The Claim of Brynden Targaryen

[The hairy bear]

16 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Do we know Bloodraven was childless?

We don't have a specific confirmation, but I think that it's something that should have been mentioned somewhere if it wasn't the case. We know that Bloodraven was into Shiera, but she "gave him her bed, but never her hand".

16 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I certainly agree that he wouldn't be a good candidate for king, but am trying to suggest that this isn't how he would see it.

When he is disguised as Ser Maynard Plumm, he hears how random knights openly claim that "Bloodraven is the root of all our woes, the white worm gnawing at the heart of the realm." With his ability to change his appearance (and his vast spy network) he surely has a good grasp of how widely is he hated in the Realm.

If Bloodraven had really wanted to seize the throne, he wouldn't have bothered to summon a Great Council. He could just have followed the succession rules, crown Maegor, and establish himself as a Regent. He'd have 16 years to do and undo as he pleased.

[broken one]

13 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

My point is that you are not providing any evidence either. What evidence is there that he was so loyal?

 Simple inference based on facts from books.

[Lord Varys]

Bloodraven definitely had the same kind of claim that Daemon Blackfyre had, too. He was also a son of Aegon IV, and he was legitimized. If he had wanted, he could have pushed his own claim at the Great Council ... or he could have usurped the throne without ever calling a Great Council.

That he didn't, indicates that he was not after the throne in 233 AC. He certainly could have, though. He was the son of a king and had served as Hand for decades. That would have given him a lot of power.

But we don't know what his plans were during the reign of Aerys I. It might very well be that he intended to rule the Realm as de facto king by ways of using Rhaegel or Aelor or Aelora as his puppet. In fact, considering that the latter was apparently Aerys' heir before he finally named Maekar might indicate that this only happened because Bloodraven preferred a queen regnant to Maekar on the Iron Throne. Considering that Aelor's death apparently left Aelora 'mad with grief' doesn't indicate the woman would have been able to take the reins of her government firmly into her own hands had she succeeded Aerys I.

All that could have well played into Bloodraven's hands. As could be the fact that Aelora was widowed and he, Bloodraven, was a bachelor. He could have married the new queen if she had succeeded to the throne.

Now, when King Maekar took over it stands to reason that Bloodraven and he got along, or else Bloodraven wouldn't have continued as Hand.

It is possible that Brynden never had any designs of being (de facto) king himself ... but it is also possible he only gave up that ambition when he realized that the price for that was too high. And it is not unlikely that the Third Blackfyre Rebellion may have taught him that lesson. After all, it looks as if the Targaryens had to work together again to stop the Blackfyres during that war.

And by the way - one should also consider the manner of Prince Rhaegel's death. The man choked on his food the way Joffrey did. It could have been a poisoning successfully disguised as an accident. Depending on Bloodraven's assessment of the man, chances are not that bad that he found a potential king who was prone to prances naked through the halls of the castle to be too embarrassing for the Crown to permit his succession. Aelor may have been old enough in 215 AC for a smooth transition of power if Aerys I suddenly died, not the mention, perhaps, a prince better suited for the crown than his mad father.

[Mourning Star]

4 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

We don't have a specific confirmation, but I think that it's something that should have been mentioned somewhere if it wasn't the case. We know that Bloodraven was into Shiera, but she "gave him her bed, but never her hand".

When he is disguised as Ser Maynard Plumm, he hears how random knights openly claim that "Bloodraven is the root of all our woes, the white worm gnawing at the heart of the realm." With his ability to change his appearance (and his vast spy network) he surely has a good grasp of how widely is he hated in the Realm.

If Bloodraven had really wanted to seize the throne, he wouldn't have bothered to summon a Great Council. He could just have followed the succession rules, crown Maegor, and establish himself as a Regent. He'd have 16 years to do and undo as he pleased.

I think Bloodraven was tired of being king in all but name.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

When he is disguised as Ser Maynard Plumm, he hears how random knights openly claim that "Bloodraven is the root of all our woes, the white worm gnawing at the heart of the realm." With his ability to change his appearance (and his vast spy network) he surely has a good grasp of how widely is he hated in the Realm.

We should not make too much of that. That's the situation in 212 AC, not in 233 AC. Bloodraven could remain the 'hated albino sorcerer' throughout the reigns of Aerys I and Maekar ... or his reputation could change as the years pass. There must be a reason why Maekar kept him as Hand. If he had a black reputation in 221 AC then chances would be pretty good that Maekar would have chosen a more popular Hand simply to not harm his own reputation by retaining a hated Hand ... independently of his own issue with his bastard uncle.

[Mourning Star]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We should not make too much of that. That's the situation in 212 AC, not in 233 AC. Bloodraven could remain the 'hated albino sorcerer' throughout the reigns of Aerys I and Maekar ... or his reputation could change as the years pass. There must be a reason why Maekar kept him as Hand. If he had a black reputation in 221 AC then chances would be pretty good that Maekar would have chosen a more popular Hand simply to not harm his own reputation by retaining a hated Hand ... independently of his own issue with his bastard uncle.

Well we know that even come the events of ASoIaF he is remembered as a bastard sorcerer.

Quote

Their footsteps echoed through the vault as they made their way between the rows of pillars. The stone eyes of the dead men seemed to follow them, and the eyes of their stone direwolves as well. The faces stirred faint memories. A few names came back to him, unbidden, whispered in the ghostly voice of Maester Luwin. King Edrick Snowbeard, who had ruled the north for a hundred years. Brandon the Shipwright, who had sailed beyond the sunset. Theon Stark, the Hungry Wolf. My namesake. Lord Beron Stark, who made common cause with Casterly Rock to war against Dagon Greyjoy, Lord of Pyke, in the days when the Seven Kingdoms were ruled in all but name by the bastard sorcerer men called Bloodraven.
"That king is missing his sword," Lady Dustin observed.

(Unrelated, but Bloodraven is in a throne missing his sword, Darksister, when Bran finds him.)

But, I agree the personal relationships are unclear to us back then, and those can certainly change over the course of years.

I suspect Bloodraven may have simply been to powerful for Maekar to remove (and perhaps Egg could only achieve this because of all the gathered lords for the council).

Isn't it odd that Maekar hadn't named an heir before he died also? There is a lot going on at this point that is unclear to us, and I suspect that is intentional.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Well we know that even come the events of ASoIaF he is remembered as a bastard sorcerer.

That is a specific memory of the TSS/TMK era and, perhaps, of the reign of Aerys I in general, but while Bloodraven may have ruled in 'all but name' in those days, this would clearly not be the case for Maekar's reign. Maekar was no man's puppet.

One should also keep in mind that George originally had the idea that Maekar was the guy who threw Bloodraven into the black cell when he ascended the throne. It was a big surprise when it turned out that Aegon V himself was that guy. This quote could still reflect the idea that Bloodraven was only the Hand of Aerys I.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

(Unrelated, but Bloodraven is in a throne missing his sword, Darksister, when Bran finds him.)

It would very much surprise me if Bloodraven was allowed to take a Valyrian steel sword with him to the Wall when Aegon V may not have had Blackfyre and had two martial sons he may have wanted to give such a sword to ... not to mention that the king may have wanted to wield such a sword himself if Blackfyre was still with the Blackfyres.

(Chances are not that bad that the Targaryens recaptured Blackfyre at the end of the Third Rebellion when Haegon Blackfyre gave up his sword.)

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I suspect Bloodraven may have simply been to powerful for Maekar to remove (and perhaps Egg could only achieve this because of all the gathered lords for the council).

That is not very likely. The king rules, not the Hand, and Bloodraven's relative weakness is obvious simply by the fact that Aerys I named Maekar his heir rather than, say, Rhaegel's second daughter, Daenora, or Bloodraven himself.

The king also is the guy to choose his Hand. The idea that Bloodraven could force a man like Maekar to keep him as Hand is not very likely. The Handship is a very powerful office, but Westeros is a world where the king is not (yet) dominated or ruled by his ministers. You see that with Viserys I and Aegon II dealing with Otto Hightower, Aerys II dealing with Tywin, etc.

And if you look at things in detail then it even seems that Bloodraven wasn't truly king in all but name even during the reign of Aerys I. Yes, he was doing a lot of work and served as the face of the government, but he himself admits that he cannot decide the fate of the second Daemon Blackfyre.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Isn't it odd that Maekar hadn't named an heir before he died also? There is a lot going on at this point that is unclear to us, and I suspect that is intentional.

There is likely a story to that. For one, we don't know how long Aerion was dead by then ... nor do we know whether he was ever named the Heir Apparent. We know Daeron was Prince of Dragonstone, so he definitely was Maekar's first heir, but if Maekar actually named his monstrous son his heir after Daeron died we don't know yet.

If Aerion died late in 232 AC and Maekar died early the next year (which seems likely considering they had time to call a Great Council the same year) it might be that Maekar just didn't have the time to rule on his succession yet.

But he actually may have either named Vaella or Maegor his heir ... only for this to not be a viable option for Bloodraven and the council when Maekar died as quickly as he did. Maegor may have been a good option as king if Maekar had lived another 10-15 years. Then there would have been a shorter regency and no infant king.

And there is also to consider the possibility that Maekar was really torn between his potential heirs. I guess he and Egg would have had a healthy, loving father-son relationship ... but Maekar may have been sceptical about the politics of his 'peasant-loving' son, doubring whether he would make a good king.

But after Aerion's death Maekar's succession would have been an utter mess, anyway, worse than in 101 AC. Back then they had to choose between two branches, but Maekar had three. And while the precedent of 92 AC could be cited to pass over Princess Vaella the way Princess Rhaenys was passed over, passing over Prince Maegor in favor Egg would have been much more difficult to justify if Maekar had done it, expecting to live another decade or two.

It makes sense that the lords did not want an infant king when Maekar died in battle, but Maekar could not know how long he would live when Aerion died.

So bottom line: Either Maekar had an heir (most likely Maegor) and Bloodraven decided that wouldn't do with him just being an infant when Maekar died) or Maekar himself was unsure who should succeed and just postponed naming a new heir until, say, Maegor was somewhat older. You have to keep in mind that Jaehaerys I also only formally named Aemon his heir apparent in 62 AC when the boy was seven years old. Of course his eldest son was always treated and considered his heir, but a formal installation as heir only happened seven years after the boy's birth.

[Lady Dacey]

On 10/13/2020 at 1:38 PM, Mourning Star said:

Aemon references the six kings sent by Nymeria, and Aemon and Bloodraven were both a short step from being Kings themselves.

For fun, I want to conclude with a quick look at these six kings in gold fetters and what I believe are all references alluding directly to Bloodraven.

Quote

The Names of the Six Kings Sent by Nymeria to the Wall, as Related in the Histories

Yorick of House Yronwood, the Bloodroyal, the richest and most powerful of the Dornish kings deposed by House Martell.

Vorian of House Dayne, Sword of the Evening, renowned as the greatest knight in all of Dorne.

Garrison of House Fowler, the Blind King, aged and sightless, yet still feared for his cunning.

Lucifer of House Dryland, Last of His Ilk, King of the Brimstone, Lord of Hellgate Hall.

Benedict of House Blackmont, who worshipped a dark god and was said to have the power to transform himself into a vulture of enormous size.

Albin of House Manwoody, a troublesome madman who claimed dominion over the Red Mountains.

The World of Ice and Fire - Dorne: The Coming of the Rhoynar

Yorick, The Bloodroyal, is probably a reference to a character from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the court jester whose skull is consulted (Alas poor Yorick!).  Bloodraven is now a skull being consulted by Bran, and Bloodraven was also obviously of the royal blood

Vorian is an uncommon name, but Vorian Atreides from the Legends of Dune series is the founder of House Atreides who had an extremely extended lifespan and was the bastard son of the Titan leader Agamemnon.

The Blind King, is, I believe a reference to Phineus of Greek myth, most prominently from the story of Jason and the Argonauts. Phineus was blinded for revealing the future to mankind, or alternately, as a punishment for kinslaying, he was given the choice of losing his life or his sight by Zeus, and he said he would rather never see the sun.

Lucifer, the lord of hell, is trapped in the deepest darkest pit after rising in revolt against the lord.

Benedict, a name synonymous with treachery thanks to Benedict Arnold, and this one worshiped a dark god and was said to change into an animal.

Albin (which comes from the root world meaning “white”) Manwoody, is an allusion to the white man-tree.

Oh, I love this. Queen Nymeria is a fascinating characters and the idea of sending prisioners ins golden fetters always made me curious. I agree with you that all our kings seem connected to Bloodraven some way or another. Six kings. Six is not a number that comes up all that often in asoiaf. What is the significance of it, I wonder? 

[Lady Dacey]

but in regards to the OP, it doesn't strike me Bloodraven wanted the throne for himself, really. 

[SFDanny]

On 10/15/2020 at 12:14 PM, Mourning Star said:

My point is that you are not providing any evidence either. What evidence is there that he was so loyal? And more importantly, as a Targaryen, I don't think he thought himself as disloyal by trying to claim the throne.

While it is true I didn't provide quotes, I did reference evidence. I assumed you knew that evidence, and still do. So, when I don't provide the quotes that place Bloodraven at the Redgrass Field, I think you know he was. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You, almost certainly, know the role he played there in Daemon Blackfyre's death and the deaths of his twin sons. You even reference the bitter struggle between Bloodraven and Bittersteel, the prime organizing force for decades to win the Blackfyre claim to the Targaryen crown. We know from the evidence in the Mystery Knight telling the role Bloodraven played in stamping out that attempted rebellion. And while I don't provide quotes to give the evidence that Bloodraven was Hand of the King, and was a rather ruthless force in stamping out the Royal Family's enemies, I think the evidence for this is rather self-evident.

In short, I think that everything we know about Bloodraven's actions are self-evident evidence of his profoundly partisan pro-Targaryen royal family sentiments. His loyalties to that cause, if you will.

On the other hand, you have provided only speculation. I don't have a problem with guessing what might have happened in the books beyond what the known evidence tells us, but I do tend to object to equating speculation and guesses with evidence. They are not the same.

On 10/15/2020 at 12:14 PM, Mourning Star said:

We know he hated the Blackfyres, but Egg doesn't seem to have a good opinion of him, nor does Maekar. We don't get any insight into the real feelings of most of the players at the time.

What we do have of the history of this time, doesn't include evidence of Bloodraven killing members of the royal family. I agree we need much more, and sadly we will have to wait for Fire & Blood II and any further publications in the Dunk and Egg series to get a much clearer picture of all of this. Perhaps we will also learn some things from Bran's interaction with Bloodraven in The Winds of Winter, but I really don't expect Martin to reveal  too many spoilers for this backstory in A Song of Ice & Fire series proper. I'm sure we both look forward to whatever further information we get.

I will say, I don't think we should interpret, at least at this point, Egg's mistrust of Bloodraven, or his father's feelings either, as indications that either father or son will end up working against Bloodraven, or that they won't end up seeing him as a valuable ally. The obvious exception being Aegon's death sentence, and subsequent banishment of Bloodraven to the Wall in the aftermath of Aenys Blackfyre's murder. Even there we should note that Egg's offer to set aside the death penalty in favor of sending Bloodraven to the Wall, would seem to indicate some appreciation on Egg's part of the role Bloodraven had previously played. Aegon certainly does not always like Bloodraven's methods, but I would say this looks to point out that he doesn't see him as a murderer of members of the royal family. Perhaps that only indicates Aegon doesn't know the truth.

On 10/15/2020 at 12:14 PM, Mourning Star said:

The fact is we just don't have that much information about what was going on. I would point to the absurd death count of Targaryens under suspicious circumstances, but obviously any discussion of this time period will be rife with speculation. But it is speculation raised in the text of Dunk and Egg, not invented by me.

Is it? Please point out where there is text in the three novellas that point to Bloodraven's involvement in the deaths of Targaryen family members. The only thing I can remember are rumors about Bloodraven being behind the plague that killed Daeron and Balon's sons. I know this is fantasy, but I think it very unlikely Bloodraven caused the Spring Sickness.

On 10/15/2020 at 12:14 PM, Mourning Star said:

Maybe, again, hating Blackfyres isn't the same as loving Targaryens. I think Bloodraven was motivated by self interest, or his view of what was best, and that is literally the whole point here.

I don't disagree with the first sentence at all. The second is certainly possible, but it is the gigantic  jump from self interest, or his view of what is best, to actively killing members of the royal family that I can't get behind. At least not without further evidence.

On 10/15/2020 at 12:14 PM, Mourning Star said:

We do not know the details of the event, and that's why I'm speculating. Also, I don't think Bloodraven would say he was being treasonous or disloyal. He is a legitimized Targaryen and probably thought himself the best option for ruling, after having ruled in all but name for years already.

To the bolded, in the context of the Great Council, where is there anything that suggests Bloodraven put his own name forward to be king? Or had anyone do so? We are explicitly given the names of four candidates, and only four considered there - Vaella, Maegor, Aemon, and Aegon - and there is no mention of Bloodraven as a candidate to sit the Iron Throne. It looks to me, that if Bloodraven had a favorite candidate, he didn't show it. He certainly didn't advance his own name in open opposition to any of the four.

In fact, it makes the most sense if Bloodraven was moving behind the scenes to shore up his own power and continue his rule that he should have pushed for either Vaella or Maegor. Vaella would be a puppet for him to control for the rest of her life. The infant Maegor would have a long regency before he could dream of actual control. Both Aemon and Aegon would represent the greater threats to his power. Yet, Aemon is actively considered behind the scenes, and Aegon finally is chosen. If Bloodraven called the council to put him on the throne or allow his continuation of power as Hand of the King, then he grossly miscalculated and failed in his aim. 

Tell me why the man with all the powers of the king in the wake of Maekar's death organized a method to pass that power onto another with the collective support of the nobility of Westeros? He did not have to call the council. He could have imposed either Vaella or Maegor, both of whom had better claims than Aegon, on the realm and continued his de facto rule in one of their names. That he did not do so should tell us something about Bloodraven's motivations. Or at least I think so.

The best fit to your theory, it seems to me, is that Bloodraven called the Council in the mistaken idea that the Lords of the Realm would debate the four candidates and find none of them worthy. That seems unlikely being there had been quite a few unworthy Targaryens on the Iron Throne and their lack of fitness had never stopped many of them from ruling.

Rather, I think this all shows a deep commitment on the part of Bloodraven to the continuation of Daeron's line as the rightful rulers of the realm. How much of that is motivated by a hatred of the Blackfyre line, or actual loyalty to Daeron's descendants, or a combination of the two is a interesting topic of discussion, but I don't think we can dismiss Bloodraven's documented actions in favor of conspiracies we have nothing to show are real.

Sorry, it's getting late here and I'm going to cut this response short. I'll try to respond to the rest of it later.

 

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

On 10/15/2020 at 4:14 PM, Mourning Star said:

We know he hated the Blackfyres, but Egg doesn't seem to have a good opinion of him,

What makes you think that? I actually think the opposite. And I’m not basing my take on Egg as an entitled child, but as King Aegon V. 
 

TWoIaF, Aegon V

“THE FIRST ACT of Aegon’s reign was the arrest of Brynden Rivers, the King’s Hand, for the murder of Aenys Blackfyre. Bloodraven did not deny that he had lured the pretender into his power by the offer of a safe conduct, but contended that he had sacrificed his own personal honor for the good of the realm.
Though many agreed, and were pleased to see another Blackfyre pretender removed, King Aegon felt he had no choice but to condemn the Hand, lest the word of the Iron Throne be seen as worthless. Yet after the sentence of death was pronounced, Aegon offered Bloodraven the chance to take the black and join the Night’s Watch. This he did. Ser Brynden Rivers set sail for the Wall late in the year of 233 AC. (No one intercepted his ship). Two hundred men went with him, many of them archers from Bloodraven’s personal guard, the Raven’s Teeth. The king’s brother, Maester Aemon, was also amongst them.”

 

[Mourning Star]

On 10/17/2020 at 1:50 AM, SFDanny said:

While it is true I didn't provide quotes, I did reference evidence. I assumed you knew that evidence, and still do. So, when I don't provide the quotes that place Bloodraven at the Redgrass Field, I think you know he was. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You, almost certainly, know the role he played there in Daemon Blackfyre's death and the deaths of his twin sons. You even reference the bitter struggle between Bloodraven and Bittersteel, the prime organizing force for decades to win the Blackfyre claim to the Targaryen crown. We know from the evidence in the Mystery Knight telling the role Bloodraven played in stamping out that attempted rebellion. And while I don't provide quotes to give the evidence that Bloodraven was Hand of the King, and was a rather ruthless force in stamping out the Royal Family's enemies, I think the evidence for this is rather self-evident.

This comes across to me as an argument made in bad faith and using a double standard.

Bloodraven fighting Blackfyres is not evidence of a motive, either loyalty or revenge.

On 10/17/2020 at 1:50 AM, SFDanny said:

On the other hand, you have provided only speculation. I don't have a problem with guessing what might have happened in the books beyond what the known evidence tells us, but I do tend to object to equating speculation and guesses with evidence. They are not the same.

We can only work with the evidence we have, however you might take your own advice here. I tried to be clear when I was speculating and when I was siting the text. It isn't clear to me that you are holding yourself to this same standard.

On 10/17/2020 at 1:50 AM, SFDanny said:

To the bolded, in the context of the Great Council, where is there anything that suggests Bloodraven put his own name forward to be king? Or had anyone do so? We are explicitly given the names of four candidates, and only four considered there - Vaella, Maegor, Aemon, and Aegon - and there is no mention of Bloodraven as a candidate to sit the Iron Throne. It looks to me, that if Bloodraven had a favorite candidate, he didn't show it. He certainly didn't advance his own name in open opposition to any of the four.

Aemon wasn't a candidate... but now I'm just repeating myself. Have a good one.

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

Aemon wasn't a candidate...

He was. He was a candidate because he was considered, since Egg was “half a peasant”, but he refused.

[Mourning Star]

On 10/17/2020 at 5:00 PM, kissdbyfire said:

What makes you think that? I actually think the opposite. And I’m not basing my take on Egg as an entitled child, but as King Aegon V. 
 

TWoIaF, Aegon V

“THE FIRST ACT of Aegon’s reign was the arrest of Brynden Rivers, the King’s Hand, for the murder of Aenys Blackfyre. Bloodraven did not deny that he had lured the pretender into his power by the offer of a safe conduct, but contended that he had sacrificed his own personal honor for the good of the realm.
Though many agreed, and were pleased to see another Blackfyre pretender removed, King Aegon felt he had no choice but to condemn the Hand, lest the word of the Iron Throne be seen as worthless. Yet after the sentence of death was pronounced, Aegon offered Bloodraven the chance to take the black and join the Night’s Watch. This he did. Ser Brynden Rivers set sail for the Wall late in the year of 233 AC. (No one intercepted his ship). Two hundred men went with him, many of them archers from Bloodraven’s personal guard, the Raven’s Teeth. The king’s brother, Maester Aemon, was also amongst them.”

 

The World of Ice and Fire is not objective fact, especially when it comes to the opinions of dead Targaryen Kings.

Quote

"Lord Bloodraven's not even a real lord, that's just some stupid courtesy . He's a sorcerer, and baseborn besides"

-Egg, The Sworn Sword

Egg is also married to a Blackwood, and presumably that impacted his choice to let Bloodraven take the Black.

[Mourning Star]

5 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

He was. He was a candidate because he was considered, since Egg was “half a peasant”, but he refused.

Again, Aemon was not considered by the council. The offer was made quietly and quietly it was refused. He was never a candidate. There is more precedent for a legitimized bastard than releasing someone from vows.

Quote

Jon was not entirely innocent of the history of the realm; his own maester had seen to that. "That was the year of the Great Council," he said. "The lords passed over Prince Aerion's infant son and Prince Daeron's daughter and gave the crown to Aegon."
"Yes and no. First they offered it, quietly, to Aemon. And quietly he refused. 

This is why Jon never learned about Aemon getting an offer from his history lessons.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

The World of Ice and Fire is not objective fact, especially when it comes to the opinions of dead Targaryen Kings.

Egg is also married to a Blackwood, and presumably that impacted his choice to let Bloodraven take the Black.

Why isn’t it objective? I could understand if we were talking about something that painted a Targaryen king in a bad light. Here, not so much. 
 

Also, Egg being married to a Blackwood seems to speak against your own argument imo.

1 minute ago, Mourning Star said:

Again, Aemon was not considered by the council. the offer was made quietly and quietly it was refused. He was never a candidate.

 

The offer was made quietly because they wanted to know whether he’d accept it before jumping through hoops for no reason at all. But the fact that an offer was made makes it very clear to me that Aemon was indeed considered before Egg, therefore he was a candidate. IMO. 

[Mourning Star]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Why isn’t it objective? I could understand if we were talking about something that painted a Targaryen king in a bad light. Here, not so much. 

How is the historian going to know what is goin on in Egg's head? 

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Also, Egg being married to a Blackwood seems to speak against your own argument imo.

Why? It helps explain why Egg wouldn't want to execute Bloodraven.

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The offer was made quietly because they wanted to know whether he’d accept it before jumping through hoops for no reason at all. But the fact that an offer was made makes it very clear to me that Aemon was indeed considered before Egg, therefore he was a candidate. IMO. 

So I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think a Great Council can consider someone quietly... rather, a few powerful people can consider quietly. But there is nothing quiet about being a candidate for king at a Great Council, and a claim by definition has to be made (even if it's being made on one's behalf, like for a baby). Aemon made no claim, and choose the wall so nobody would try and press a claim for him.

[SFDanny]

On 10/20/2020 at 6:50 AM, Mourning Star said:

This comes across to me as an argument made in bad faith and using a double standard.

Not in the slightest to either charge. Do not mistake disagreement with bad faith. It is not a double standard to assume you know what I referenced. For instance, citing the descriptions of the battle of Redgrass  Field, and the role Bloodraven played there is only necessary if you dispute the facts. I don't think you do.

On 10/20/2020 at 6:50 AM, Mourning Star said:

Bloodraven fighting Blackfyres is not evidence of a motive, either loyalty or revenge.

Surely, you do not think it irrelevant that all the actions we know Bloodraven to have done show loyalty to the Targaryen royal family. Why he is loyal is, at the moment, an unanswerable question. Perhaps we will get an opportunity to have Bloodraven as a POV character, but I think we won't be so lucky. In the meantime we have to rely on his actions, and the few remarks we have him speaking in the text. So, the textual support of the actions Bloodraven takes, and what he says, would support the conclusion he is a loyal Targaryen man. My argument is just that these facts versus an unsupported speculative theory shouldn't be seen in the same light. Perhaps, you might be right in your guess, but I'm not persuaded.

[broken one]

On 10/20/2020 at 4:15 PM, Mourning Star said:

 

Why? It helps explain why Egg wouldn't want to execute Bloodraven.

 

Bit of stretch. I'd say respect for his contribution to keeping Targ's asses on the throne (like quenched rebellions) or even bonds of blood come first.

Was Aemon candidate or semicandidate is pure eristic.

[Mourning Star]

25 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

So, the textual support of the actions Bloodraven takes, and what he says, would support the conclusion he is a loyal Targaryen man.

This is the part that does not follow. 

Bloodraven fighting Blackfyres is not in dispute, it's his motive, and more meaningfully why he would call a Great Council.

If he was so "loyal" why didn't he crown Maegor, the clear rightful heir?

If he was willing to pass over Maegor, what evidence is there to believe he supported selecting Egg? 

If he was passing over candidates for whatever reason, why wouldn't he consider his own claim?

You aren't providing or pointing to any evidence about these events or Bloodraven's motive by saying he fought Blackfyres... we know that, and are told how much he hated Bittersteel as an explanation.

And again, he was a Targaryen! It's not even a stretch to say that trying to get himself crowned is being a loyal Targaryen if he felt himself the best choice.