The Claim of Brynden Targaryen

[Mourning Star]

28 minutes ago, broken one said:

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.

I would agree that being related also probably contributed to Egg commuting Bloodraven's sentence to serving on the Wall. This is the same decision that was made with Bittersteel. Do you think that was because of respect for keeping asses on thrones? Seems like a silly conclusion to me. 

Also, I don't think you are using eristic to mean what you intend, especially since there is an obvious conclusion if Aemon wasn't one of the four claimants, there was another. The fact that Bloodraven had a claim isn't a question, he obviously did, the only question is if he was a claimant.

[broken one]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I would agree that being related also probably contributed to Egg commuting Bloodraven's sentence to serving on the Wall. This is the same decision that was made with Bittersteel. Do you think that was because of respect for keeping asses on thrones? Seems like a silly conclusion to me. 

Also, I don't think you are using eristic to mean what you intend, especially since there is an obvious conclusion if Aemon wasn't one of the four claimants, there was another. The fact that Bloodraven had a claim isn't a question, he obviously did, the only question is if he was a claimant.

The wrong decision that was made with Bittersteel is completely irrelevant - another king, another times, and I assume you know it. The escort to the wall consisted of Bloodravens men and it would have been another wrong decision if it was to prevent his escape. I find the idea that BR avoided capital punishment because of Egg's wife colours more silly than the conclusion it happened because of his input to Targs case.

You fill empty spaces not covered by the books with speculations which support your thesis but stand against all the rest.

Imo the teleological interpretation of the 'fourth claimant' is right and it is quite obvious it was Aemon. Blame GRRM for not using the right word but do not make big story out of this.

[SFDanny]

56 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

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.

You confuse loyalty with motive. A man or woman may hate his king, but stay loyal to his oath of fealty. That is the test of loyalty, not what such a person thinks in their most private thoughts. While we have no idea what Bloodraven thought of King Daeron, we do know he was loyal to his oath and fought on Daeron's side at the Redgrass Field. That is evidence of loyalty. That is evidence of fidelity to his oath.

A good example of this is Ser Barristan. We know in his private thoughts he had his doubts about Aerys. We also know he stayed loyal to Aerys and fought in his cause. Selmy was loyal to his king. Not so much to his heir. Show me where Bloodraven exhibits disloyalty to any of the Kings he served?

To the last point, the why of calling the Great Council is fairly self-evident. The person in line for the Throne, Vaella, was unqualified for it. The next person in line, Maegor, was an infant and possible inheritor of Aerion's madness. Aemon was a sworn maester. Aegon was untrusted by the Westerosi nobility. Bloodraven's choice was either to make the choice himself, and thereby usurping the Throne with power his role as Hand of a dead King did not give him, or calling a Council to make a collective decision that could stand the test of time. The latter choice was correct if he wanted Daeron's line to continue to hold power.

[Mourning Star]

14 hours ago, broken one said:

The wrong decision that was made with Bittersteel is completely irrelevant

Mercy is never a mistake.

We clearly have wildly different interpretations of the message of this story, lol.

 

[Mourning Star]

15 hours ago, SFDanny said:

You confuse loyalty with motive. A man or woman may hate his king, but stay loyal to his oath of fealty. That is the test of loyalty, not what such a person thinks in their most private thoughts. While we have no idea what Bloodraven thought of King Daeron, we do know he was loyal to his oath and fought on Daeron's side at the Redgrass Field. That is evidence of loyalty. That is evidence of fidelity to his oath.

A good example of this is Ser Barristan. We know in his private thoughts he had his doubts about Aerys. We also know he stayed loyal to Aerys and fought in his cause. Selmy was loyal to his king. Not so much to his heir. Show me where Bloodraven exhibits disloyalty to any of the Kings he served?

To the last point, the why of calling the Great Council is fairly self-evident. The person in line for the Throne, Vaella, was unqualified for it. The next person in line, Maegor, was an infant and possible inheritor of Aerion's madness. Aemon was a sworn maester. Aegon was untrusted by the Westerosi nobility. Bloodraven's choice was either to make the choice himself, and thereby usurping the Throne with power his role as Hand of a dead King did not give him, or calling a Council to make a collective decision that could stand the test of time. The latter choice was correct if he wanted Daeron's line to continue to hold power.

I'm confused by what oath you are talking about? The events of the first Blackfyre rebellion occurred years before Dunk and Egg, and the great council was decades after our most recent story. Fidelity to whom? My whole argument is that Bloodraven would have seen himself as a legitimate claimant, and was. He broke his promise of safe passage though, and later his oath as a brother of the nights watch, if you are looking for examples of his oath breaking.

It is also probably worth pointing out that Bloodraven himself started the Blackfyre rebellion by sending the Kingsguard after Daemon.

Barristan does not stay loyal, he goes over to Robert after the rebellion instead of supporting the Targaryens.

Daeron wasn't passed over because he was Aegon the Unworthy's son, and the precedent of passing over women was already established. Bloodraven had a legitimate claim, and I don't see a reason he wouldn't have tried to press it.

 

[Lord Varys]

It is irrelevant whether Bloodraven pushed his claim or not. His claim would have been considered by the lords at the Great Council whether he wanted it or not. Just as the first Great Council considered the claims of Vaegon, Rhaenys, and Laena ... in addition to those of various real and alleged royal bastards, completely independent whether the claimants in question actually wanted the throne or not. Vaegon refused the throne earlier, apparently, and Rhaenys and Laena wouldn't have put forth their own claims against Laenor's, since that would have weakened the united front of House Velaryon.

Bloodraven was a legitimized royal bastard, meaning his claim to the throne would have been seen as stronger as that of Princess Vaella (due to her being female and a simpleton) and, perhaps, even stronger than that of the infant Maegor. Could be that the lords were all even more horrified by the idea of a 'King Brynden' than they were at the prospect of a King Maegor II or a King Aegon V ... but that wouldn't have stopped anyone from saying that the Hand wasn't himself a claimant to the Iron Throne.

George will have to deal with that obvious fact when he writes a detailed history of the Great Council of 233 AC.

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm confused by what oath you are talking about? The events of the first Blackfyre rebellion occurred years before Dunk and Egg, and the great council was decades after our most recent story. Fidelity to whom? My whole argument is that Bloodraven would have seen himself as a legitimate claimant, and was. He broke his promise of safe passage though, and later his oath as a brother of the nights watch, if you are looking for examples of his oath breaking.

We don’t know that. In fact, what little we do know points to Bloodraven disappearing while ranging north of the Wall. And it is worth considering that it is possible he was upholding his vows in a more meaningful way than just sitting around at CB and sending rangers to fight the free folk. 
There is simply too much we don’t know yet. But as long as we’re speculating, I will say the thought has crossed my mind that killing Aenys could have been a carefully concocted plot to kill two birds with one stone: getting rid of a possible threat, and being sent to the Wall.

Quote

 

It is also probably worth pointing out that Bloodraven himself started the Blackfyre rebellion by sending the Kingsguard after Daemon.

Barristan does not stay loyal, he goes over to Robert after the rebellion instead of supporting the Targaryens.

I’m not sure I follow... Do you mean going to Essos to try to find Viserys and Dany? 

Quote

Daeron wasn't passed over because he was Aegon the Unworthy's son, and the precedent of passing over women was already established. Bloodraven had a legitimate claim, and I don't see a reason he wouldn't have tried to press it.

There can be any number of reasons, as I’ve said above, there’s too much we don’t know yet. We may learn more, but what we know so far is that Bloodraven didn’t try to push his claim. 

[Mourning Star]

9 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

We don’t know that. In fact, what little we do know points to Bloodraven disappearing while ranging north of the Wall. And it is worth considering that it is possible he was upholding his vows in a more meaningful way than just sitting around at CB and sending rangers to fight the free folk. 

I shall live and die at my post... Bloodraven isn't dead and he isn't at his post. He broke his oath.

Not to mention he even says he was "once" a brother of the Night's Watch, meaning he is no longer.

Quote

There is simply too much we don’t know yet. But as long as we’re speculating, I will say the thought has crossed my mind that killing Aenys was a carefully concocted plot to kill two birds with one stone: getting rid of a possible threat, and being sent to the Wall.

Bloodraven defended himself against the sentence of death, I don't believe for a second he wanted to be sent to the Wall. Aenys wasn't even Blackfyre's heir at this point, Daemon III was.

Quote

I’m not sure I follow... Do you mean going to Essos to try to find Viserys and Dany?

Dragonstone at that point, but yes, he even thinks of this himself.

Quote

There can be any number of reasons, as I’ve said above, there’s too much we don’t know yet. We may learn more, but what we know so far is that Bloodraven didn’t try to push his claim. 

Right, because that kind of gives away that he is the villian.

[kissdbyfire]

30 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

I shall live and die at my post... Bloodraven isn't dead and he isn't at his post. He broke his oath.

Not to mention he even says he was "once" a brother of the Night's Watch, meaning he is no longer.

Well, I don’t think sticking to vows no matter what is such a great trait, to be honest. I also think that “the human heart in conflict with itself” is, among other things, having to make difficult decisions and not simply hiding behind words.
Words are wind, it’s actions that matter. 

Since I am not certain about what happened and how and under which circumstances, I am going to reserve judgment until I have more information. 

Quote

Bloodraven defended himself against the sentence of death, I don't believe for a second he wanted to be sent to the Wall. Aenys wasn't even Blackfyre's heir at this point, Daemon III was.
 

How can you know that Bloodraven “defended himself against the sentence of death”? The only thing we get in the text about it says that Egg sentenced him to death, and then offered for him to go to the Wall. 
But even if he had, Egg still had the right to deny him and execute him, and he didn’t. 

Quote

Right, because that kind of gives away that he is the villian.

Erhm... the fact that he didn’t press his claim proves that he is the villain? Alrighty then. 

[Mourning Star]

16 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, I don’t think sticking to vows no matter what is such a great trait, to be honest. I also think that “the human heart in conflict with itself” is, among other things, having to make difficult decisions and not simply hiding behind words.
Words are wind, it’s actions that matter. 

Haha that's fair, but the issue, imo, is swearing to many oaths, and not that it's somehow ok to not keep your word.

Quote

Since I am not certain about what happened and how and under which circumstances, I am going to reserve judgment until I have more information. 

I am certainly speculating here, no proof of anything.

Quote

How can you know that Bloodraven “defended himself against the sentence of death”? The only thing we get in the text about it says that Egg sentenced him to death, and then offered for him to go to the Wall. 
But even if he had, Egg still had the right to deny him and execute him, and he didn’t. 

"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." -TWoIaF

Ironically of course, sending Bloodraven to the wall goes against Bloodraven's own advice, and shows mercy.

Egg had to think about it. "Sometimes at court I would serve the king's small council. They used to fight about it. Uncle Baelor said that clemency was best when dealing with an honorable foe. If a defeated man believes he will be pardoned, he may lay down his sword and bend the knee. Elsewise he will fight on to the death, and slay more loyal men and innocents. But Lord Bloodraven said that when you pardon rebels, you only plant the seeds of the next rebellion." His voice was full of doubts. -The Sworn Sword

Quote

Erhm... the fact that he didn’t press his claim proves that he is the villain? Alrighty then. 

Haha what? No. Pressing a claim, and more importantly the details of the Great Council will make it more obvious he's a villain, and that's why Fire and Blood stops where it does, not to mention why we will get no more Dunk and Egg until after Winds.

Not a Dark Lord Sauron villain, but a human villain with reasons, even if he still is the lord living in darkness with one red eye living behind a wall. TBH anyone who makes a "for the greater good" argument should be looked at as highly suspect to begin with here, imo.

[SFDanny]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm confused by what oath you are talking about?

I'm confused by why you're confused. But in order to clear this up, let me quote the best example of an oath of fealty given in the books.

Quote

Both Reeds were slight of build, slender as swords and scarcely taller than Bran himself. They went to one knee before the dais.

"My lords of Stark," the girl said. "The years have passed in their hundreds and their thousands since my folk first swore their fealty to the King in the North. My lord father has sent us here to say the words again, for all our people."

She is looking at me, Bran realized. He had to make some answer. "My brother Robb is fighting in the south," he said, "but you can say your words to me, if you like."

"To Winterfell we pledge the faith of Greywater," they said together. "Hearth and heart and harvest we yield up to you, my lord. Our swords and spears and arrows are yours to command. Grant mercy to our weak, help to our helpless, and justice to all, and we shall never fail you."

"I swear it by earth and water," said the boy in green.

"I swear it by bronze and iron, his sister said.

"We swear it by ice and fire," they finished together.

Bran groped for words. Was he supposed to swear something back to them? Their oath was not one he had been taught. "May your winters be short and your summers bountiful," he said. That was usually a good thing to say. "Rise. I'm Brandon Stark."

The girl, Meera, got tho her feet and helped her brother up. The boy stared at Bran all the while. "We bring gifts of fish and frog and fowl," he said.

"I thank you." Bran wondered if he would have to eat a frog to be polite. "I offer you the meat and mead of Winterfell." (ACoK 248-240)

That is the most complete example of an oath of fealty given in the text. I quote it in its complete form because it is our best example from Martin's world, but also because I love the scene.

We are given other examples of oaths of fealty being given, such as those demanded by Joffrey after the Battle of the Blackwater, but the above explains the relationship better than most.

With Bloodraven, he would have had to give his oath to his father as a member of Aegon the Unworthy's court. He would have had to give it again to his half-brother Daeron II Targaryen when he became king. Again he would have given such an oath to his nephew's Aerys I, and Maekar I when they came into the crown. He may have even given such an oath to Egg following the Great Council's decision to make him Aegon V Targaryen.

The point being, loyalty is determined by following the oaths of fealty Bloodraven gave to each of the kings to which he served, and most importantly by the actions he takes in order to be faithful or not to those oaths. Not by what his motives were in giving the oaths, or his likes or dislikes for each of the men to which he gave them.

So, to me, the important point is whether or not you have any evidence, not just speculation, to show how Bloodraven betrayed his oaths and showed himself disloyal? Because all I see is example after example of loyal service to his king.

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

The events of the first Blackfyre rebellion occurred years before Dunk and Egg, and the great council was decades after our most recent story. Fidelity to whom?

To all the Targaryen Kings who sat the Iron Throne during his lifetime. Fidelity shown in battle and in service over the entirety of that time.

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

 My whole argument is that Bloodraven would have seen himself as a legitimate claimant, and was. He broke his promise of safe passage though, and later his oath as a brother of the nights watch, if you are looking for examples of his oath breaking.

Once he is legitimized by his father, he is, in fact, a "legitimate claimant" to the throne. On that much we agree. His claim just isn't very good. Daeron and his descendants had a better claim by Westerosi tradition. Which begs the question, when did Bloodraven put his own claim above those who had the better one? I don't know of an instance in which he did.

As to the broken promises you name, they are not the same. He lied and tricked Aenys Blackfyre into coming to Council where he used his authority as the Hand  and de facto ruler of the realm at the time to kill a threat to any of the Targaryens who would become King or Queen. His method was undoubtedly dishonorable, as I think many of the methods he used in his time as Hand to Aerys and Maekar probably were. But the question isn't whether or not Bloodraven was not at times ruthless and dishonorable, but rather was he loyal.

To the latter example of oath breaking to the Night's Watch, I'd only say we know next to nothing about the circumstances in which Bloodraven leaves the Watch and how he ends up where he is with the Children of the Forest. I'll reserve judgment on that until we have more information.

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

It is also probably worth pointing out that Bloodraven himself started the Blackfyre rebellion by sending the Kingsguard after Daemon.

 See the above oath concerning submission to the King's justice. Daemon starts the Blackfyre rebellion, not Bloodraven.

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Barristan does not stay loyal, he goes over to Robert after the rebellion instead of supporting the Targaryens.

As I pointed out. Ser Barristan stayed loyal to Aerys, despite his misgivings. Which is the importance of his example. 

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Daeron wasn't passed over because he was Aegon the Unworthy's son, and the precedent of passing over women was already established. Bloodraven had a legitimate claim, and I don't see a reason he wouldn't have tried to press it.

Again, please show me where and when Bloodraven tried to press his own claim to the throne over others?

[Mourning Star]

21 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

As to the broken promises you name, they are not the same. He lied and tricked Aenys Blackfyre into coming to Council where he used his authority as the Hand  and de facto ruler of the realm at the time to kill a threat to any of the Targaryens who would become King or Queen. His method was undoubtedly dishonorable, as I think many of the methods he used in his time as Hand to Aerys and Maekar probably were. But the question isn't whether or not Bloodraven was not at times ruthless and dishonorable, but rather was he loyal.

To the latter example of oath breaking to the Night's Watch, I'd only say we now next to nothing about the circumstances in which Bloodraven leaves the Watch and how he ends up where he is with the Children of the Forest. I'll reserve judgment on that until we have more information.

We know next to nothing about Bloodraven's time ruling Westeros in all but name except that it almost saw the extinction of the Targaryen line, as they were all dying in unnatural ways, and was terrible for the common people, as seen in Dunk and Egg. 

I understand why you want to ignore these examples of oathbreaking, just realize that it comes across again as a complete double standard.

I have no idea why you think the Reed's swearing an oath to Bran is relevant to the discussion. Especially when it seems to clearly condemn Bloodraven's actions... "Grant mercy to our weak, help to our helpless, and justice to all, and we shall never fail you."

Bloodraven is the one who started the Blackfyre rebelion, not Daemon:

"(We do not know how word came to Daeron, though Merion's unfinished The Red Dragon and the Black suggests that another of the Great Bastards, Brynden Rivers, was involved.) The king sent the Kingsguard to arrest Daemon before he could take his plans for treason any further."

Think about why an author would include this detail.

Daemon only rebelled because Bloodraven tried to arrest him and he was saved by the loyal Master of Arms of the Red Keep, who was later murdered by a mysterious bowman (Bloodraven) on the eve of the Battle of the Redgrass Field.

My whole point is that you need to read between the lines, it isn't spelled out for you, but these details aren't random. Asking for proof while having none yourself is silly, I'm obviously speculating to fill in gaps we do not know, as there is very little information to work with and if it was all spelled out discussion would be pointless.