Death in Childbirth and Dany’s Choice

[Pontius Pilate]

Viserys was a king. He was the heir to King Aerys II and was preferred by him over the erratic Rhaegar.  Viserys became King Viserys III on the day Queen Rhaella crowned him on Dragonstone.  Princess Daenerys, his sister, is his heir and became Queen at his death.  

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Centurion Piso said:

Viserys was a king. He was the heir to King Aerys II and was preferred by him over the erratic Rhaegar. 

 Incorrect.

There were rumours 

TWoIaF, Aerys II

“When Prince Rhaegar and his new wife chose to take up residence on Dragonstone instead of the Red Keep, rumors flew thick and fast across the Seven Kingdoms. Some claimed that the crown prince was planning to depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself, whilst others said that King Aerys meant to disinherit Rhaegar and name Viserys heir in his place.”

TWoIaF, The Year of the False Spring

“Had any whiff of proof come into their hands to show that Prince Rhaegar was conspiring against his father, King Aerys’s loyalists would most certainly have used it to bring about the prince’s downfall. Indeed, certain of the king’s men had even gone so far as to suggest that Aerys should disinherit his “disloyal” son, and name his younger brother heir to the Iron Throne in his stead. Prince Viserys was but seven years of age, and his eventual ascension would certainly mean a regency, wherein they themselves would rule as regents.”

And despite these rumours and these men making the suggestion, it seems Aerys never went ahead w/ it. After all, Rhaegar fought for the crown during the rebellion.

TWoIaF, Robert’s Rebellion

“The royalist forces were left reeling and scattered by such victories though they did their best to rally. The Kingsguard were dispatched to recover the remnant of Lord Connington’s force, and Prince Rhaegar returned from the south to take command of the new levies being raised in the crownlands.”

And finally, we are specifically told Viserys only became the crown prince when Aerys sent Rhaella and Viserys to Dragonstone during RR.

“He sent his pregnant queen, Rhaella, and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, away to Dragonstone, but Princess Elia was forced to remain in King’s Landing with Rhaegar’s children as a hostage against Dorne.”

 

15 minutes ago, Centurion Piso said:

Viserys became King Viserys III on the day Queen Rhaella crowned him on Dragonstone.  Princess Daenerys, his sister, is his heir and became Queen at his death.  

Sure. And it’s a good thing too bad it means absolutely nothing. 

[TedBear]

I think Melisandre was wrong about the awakening of dragons. If Rhaego died before Drogo he was never a king, and Viserys died a few weeks before all this.

And also if YG is really Aegon, or Jon Snow is a legitimate son, neither Viserys was a king.

I always thought they seemed to be already developing inside the eggs, and no hatching worked because the eggs had not developed, maybe the proximity to Dany did it, she's also the only one who realizes they are alive, or maybe that R'hllor made it happen

[SeanF]

I have no doubt that MMD got the result she wanted (Rhaego dead, and Drogo mentally incapable).  And, from her point of view, she was entirely justified.  Drogo had brutalised her people, and Rhaego was prophesied to be even more brutal.  

Obviously, Daenerys sees things differently.  She sees it as a betrayal.  It's an interesting case where two people who are antagonists to each other are justified in their beliefs.

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, TedBear said:

I think Melisandre was wrong about the awakening of dragons.

I think Mel is full of it. She has some power(s), but doesn’t really get it. None of it. She’s in for a few surprises, should be interesting.

 

[TedBear]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I have no doubt that MMD got the result she wanted (Rhaego dead, and Drogo mentally incapable).  And, from her point of view, she was entirely justified.  Drogo had brutalised her people, and Rhaego was prophesied to be even more brutal.  

Obviously, Daenerys sees things differently.  She sees it as a betrayal.  It's an interesting case where two people who are antagonists to each other are justified in their beliefs.

Yes, this is very intriguing, where Dany saw a conqueror, MMD saw the consequences and costs of the achievements.

 

[Alexis-something-Rose]

1 hour ago, TedBear said:

I think Melisandre was wrong about the awakening of dragons. If Rhaego died before Drogo he was never a king, and Viserys died a few weeks before all this.

At this point, I think we can safely say that Mel is wrong about 95% of the stuff she says and the way she interprets the flames.

I personally find the whole king's blood absurd. Apparently there's power in the blood of anyone who claims a crown for themselves. Maybe the Queen o' Whores is good for burning too since she was crowned by Ryman Frey.

[Narsil4]

I think there may be more to being a symbolic King than being officially crowned by men. 
It seems likely Blood Magic is involved, perhaps almost like a curse, that is passed down through the generations. 

I find it possibly relevant that even though no one seemed to respect Viserys, that their nicknames for him still refer to him as a King.

Quote

'The Beggar King,' they called him in the Free Cities.

Quote

Dothraki had laughingly called him Khal Rhae Mhar, the Sorefoot King.

Quote

That won him yet another name: Khal Rhaggat, the Cart King.

So in a symbolic context he might still count as a King for a ritual. 

Quote

Power resides where men believe it resides.

 

[kissdbyfire]

14 minutes ago, Narsil4 said:

I think there may be more to being a symbolic King than being officially crowned by men. 
It seems likely Blood Magic is involved, perhaps almost like a curse, that is passed down through the generations. 

I find it possibly relevant that even though no one seemed to respect Viserys, that their nicknames for him still refer to him as a King.

So in a symbolic context he might still count as a King for a ritual. 

 

I don’t think the “power resides” quote is a good fit here, nor do I think the Dothraki ever really saw Viserys as a king. Viserys keeps banging on and on about being a king, yadda yadda yadda, and the Dothraki are simply mocking him because, truth be told, he is quite pathetic. 

[300 H&H Magnum]

3 hours ago, TedBear said:

I think Melisandre was wrong about the awakening of dragons. If Rhaego died before Drogo he was never a king, and Viserys died a few weeks before all this.

And also if YG is really Aegon, or Jon Snow is a legitimate son, neither Viserys was a king.

I always thought they seemed to be already developing inside the eggs, and no hatching worked because the eggs had not developed, maybe the proximity to Dany did it, she's also the only one who realizes they are alive, or maybe that R'hllor made it happen

Prince Viserys was already crowned.  Whatever the succession might have been no longer matter.  The succession passed to Viserys and then to his heir, little sister Daenerys. Viserys was crowned by his mother and that made him king. Even George commented that he is a beggar king but he definitely counted among the Targaryen monarchs.  

Rhaego is not a Khal because that's not how the Dothraki do things.  They don't transfer power.  The claimant must prove themselves strong to become khal.  It is not by right of birth.  However, Rhaego was in the line of succession to the throne of the Seven Kingdoms by virtue of the line of succession having been passed to Viserys, Daenerys, and then to Rhaego.  

The status of YG's parenthood cannot be ascertained with certainty.  Neither can Jon Snow's.  The only one whose ancestry cannot be doubted is Daenerys.  Even if somebody where to cast doubt it would not matter because she is the Mother of Dragons and therefore would rank higher than any Targaryen who has ever lived.  Line of succession is what Daenerys says is the line of succession.

[300 H&H Magnum]

55 minutes ago, Narsil4 said:

I think there may be more to being a symbolic King than being officially crowned by men. 
It seems likely Blood Magic is involved, perhaps almost like a curse, that is passed down through the generations. 

I find it possibly relevant that even though no one seemed to respect Viserys, that their nicknames for him still refer to him as a King.

So in a symbolic context he might still count as a King for a ritual. 

 

Viserys was King Viserys Targaryen III because he was officially crowned by Queen Rhaella.  The line of succession passed to him and his.  He is also Targaryen on both sides and the chosen one of King Aerys Targaryen II.  So far as magic, what determines the value of the sacrifice is the opinion of the person performing the ceremony.  It doesn't matter what the other folks were thinking.  What mattered is what Daenerys thought of her brother.  She is of the opinion, and correctly so, he is the rightful king of Westeros.  Viserys was the king of Westeros in every way that mattered.

Rhaego was considered to follow his father's footsteps in the future but this is not a line of succession right.  Rhaego was not a khal nor an heir to the khalasar.  A Dothraki must prove themselves the strongest to become khal. This is similar to how Mance became king beyond the wall.  Rulers must earn, not inherit, the right to lead. But Rhaego was a future king of Westeros due to his mother inheriting Westeros from King Viserys Targaryen III.  Daenerys certainly considered him her heir.  Drogo intended to put him on Aerys Targaryen's iron throne.  Rhaego was in the line of succession to the throne of Westeros.

Of course we cannot doubt Drogo's king status.  He was a king among the Dothraki.  

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

 

 

53 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Viserys was King Viserys Targaryen III because he was officially crowned by Queen Rhaella.  The line of succession passed to him and his.  He is also Targaryen on both sides and the chosen one of King Aerys Targaryen II.  

Right but then Robert Baratheon took the IT by conquest effectively making himself King, meaning Viserys was no longer. Daenerys, herself, starts questioning his 'King' status before he dies. 

54 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

So far as magic, what determines the value of the sacrifice is the opinion of the person performing the ceremony

Maybe but this seems an odd way to do it. The sacrifice is a King if the person performing the ceremony thinks they are a King? Anyway, I think Mel has it wrong. It doesn't need to be a King or the King, it just needs to be Kings blood, which Viserys & Rhaego both have. 

57 minutes ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

She is of the opinion, and correctly so, he is the rightful king of Westeros.  Viserys was the king of Westeros in every way that mattered.

But even if he was King ever (I'm not so sure he was other than possibly a very short time in between him being crowned & Robert taking the throne) by the time the sacrifice was made he wasn't King in anyway that mattered. He wasn't even King in name truly. He ruled nothing, presided over nothing, did not behave has a King or a leader, had no followers etc. 

 

[Aline de Gavrillac]

10 hours ago, TedBear said:

Yes, this is very intriguing, where Dany saw a conqueror, MMD saw the consequences and costs of the achievements.

 

Rhaego was an innocent.  So MMD killing Rhaego was murder.  It is no different than Cersei murdering Melara for lusting after Jaime or killing Tyrion because of the prophecy.  The punishment for killing a nobleman in westeros would have been just as bad.  Look what Tywin did to those who sinned against his family.  Ned killed Gared for desertion.  Jon killed Slynt for talking back.  Look at what Stannis did to people who broke his rules.  Daenerys was right to burn MMD. 

[TedBear]

5 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Daenerys was right to burn MMD.

Yes, I didn't say she was wrong to kill MMD, she certainly deserved to die (if she did kill him) I speak in different ways that they see the same situation. 

[Alexis-something-Rose]

On 1/5/2020 at 1:45 AM, Aline de Gavrillac said:

Daenerys was right to burn MMD. 

No, she wasn't. She would have been right to kill, but she was wrong to burn her. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

Ironically Rhaego was a stillborn dragon baby, he was either already dead or would have died within a few hours anyway. The whole thing seems futile. Dany is mad about resurrection magic not working right or going well for her. Like, no shit. It's risky as hell. She might as well be Cersei yelling at Maggie the Frog. Mirri was right about everything she said to Dany, when she warned her about what life was worth. Dany used her life to get power for herself with dragons, but they will destroy her. She wont have more children, dragons are it, and with those she'll just get dust. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

No, she wasn't. She would have been right to kill, but she was wrong to burn her. 

What difference does it make? 

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Ironically Rhaego was a stillborn dragon baby, he was either already dead or would have died within a few hours anyway. The whole thing seems futile. Dany is mad about resurrection magic not working right or going well for her. Like, no shit. It's risky as hell. She might as well be Cersei yelling at Maggie the Frog. Mirri was right about everything she said to Dany, when she warned her about what life was worth. Dany used her life to get power for herself with dragons, but they will destroy her. She wont have more children, dragons are it, and with those she'll just get dust. 

I think something may have happened to Rhaego when Jorah carried Dany into the tent during Mirri's ritual. I don't know why else there would be such a big deal made of no one entering & then Jorah carrying her in there. 

Dany is mad about the resurrection not working right but she is mad because Mirri led her to believe he would be alive again, not some comatose zombie. Who wouldn't want to wake our dead/dying loved one if it could be done? Mirri purposefully misled Daenerys, rightfully or no. 

I don't think it will be the dragons who destroy her. 

[Alexis-something-Rose]

13 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What difference does it make? 

I think it makes a different. If people have to choose between getting their heads struck off or being burned alive, which one do you think they'd choose? Death is death, but death by fire is not a clean death. 

It's like that scene in the crofter's village in Asha's POV, the three men who were going to be burned for cannibalism. The serjeant goaded them so much, Clayton Suggs ended up killing him. They burned his body anyway, but he was already dead, whereas the other two died screaming. Asha's thoughts on that was that the man who was killed was the smarter one and she goes as far as to wonder if the trick would work a second time, if they decide that it's her turn to burn.

Death by fire is pretty terrible, and Dany burned two people alive. Her using the same methods as her father is no bueno in my book. Doesn't matter that I like her.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

I think it makes a different. If people have to choose between getting their heads struck off or being burned alive, which one do you think they'd choose? Death is death, but death by fire is not a clean death.

Oh yeah for sure if I'm given a choice between being beheaded & being burned alive I'll pick beheading every time. I guess I just don't know what it says for Dany though or why she is vindicated in killing MMD but not burning her. 

7 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

It's like that scene in the crofter's village in Asha's POV, the three men who were going to be burned for cannibalism. The serjeant goaded them so much, Clayton Suggs ended up killing him. They burned his body anyway, but he was already dead, whereas the other two died screaming. Asha's thoughts on that was that the man who was killed was the smarter one and she goes as far as to wonder if the trick would work a second time, if they decide that it's her turn to burn.

Yeah I agree. Burning is not going to be an easy way to die. 

8 minutes ago, Alexis-something-Rose said:

Death by fire is pretty terrible, and Dany burned two people alive. Her using the same methods as her father is no bueno in my book. Doesn't matter that I like her.

So it points towards Dany's mental state & such? I can't think of the other person she burned alive... I think it probably takes a special person to be able to burn people alive so I can agree with you on that level. Also though Damn MMD! It's very hard for me to feel sympathy toward her even when she has to experience such anguish because she has caused Daenerys to experience anguish too & Dany's will last much longer than Mirri's did. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

So it points towards Dany's mental state & such? I can't think of the other person she burned alive... I think it probably takes a special person to be able to burn people alive so I can agree with you on that level. Also though Damn MMD! It's very hard for me to feel sympathy toward her even when she has to experience such anguish because she has caused Daenerys to experience anguish too & Dany's will last much longer than Mirri's did. 

 

The slaver arsehole who wanted Drogon.