRM is suggesting that's more politically pragmatic. It should be noted that Tyrion kills Symon Silvertongue to prevent him from telling anyone about Shae, but that's a blackmailer who hadn't yet revealed anything and he was lowborn enough to kill without consequences. Quote Well, Jeyne Arryn's freak heir sort of puts that into perspective, doesn't it? What's this about Joffrey/Arnold Arryn? Quote Granted, this doesn't seem to happen often Never, for house Targaryen. Quote We would just perpetuate the shitty Westerosi culture thing of almost dehumanizing illegitimate children. The characters all live within "shitty Westerosi culture" featuring a throne passed down via the king's offspring. Damnng all the characters for abiding by monarchy and primogeniture would be silly. If you had somehow Quantum Leaped into their bodies you would not be able to get away with acting like contemporary first world norms held. Quote Bastardy is a legal concept, it is not just a fact of reality. So is murder, and it's a fact that Jon Arryn was murdered even if nobody was ever convicted of it. There might be some charracters who just accept whetever any legal authority has said, but there's enough that don't for us not to end things there. Quote The default status of children born to a married woman is that her husband is also the father - and this remains so until proven otherwise. I would say that it's a presumption, which is rebuttable. Quote We do know Cersei's children are not Robert's children but Jaime's - but they are still not bastards because they have not been declared such There is no character in the story who takes such a position. The people calling them bastards don't think Robert ever declared them to be, and the people fighting against the claim of bastardry publicly insist Robert really was their father. Because if anyone acknowledged that he wasn't, that person would then have to consider them bastards who could not inherit. Quote The point there seems to be that people thought Viserys I wouldn't have been able/willing to keep Rhaenyra as his heir if it had turned out that Laenor's children weren't his I think that's plausible. Rhaenyra flat out admitting that the kids she'd presented as the legitimate sons of her husband were actually bastards would make it hard for anyone to support her, including the Velaryons. Quote Whether this was actually the case or not is not clear. I also don't see the treason there You're not a Westerosi, as they did. Quote In fact, even Aegon II acknowledged them as Laenor's sons - why else would he have offered Rhaenyra to confirm Lucerys Velaryon as rightful heir to Driftmark if he believed the boy to not be Laenor Velaryon's son? I think Aegon II could have given Driftmark to Ulf and Hugh if he thought that would result in victory. Quote In fact, even after his ascension there are people who think Jaehaera has a better claim than he does as Aegon II's last living child Aegon II himself had named Aegon III as his heir and married him to Jaehaera rather than the other way around, so III was both next according to the male-line after II and was explicitly chosen by the king, reconciling the two conflicting sources of claims behind the Dance which had roots in Jaehaerys choosing Baelon as heir over Rhaenys. It was thus possible for both Greens and Blacks to assent to III. And there doesn't appear to be any trouble caused by people claiming Jaehaera should have the throne. Quote The only guy who seems to care about the Great Council nonsense is Munkun later on A Great Council elevated Aegon V to the throne, and that included passing over Daeron's daughter based on the prior precedent. Egg wasn't necessarily the logical candidate via primogeniture, so there was pragmatism mixed in there as well. Quote Which was all treason. Stannis and Renly are both traitors - Renly openly and proudly, Stannis in his repressed way. I can grant Renly, who had no justification for declaring himself king. Do you regard Ned Stark as a traitor also? Quote That's misreading things. Sure, Stannis happens to be correct, but if I shoot you because I think you try to kill me but cannot really prove that claim then I'm still guilty of murder if you do not stupidly reveal at court that I was right in my assumption that you wanted to kill me. If I actually try to kill you and you kill me, that's self-defense. Our legal system was actually put together with the expectation that courts would sometimes get things wrong. Quote Just because Stannis says something doesn't make it so (and he learned that the hard way). He could have gotten Joffrey declared a bastard via Robert - all by himself he can't The High Sparrow might do that, which is not something that would have been likely to happen if Stannis had simply accepted Joffrey as king. Quote as per Robert Baratheon's own will Joffrey Baratheon is supposed to succeed him on the Iron Throne Actually, Ned wrote the will so that it referred to Robert's "heir" rather than Joffrey specifically so that Stannis rather than Joffrey could inherit. Cersei tore up the will, but that didn't create a will from Robert naming Joffrey as heir (even if that's what Robert thought he was doing). On 12/15/2019 at 8:04 AM, frenin said: Outside the Greens or the Velaryons, whom had a very motivation behind it, no one cares or even seemed to believe about the bastardy of the Strongs. Mellos says otherwise about Viserys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 2 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mellos says otherwise about Viserys. And Eustace claims that Jacaerys tried to convince Cregan Stark to give up his false gods and embrace the real faith... instead of you know gaining the much needed support of the Starks, sometimes we just got to ask us what's likely and what's not. I'd belive Mellos, if Viserys was shown to be suspicious and angry with his daughter, or even if he had denied sometime of his grandkids etc. But no, Viserys is chill until he randomly starts a fire in HH... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 3 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: You had earlier been talking about what a worthless scumbag Unwin Peake was, but now he's serving the realm better than Tyland? And really, what was so bad about Aegon III? Quote Nothing really imo, the guy was described as cold, but he wanted to make things right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltharion21 Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 13 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Two things: that's not actually "a conspiracy to get rid of Lord Corlys", conspiring requires more than saying "Deal with him later". Secondly, Orwyle was NOT trying to make the Greens look good once Black forces arrested him, but rather to make HIMSELF look good. That's why he claims that he joined the late Beesbury in arguing against the Green members of the council. I agree , that is why I doubt he lied about how Beesbury ended. He couldn't stop it if he wanted to, but also shows that small council of Aegon II planned to get rid of Aegon the Younger in time, which is much more damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 On 12/20/2019 at 1:10 AM, frenin said: And Eustace claims that Jacaerys tried to convince Cregan Stark to give up his false gods and embrace the real faith... instead of you know gaining the much needed support of the Starks, sometimes we just got to ask us what's likely and what's not. Going over each claim and trying to determine its likelihood is exactly what we're trying to do here. Lord Varys had argued that Eustace is generally reliable and Mushroom is not, with the parentage of the Hull boys being an exception. Quote I'd belive Mellos, if Viserys was shown to be suspicious and angry with his daughter, or even if he had denied sometime of his grandkids etc. But no, Viserys is chill until he randomly starts a fire in HH... Was Viserys "chill" when he removed Velaryon tongues for spreading the rumor? Mellos is claiming that Viserys killed Harwin to prevent him from talking about Rhaenyra's children, and while other people have more credible motives for the murder the point I'm making is that Mellos thought Viserys was sufficiently afraid of Harwin spilling the beans to have such a motive. Mellos does not seem to have been a Green partisan and he was writing in his own private papers rather than making propaganda for the public, so this is not something that can be dismissed through the usual explanation of self-interest. I don't know what you mean by "denied sometime of his grandkids", but if you're referring to publicly denying their legitimacy that's the opposite of what Mellos thinks of his motivations. Viserys also wanted his daughter to publicly conform to what was considered proper behavior by marrying Laenor and being separated from Harwin when Aemond repeated the rumor, but as a man conciliatory by nature it was not in him to try to force his daughter to change private behavior she had not actually admitted to. On 12/20/2019 at 12:56 PM, Eltharion21 said: I agree , that is why I doubt he lied about how Beesbury ended. He couldn't stop it if he wanted to, but also shows that small council of Aegon II planned to get rid of Aegon the Younger in time, which is much more damning. Even the quote you provided doesn't reference ANY plans for Aegon the Younger after naming him heir. There's just a reference to how historically someone being named heir doesn't mean they'll actually inherit. I earlier mentioned when Baelon was chosen over Rhaenys, and that's one such example of that. It's "bird in the hand vs two in the bush" logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Going over each claim and trying to determine its likelihood is exactly what we're trying to do here. Lord Varys had argued that Eustace is generally reliable and Mushroom is not, with the parentage of the Hull boys being an exception. I'm not Varys, the claim that Jace spent his visits trying to convert Cregan and he still somehow got the support of the North seems simply stupid. The claim that Viserys burned Harrenhall when he never express concern about Rhaenrya's actions is not far behind. 14 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Was Viserys "chill" when he removed Velaryon tongues for spreading the rumor? Mellos is claiming that Viserys killed Harwin to prevent him from talking about Rhaenyra's children, and while other people have more credible motives for the murder the point I'm making is that Mellos thought Viserys was sufficiently afraid of Harwin spilling the beans to have such a motive. Mellos does not seem to have been a Green partisan and he was writing in his own private papers rather than making propaganda for the public, so this is not something that can be dismissed through the usual explanation of self-interest. I don't know what you mean by "denied sometime of his grandkids", but if you're referring to publicly denying their legitimacy that's the opposite of what Mellos thinks of his motivations. Viserys also wanted his daughter to publicly conform to what was considered proper behavior by marrying Laenor and being separated from Harwin when Aemond repeated the rumor, but as a man conciliatory by nature it was not in him to try to force his daughter to change private behavior she had not actually admitted to. Actually he was. And what motive should Harwin to spill the beans?? Not only he ruins Rhaenrya's life, he ruins his kids lives and he ends up as Terrence Toyne 2.0?? I mean, what are the odds?? Mellos wasn't even sure of his claim, he just say it was a possibility... If Viserys at some point had come to believe the rumours. A rumour only muttered once and as a supposition is not near enough to believe that there were more people believing it, you'd think that during the war, everyone would be repeating the obvious... On 12/20/2019 at 6:08 AM, FictionIsntReal said: What's this about Joffrey/Arnold Arryn? She wasn't about to let her first cousins get the w. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltharion21 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 12 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Even the quote you provided doesn't reference ANY plans for Aegon the Younger after naming him heir. There's just a reference to how historically someone being named heir doesn't mean they'll actually inherit. I earlier mentioned when Baelon was chosen over Rhaenys, and that's one such example of that. It's "bird in the hand vs two in the bush" logic. I agree that it isn't explicit but implies that Clubfoot suggested just that. He said heir "never lived to sit the throne", not other reasons for it (abdication, naming other heir, Great Council). Spoiler “Kill the old snake and we lose the young one,” the Clubfoot said, “and all those fine swift ships of theirs as well.” Instead, he said, they must move at once to make amends with Lord Corlys, so as to keep House Velaryon on their side. “Give him his betrothal, Your Grace,” he urged the king. “A betrothal is not a wedding. Name Young Aegon your heir. A prince is not a king. Look back at the history and count how many heirs never lived to sit the throne. Deal with Driftmark in due course, when your foes are vanquished and your tide is at the full. That day is not yet come. We must bide our time and speak to him gently.” Report of that council meeting, came from Orwlye through Munkun, he paints parts of small council at least as suggesting a murder of a king who people had arrested him rallied around. If he is the same source for supposed things said at same council: Aegon II saying : Spoiler “He can take the black and spend his days at the Wall,” His Grace decreed, “or else give up his manhood and serve me as a eunuch. The choice is his, but he shall have no children. My sister’s line must end.” Or Tyland Lannister: Spoiler "Even that was thought to be too gentle a course by Ser Tyland Lannister, who argued for the immediate execution of Prince Aegon the Younger. “The boy will remain a threat so long as he draws breath,” Lannister declared. “Remove his head, and these traitors will be left with neither queen nor king nor prince. The sooner he is dead, the sooner this rebellion will end.” His words, and those of the king, horrified Lord Velaryon. The aged Sea Snake, “thunderous in his wroth,” accused king and council of being “fools, liars, and oathbreakers,” and stormed from the chamber." Than those claims seem more damning, since they are regicide ( as considered by conquering Black Alliance( Cregan and Riverlads) against supposed murder of Beesbury. Which makes it even more implausible he should lie about one council meeting but tell truth about other. Most plausible is that he just embellished his role or given himself depiction as voice of reason or peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted December 23, 2019 Author Share Posted December 23, 2019 On 12/21/2019 at 9:18 PM, frenin said: The claim that Viserys burned Harrenhall when he never express concern about Rhaenrya's actions is not far behind. It wasn't all of Harrenhal that burned, there was just a fire that broke out where Harwin and Lyonel were sleeping, which some just chalk up as a mishap. And Viserys removed Velaryon tongues to stop them from spreading rumors, so there is a sort of consistency in actions. Quote Actually he was. He was what? Quote And what motive should Harwin to spill the beans?? Not only he ruins Rhaenrya's life, he ruins his kids lives and he ends up as Terrence Toyne 2.0?? I mean, what are the odds?? Nobody ever accused Harwin of any calculated actions. But you've heard the expression "two can keep a secret if one of them is dead". Harwin was separated from Rhaenyra and her children, and there was no way to be sure he wouldn't let it slip at some point when he was in his cups and that whoever he told wouldn't expect a reward from the Greens for testifying as such. Furthermore, Terence Toyne was a knight of the kingsguard sworn to celibacy, and Harwin as heir was very much not. Lastly, Toyne served Aegon IV, so not "2.0". Quote Mellos wasn't even sure of his claim, he just say it was a possibility... If Viserys at some point had come to believe the rumours. It would be surprising if he was sure of that claim, since Mellos is rarely our single source for big unusual claims and I personally think there are others with much more plausible motives. The point of the Mellos example is that it wasn't just Vaemond and the Green's pushing the theory of Rhaenyra's bastards out of self-interest, as we have the example of someone who was not a propagandist, didn't seem to have any axe to grind, is usually relatively circumspect, and writing privately and thus presumably honestly and he takes the theory quite seriously to the extent of thinking Viserys himself might take such an extreme action. Quote A rumour only muttered once and as a supposition is not near enough to believe that there were more people believing it, you'd think that during the war, everyone would be repeating the obvious... Who is "everyone"? We've got multiple people saying it, so I don't know who you were expecting to hear from that didn't say anything. We've even got the Velaryon/Strongs themselves saying that because of the accusations they should prove their Targaryen credentials by riding dragons. Their logic is questionable since nobody denied their mother was Rhaenyra Targaryen, but nobody expected these kids to be eggheads. 15 hours ago, Eltharion21 said: I agree that it isn't explicit but implies that Clubfoot suggested just that. He said heir "never lived to sit the throne", not other reasons for it (abdication, naming other heir, Great Council). I mentioned Baelon as an example, he was named heir over Rhaenys but died before he could take the throne, which is why the Great Council of 101 was called, in which Viserys was chosen as heir over Rhaenys again and her son Laenor. And of course Larys wasn't making this argument so he could assassinate Aegon III later, as he instead poisoned Aegon II with III having been named as heir and betrothed to II's only living child. Quote Report of that council meeting, came from Orwlye through Munkun, he paints parts of small council at least as suggesting a murder of a king who people had arrested him rallied around. If he is the same source for supposed things said at same council: Aegon II saying : Reveal hidden contents “He can take the black and spend his days at the Wall,” His Grace decreed, “or else give up his manhood and serve me as a eunuch. The choice is his, but he shall have no children. My sister’s line must end.” Or Tyland Lannister: Reveal hidden contents "Even that was thought to be too gentle a course by Ser Tyland Lannister, who argued for the immediate execution of Prince Aegon the Younger. “The boy will remain a threat so long as he draws breath,” Lannister declared. “Remove his head, and these traitors will be left with neither queen nor king nor prince. The sooner he is dead, the sooner this rebellion will end.” His words, and those of the king, horrified Lord Velaryon. The aged Sea Snake, “thunderous in his wroth,” accused king and council of being “fools, liars, and oathbreakers,” and stormed from the chamber." Aegon II and Tyland seem to have had their logic vindicated by what happened subsequently. Aegon III being heir actually did pose a threat to Aegon II's life. Quote Than those claims seem more damning, since they are regicide ( as considered by conquering Black Alliance( Cregan and Riverlads) against supposed murder of Beesbury. Which makes it even more implausible he should lie about one council meeting but tell truth about other. Most plausible is that he just embellished his role or given himself depiction as voice of reason or peace. Nobody ever claimed Orwyle was trying to make the Green council look good, rather the opposite as he was imprisoned by Cregan Stark and trying to stay alive. The point is that he is the only one who claims that he was dissenter alongside Beesbury, and also the only one who claimed Beesbury died a natural death rather than being murdered by Cole. If he had admitted that Cole murdered Beesbury for dissenting, it would naturally raise the question of why Orwyle wasn't murdered as well for his similar behavior. Avoiding that is why he has a clear motive to tell a different story even if it's not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: He was what? Chill. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It wasn't all of Harrenhal that burned, there was just a fire that broke out where Harwin and Lyonel were sleeping, which some just chalk up as a mishap. And Viserys removed Velaryon tongues to stop them from spreading rumors, so there is a sort of consistency in actions. Oh true, but Viserys removed Velaryon tongues after he decreed it, not just for the sake of it. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Nobody ever accused Harwin of any calculated actions. But you've heard the expression "two can keep a secret if one of them is dead". Harwin was separated from Rhaenyra and her children, and there was no way to be sure he wouldn't let it slip at some point when he was in his cups and that whoever he told wouldn't expect a reward from the Greens for testifying as such. Furthermore, Terence Toyne was a knight of the kingsguard sworn to celibacy, and Harwin as heir was very much not. Lastly, Toyne served Aegon IV, so not "2.0 He was separated from them for a time and if he had kept his mouth shit for all that time, is unlikely that he failed later, i find more believable the tale that Viserys killed him enraged for despoiling his daughter. I didn't know why I said Toyne, I wanted to say the Stinger, everyone of Saera's lovers didn't fare well when it was known that they were banging the Princess. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It would be surprising if he was sure of that claim, since Mellos is rarely our single source for big unusual claims and I personally think there are others with much more plausible motives. The point of the Mellos example is that it wasn't just Vaemond and the Green's pushing the theory of Rhaenyra's bastards out of self-interest, as we have the example of someone who was not a propagandist, didn't seem to have any axe to grind, is usually relatively circumspect, and writing privately and thus presumably honestly and he takes the theory quite seriously to the extent of thinking Viserys himself might take such an extreme action. But Mellos is not saying that Viserys was sure, nor is he repeating the rumour like Vaemond did, Mellos says that if Viserys had come to believe the tale, he would kill Harwin in revenge. He's not even saying what could've changed his mind, just that had he come to believe the rumour at some point, he'd be the most likely suspect. 7 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Who is "everyone"? We've got multiple people saying it, so I don't know who you were expecting to hear from that didn't say anything. We've even got the Velaryon/Strongs themselves saying that because of the accusations they should prove their Targaryen credentials by riding dragons. Their logic is questionable since nobody denied their mother was Rhaenyra Targaryen, but nobody expected these kids to be eggheads. We have three sources, two that are in there for the loot and another who just express a possibility. You only have compare how damning are the rumours of the incest, Daeron 2 bastardy or even Shireen being fathered by Pathcface. Nobody expected them to hatch dragons?? Only the Greens didn't expect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted December 24, 2019 Author Share Posted December 24, 2019 12 hours ago, frenin said: Chill. If he was chill when he had those tongues removed, then he could have been chill when he ordered a murder as well. Quote He was separated from them for a time and if he had kept his mouth shit for all that time, is unlikely that he failed later, i find more believable the tale that Viserys killed him enraged for despoiling his daughter. He could potentially have to keep his mouth shut for much longer than he had, and not in a place where Viserys or Rhaenyra would exercise much direct control. And Mellos is specifically stated to have silencing Harwin as a motive rather than revenge. Quote I didn't know why I said Toyne, I wanted to say the Stinger, everyone of Saera's lovers didn't fare well when it was known that they were banging the Princess. Jonah Mooton did alright since he agreed to marry one of Saera's friends, Roy Connington refused a marriage (claiming that Beesbury had impregnated Alys Turnberry and that her bastard would not be Roy's heir) and chose ten years of exile during which he got himself stabbed by a whore. The Stinger was the only one who died quickly, and that's because he requested a trial by combat rather than being crippled and gelded. Saera claimed that all three believed they had taken her maidenhead, but Beesbury was regarded as a corrupting influence on the group of friends who had also kept the servant-informers quiet and deserved worse. Quote But Mellos is not saying that Viserys was sure, nor is he repeating the rumour like Vaemond did, Mellos says that if Viserys had come to believe the tale, he would kill Harwin in revenge. He's not even saying what could've changed his mind, just that had he come to believe the rumour at some point, he'd be the most likely suspect. Mellos wasn't responding to a hypothetical about what Viserys would do in a counterfactual universe where he believed the rumor. He was privately writing that Viserys could be responsible for that reason, indicating that Mellos took seriously not merely the rumor itself but Viserys believing it. And, as noted, the motive was silencing him rather than revenge. Quote We have three sources, two that are in there for the loot and another who just express a possibility. You only have compare how damning are the rumours of the incest, Daeron 2 bastardy or even Shireen being fathered by Pathcface. Until the second part of Fire and Blood is released, we won't know how many rumors about Daeron II make it into Gyldayn's text. In the absence of POV chapters during that era, we can't really compare it to the same thing for later eras. I don't know which ones you're referring to as the two in there for the loot, but I assume that Mellos is your single other person just expressing a possibility. So I assume the repeated instances of multiple Greens referring to them as bastards (the most offensive instance of which would probably be Alicent trying to make peace with Rhaenyra by dismissing the death of Lucerys as "bastard blood, shed at war") don't count. If we include people who don't actually believe the rumors, the Velaryon/Strong boys themselves thought they needed to act to overcome the rumors by riding dragons. Quote Nobody expected them to hatch dragons?? Only the Greens didn't expect that. I don't know what precisely you're responding to with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: If he was chill when he had those tongues removed, then he could have been chill when he ordered a murder as well. Quote Oh, he could. 6 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: He could potentially have to keep his mouth shut for much longer than he had, and not in a place where Viserys or Rhaenyra would exercise much direct control. And Mellos is specifically stated to have silencing Harwin as a motive rather than revenge. Quote Sure, he'd need to keep his mouth shut for a number of reasons, that nothing good would come out from open it for him, Mellos says that he silenced him for both reasons. 23 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Jonah Mooton did alright since he agreed to marry one of Saera's friends, Roy Connington refused a marriage (claiming that Beesbury had impregnated Alys Turnberry and that her bastard would not be Roy's heir) and chose ten years of exile during which he got himself stabbed by a whore. The Stinger was the only one who died quickly, and that's because he requested a trial by combat rather than being crippled and gelded. Saera claimed that all three believed they had taken her maidenhead, but Beesbury was regarded as a corrupting influence on the group of friends who had also kept the servant-informers quiet and deserved worse. Quote And what do you think would be Harwin's fate?? Since, per Glydan, Rhaenrya was commiting high treason and thus heading to the executioner?? I remember their fates, what i find hard to believe is that anyone would take the risk to open their mouths. Harwin would not only be ruining Rhaenrya's life but her kids too and Viserys succesion plans, do you really think that would end well for him?? 27 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Until the second part of Fire and Blood is released, we won't know how many rumors about Daeron II make it into Gyldayn's text. In the absence of POV chapters during that era, we can't really compare it to the same thing for later eras. I don't know which ones you're referring to as the two in there for the loot, but I assume that Mellos is your single other person just expressing a possibility. So I assume the repeated instances of multiple Greens referring to them as bastards (the most offensive instance of which would probably be Alicent trying to make peace with Rhaenyra by dismissing the death of Lucerys as "bastard blood, shed at war") don't count. If we include people who don't actually believe the rumors, the Velaryon/Strong boys themselves thought they needed to act to overcome the rumors by riding dragons. Quote 1. We do know however that not only they were quite few but they lasted enough to become a causus belli. 2. I don't doubt the Greens or the Velaryons believed them bastards, they were bastards after all, i doubt that the rumours of people who have the world to gain if they are believed bastards are enough to believe that the rumours were as widespread as for example the incest or as damning as the Shireen tale, that absolutely no one but those intimately involved with the narrative calls them bastards is telling, no one but the Targ Greens and the Velaryons ever called them bastards. Which means that either the rumour wasn't widespread, certainly unlikely, or that not many people believed in it, or and this is my favourite, people believed that by them being dragonriders they couldn't be bastards. Lmao. 3. The Velaryons thought they needed to overcome their uncles rumours in war time, Hardly the same. 38 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: Mellos wasn't responding to a hypothetical about what Viserys would do in a counterfactual universe where he believed the rumor. He was privately writing that Viserys could be responsible for that reason, indicating that Mellos took seriously not merely the rumor itself but Viserys believing it. And, as noted, the motive was silencing him rather than revenge. Quote But he was, Mellos was privately writing that if Viserya had at any time come to believe the rumours he'd kill Harwin not only to clean the dishonor but out of fear. At any rate indicates that Mellos took seriously the rumours, but that Viserys might have done it at somepoint and act about it. 41 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said: I don't know what precisely you're responding to with that. You said that nobody expected them to hatch dragons, unless we're only counting the greens as everybody, only the greens expected them to not hatch dragons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.