Aenys Blackfyre's Murder

[EggBlue]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Not only is it clear to me that Bloodraven's Oathbreaking, violation of Guest Right and Kinslaying in the matter of Aenys are all reprehensible behaviors perhaps nowhere better characterized than in this one action, but I would go further...

Why did Bloodraven call a council? The line of succession was not unclear. He hoped to pass over the rightful heirs.

I think what is loudly unsaid so far is that Bloodraven called the Great Council with the intention of being named king himself.

The same decree that legitimized Daemon Blackfyre and his descendants applied to Bloodraven.

I don't think the intimidation factor of parading a decapitated head was for Egg's benefit, but rather intended to be for Bloodraven's own.

Finally, comparing Bloodraven to Tywin is an excellent comparison. If anything, Tywin is a lesser Bloodraven. Both ruled in all but name as Hand, although one could make the case that the realm did better under Tywin than under Bloodraven's reign of terror. Both ruthlessly pursued their private vendettas. Obviously, Tywin betrays the Targaryens, and plants his own descendants on the throne.

At this point, I would be surprised if Bloodraven wasn't responsible for the return of the Others, if I'm being honest.

Bloodraven is not the Dark Lord. there was no reason for him to want kingship... he was blind with his hatred but that's it.... if anything, he must have known members of a council that call him a sorcerer kinslayer bastard behind his back would never choose him as the king .. not as long as Egg, Duncan, Jaeherys, Shaera, Daeron , Maegor and Vaella are all alive and pretty much well.

[Lord Varys]

There has to be something more to this than just Bloodraven thinking 'Hey, let's kill another one of those silly exile pretenders.'

There are two ways I can think of to make this more complex:

1. Aenys Blackfyre's role during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion in 219 AC. He was the eldest of Haegon's younger brothers, so he could have been a general/commander in his own right during the Golden Company invasion, committing considerable atrocities against House Targaryen and/or the general populace. Also, he could have been a charismatic and successful politician, establishing lasting links with certain noble houses during and after the war. This could be enough for Bloodraven (and Aegon V) to really loathe and hate Aenys Blackfyre.

2. Aenys Blackfyre could - in part for reasons given in point 1 - have a considerable base of followers and supporters among the lords of the Realm, giving him a great shot at becoming the compromise claimant preventing the rise of the peasant prince Aegon V. Lingering sympathies for the Blackfyre cause as well as the outspoken enemies of Egg could have formed a very powerful voting bloc.

I mean, the whole Great Council thing as such is just weird. The Targaryens are done to Maekar's descendants, so there are  not exactly many potential pretenders ... and most of the existing claimants are children or infant. Only one dragon is a power/player in his own right - the future Aegon V. Aemon is a chained maester, about as prominent or influential with the larger Realm as Archmaester Vaegon back in 101 AC, Maegor is an infant scarcely a year old, and we don't even know if his mother was still alive to push his claim. If Daenora died in childbirth then Maegor's only supporters would have been his wetnurses, I guess. And Princess Vaella had apparently some mental issues and was the daughter of man who was a joke as Heir Apparent and who would have been a complete joke as a king.

Yet somehow the situation was so tense that Bloodraven couldn't just take the throne himself, hand it to Aegon V as the obvious heir, or even install little Maegor as a puppet king with he himself and/or Egg running the regency government.

Civil war was in the air (although we have no idea between which factions as such) and the only way to prevent it was a Great Council.

If things were this bad within the royal family and the powerful players at court then Aenys Blackfyre could have entered that circus as a loose cannon. Somebody who could offer himself as the perfect compromise candidate, somebody above the petty struggles between Maekar's descendants and their relations, somebody who could give the Realm a fresh start, free it from the seemingly eternal rule of the sorcerer Hand who was propping up red dragon after red dragon as figurehead to hide the fact that he was running things, etc.

In light of all that it makes sense that Bloodraven might do what he did to ensure the Great Council would not go in the wrong direction.

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Daenora died in childbirth then Maegor's only supporters would have been his wetnurses, I guess.

Maegor's maternal grandmother was Alys Arryn. So, there's a good chance that the Eyrie, any number of their bannermen, & even, any inter-regional allies of theirs, supported Maegor's claim. Particularly if Alys were still alive, &/or if she was close with Jasper/his lord father. (In friendship &/or relation - she did marry a prince, after all, perhaps as a reward to her house for their loyalty to Daeron II.) The latter is potentially hinted at with Jasper naming his own daughter Alys, possibly for as close of a relation as her aunt. That would make the elder Alys the sister of Jasper, & they could easily be (grand)children of Lord Donnel - whose own name is similar to Jasper's younger son, Ronnel. If, also the name of at least one previous (Lord) Arryn.

[Willam Stark]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

2. Aenys Blackfyre could - in part for reasons given in point 1 - have a considerable base of followers and supporters among the lords of the Realm, giving him a great shot at becoming the compromise claimant preventing the rise of the peasant prince Aegon V. Lingering sympathies for the Blackfyre cause as well as the outspoken enemies of Egg could have formed a very powerful voting bloc.

The fact that Bloodraven showed up with Aenys' head at the Great Council is a strong hint favoring this scenario. Those supporters were probably plotting against Bloodraven who was hated by a lot of people and Daeron II's offspring were seen as his puppets, since he was the King in all but name. Knowing all this, Aenys wanted to take advantage of this resentment and gathered support for his claim.

[Mourning Star]

16 hours ago, EggBlue said:

Bloodraven is not the Dark Lord. there was no reason for him to want kingship... he was blind with his hatred but that's it.... if anything, he must have known members of a council that call him a sorcerer kinslayer bastard behind his back would never choose him as the king .. not as long as Egg, Duncan, Jaeherys, Shaera, Daeron , Maegor and Vaella are all alive and pretty much well.

I'm not so sure about any of this.

I do think he is as close to a "dark lord" as ASoIaF gets and I doubt the parallels with Sauron are accidental. 

What members of what council were calling him a bastard sorcerer behind his back? He was a bastard sorcerer, but a legitimized one. I think he was more of a "better to be feared than loved" sort of guy anyway!

Given that Maegor was the obvious rightful heir, and there seemed to be no issue passing him over, sure looks like anyone with a claim had a chance at this council, even the widely disliked half peasant Egg. 

Honestly, I don't understand the forum's difficulty with this perspective. Bloodraven had already been king in all but name for multiple Targaryens... I legitimately don't understand how anyone can reconcile the ruthless pragmatist we know Bloodraven to be with someone who willingly gives up power and walks away.

I'm supposed to believe that the oathbreaking, kinslaying, will to power, Machiavellian king in all but name was going to step down? That he was willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the realm? Please... absolute poppycock 

[Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers]

2 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm not so sure about any of this.

I do think he is as close to a "dark lord" as ASoIaF gets and I doubt the parallels with Sauron are accidental. 

What members of what council were calling him a bastard sorcerer behind his back? He was a bastard sorcerer, but a legitimized one. I think he was more of a "better to be feared than loved" sort of guy anyway!

Given that Maegor was the obvious rightful heir, and there seemed to be no issue passing him over, sure looks like anyone with a claim had a chance at this council, even the widely disliked half peasant Egg. 

Honestly, I don't understand the forum's difficulty with this perspective. Bloodraven had already been king in all but name for multiple Targaryens... I legitimately don't understand how anyone can reconcile the ruthless pragmatist we know Bloodraven to be with someone who willingly gives up power and walks away.

I'm supposed to believe that the oathbreaking, kinslaying, will to power, Machiavellian king in all but name was going to step down? That he was willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the realm? Please... absolute poppycock 

Ok, ok calm down. Bloodraven has no intention of becoming king and no intention of becoming hand for all we know. The only thing he wanted to do was to kill Blackfyres and absolutely despised Bittersteel. He may have not sided with Daeron out of justice or legality but he fought honorably and was arguably the deciding factor for why the loyalists won. He killed Daemon Blackfyre and his two eldest sons and turned the Blackfyre vanguard into a rout until Bittersteel rallied them. Also, the two main factors that make Bloodraven a villain(in the eyes of some) are the treatment of Aenys Blackfyre and how he deals with traitors. Also, if Bloodraven wanted to be king so bad, he would have just found some pretext to kill off Egg, Maegor and Aemon. If Bloodraven was truly a sorcerer and commanded a network of spies, this wouldn't have been a difficult thing for him to do. Going further, he had a great influence and some allies at court, so when Egg sentenced him to the Wall, why couldn't Bloodraven just crown Maegor in his stead and rip the realm apart into a bloody civil war? We know from the previous posts on this thread, especially Lord Varys's post, that there were factions competing for the throne. Bloodraven could have easily accomplished a throne in a few months given his ability to command armies and being a sorcerer. The same better to be feared than loved guy did none of this. He accepted Egg's verdict, took all his supporters and his personal guard with him to the Wall and ably served the Night's Watch. And also, could you please elaborate on the parallels with Sauron?

[Jaenara Belarys]

They selected the rightful heir and next king at the Great Council: Aegon V. They voted to pass over a child who might eventually go batshit (better to be safe than sorry) and a child who was already a lackwit. I'd much rather have a prince raised with the peasants than a already ill child, and a child who might go nuts. 

 

As for Aenys Blackfyre, he was a Blackfyre. The son, brother, etc of multiple attempted usurpers. I have just as much sympathy for him as I do Baratheons (except for Shireen). Bloodraven was a hard man for a hard time. 

[Mourning Star]

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Ok, ok calm down. Bloodraven has no intention of becoming king and no intention of becoming hand for all we know.

Obviously, I disagree.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

The only thing he wanted to do was to kill Blackfyres and absolutely despised Bittersteel. He may have not sided with Daeron out of justice or legality but he fought honorably and was arguably the deciding factor for why the loyalists won.

He did not fight honorably, the opposite in fact.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

He killed Daemon Blackfyre and his two eldest sons and turned the Blackfyre vanguard into a rout until Bittersteel rallied them.

I would bet he was the archer who murdered Fireball before the battle, and the other way to tell the story of the Redgrass field is that he killed Daemon's sons so he would not run when Daemon stopped to help a defeated foe.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Also, the two main factors that make Bloodraven a villain(in the eyes of some) are the treatment of Aenys Blackfyre and how he deals with traitors.

Two of the reasons, not the only or even the main ones imo.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Also, if Bloodraven wanted to be king so bad, he would have just found some pretext to kill off Egg, Maegor and Aemon.

During the time that Bloodraven ruled the Seven Kingdoms in all but name how many Targaryens in line for the throne died? I don't think he was above a little murder of family members, clearly.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

If Bloodraven was truly a sorcerer and commanded a network of spies, this wouldn't have been a difficult thing for him to do.

Unclear how hard it would be... especially with Dunk around.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Going further, he had a great influence and some allies at court, so when Egg sentenced him to the Wall, why couldn't Bloodraven just crown Maegor in his stead and rip the realm apart into a bloody civil war?

Why didn't he crown Maegor in the first place? He was the rightful heir.

I think it is because he was sick of being king in all but name, and wanted to be king.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

We know from the previous posts on this thread, especially Lord Varys's post, that there were factions competing for the throne.

There are always factions, that's politics for you.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

Bloodraven could have easily accomplished a throne in a few months given his ability to command armies and being a sorcerer. The same better to be feared than loved guy did none of this. He accepted Egg's verdict, took all his supporters and his personal guard with him to the Wall and ably served the Night's Watch.

Right, so I'm suggesting this great council was his attempt to take power.

There is no reason to think Bloodraven had a choice about his fate. Egg even sent Dunk to make sure Bloodraven didn't escape like Bittersteal. Nothing about that suggests Bloodraven was trusted in this. It seems like his Raven's Teeth were in the dungeons with him, and many made the same choice he did, take the black rather than die.

Bloodraven subsequently abandoned his post after 13 years as lord commander, and still lives, meaning he broke his oath.

Just now, Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers said:

And also, could you please elaborate on the parallels with Sauron?

Certainly!

Sauron, represented most often by a red eye, is the dark lord of the Lord of the Rings. Originally he was a Maiar, but betrayed the Valar to serve Morgoth, who originally appealed to him due to the ability to effect his designs quickly and masterfully. He once walked the world, and was able to change his shape, but since his most recent defeat has watched the world of men from behind his giant wall and sought the downfall of the realms of men. He sends forth his undead minions, the Nazgul, to seek the power he needs to have a new body.

Bloodraven, who has a thousand eyes and one, sits on the other side of a giant wall, watching the realms of men and brooding. He also clearly appreciates ruthless pragmatism. Once he walked the world and was said to be able to change his form, we see him disguised as Maynard Plum in the Mystery Knight. He now resides in his lair treating darkness like mother's milk, and sent his undead minion Coldhands to collect Bran, the body he wishes to inhabit.

Now considering GRRM's critique of JRRT about not needing any more "dark lords", I think what we see here is a very intentional recharacterization where the "dark lord" isn't just some embodiment of "evil", but a man, with human motivations and emotions, but for all that a dark lord still! More to this point, I would be absolutely shocked if the return of the Others wasn't a threat brought about by a human (and not just because otherwise it would totally contradict comments like this one), with human motivations and emotions, and Bloodraven seems to me to be the obvious candidate.

[Mourning Star]

51 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

They selected the rightful heir and next king at the Great Council: Aegon V. They voted to pass over a child who might eventually go batshit (better to be safe than sorry) and a child who was already a lackwit. I'd much rather have a prince raised with the peasants than a already ill child, and a child who might go nuts. 

As for Aenys Blackfyre, he was a Blackfyre. The son, brother, etc of multiple attempted usurpers. I have just as much sympathy for him as I do Baratheons (except for Shireen). Bloodraven was a hard man for a hard time. 

No, they didn't. That's not how rightful heirs work. They did not follow the existing rules of succession.

They passed over the rightful heir (whether you think a woman can inherit or not), and chose Egg.

Arguably one of the single biggest moral lessons of ASoIaF is that people should not be judged for who their family is, but on their own merits. It's wild that you think the moral is it's ok to do wrong if times are tough. I don't know what to say besides I think you're wildly misinterpreting a crucial part of the meaning of the whole story.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Maegor's maternal grandmother was Alys Arryn. So, there's a good chance that the Eyrie, any number of their bannermen, & even, any inter-regional allies of theirs, supported Maegor's claim. Particularly if Alys were still alive, &/or if she was close with Jasper/his lord father. (In friendship &/or relation - she did marry a prince, after all, perhaps as a reward to her house for their loyalty to Daeron II.) The latter is potentially hinted at with Jasper naming his own daughter Alys, possibly for as close of a relation as her aunt. That would make the elder Alys the sister of Jasper, & they could easily be (grand)children of Lord Donnel - whose own name is similar to Jasper's younger son, Ronnel. If, also the name of at least one previous (Lord) Arryn.

That is possible ... but there is a pretty big internal contradiction here.

One the one hand we do have the threat of a succession war, another Dance, which could only be averted by the Great Council. But then we also have the fact that neither Vaella the Simple nor little Maegor did have much support at the Great Council ... which kind makes it odd that there was the threat of civil war which had to be averted by a Great Council.

If the Arryns and their bannermen had thrown their support behind little Maegor then he would have gotten some support at the Great Council.

I mean, one could speculate that perhaps Aerion was able to fill half the Small Council with his cronies before his death and they really hated Egg so much they would have been willing to go to war in Maegor's name to prevent his rise to the throne.

But does this make sense in a scenario where the government is run by King Maekar and Lord Bloodraven (and, one imagines, in no small degree by Egg himself considering that he is there as a commander of troops at Starpike where Maekar dies)? We would also assume that Bloodraven wanted Egg to be king (or at least wasn't his biggest enemy) - as Hand he likely played a very crucial during the entire council - so he would have been in camp Egg at least to a point.

Basically, George really has to add a lot of details to this whole scenario.

9 hours ago, Willam Stark said:

The fact that Bloodraven showed up with Aenys' head at the Great Council is a strong hint favoring this scenario. Those supporters were probably plotting against Bloodraven who was hated by a lot of people and Daeron II's offspring were seen as his puppets, since he was the King in all but name. Knowing all this, Aenys wanted to take advantage of this resentment and gathered support for his claim.

While some folks may have really loathed Bloodraven, assuming he wanted to continue as the eternal Hand in the name of Vaella or Maegor, I don't think anyone would have truly thought Maekar was his - or anyone's - puppet.

I guess the people opposing Egg's rise would have been the genuine enemies the peasant prince made during this travels and during the reign of his father.

But we should also keep in mind that many other lords who didn't really favor the Blackfyres as such may have been reluctant to allow the rise of one Maekar's descendants to throne. He was a kinslayer, after all, and his Hand was, too.

[Prince of the North]

1 hour ago, Mourning Star said:

There is no reason to think Bloodraven had a choice about his fate.

Huh?  Bloodraven was expressly given the choice to take the black or be executed.  Or do you mean something else?

Quote

Egg even sent Dunk to make sure Bloodraven didn't escape like Bittersteal

Citation needed.

Quote

It seems like his Raven's Teeth were in the dungeons with him, and many made the same choice he did, take the black rather than die.

Citation needed.

Quote

Bloodraven subsequently abandoned his post after 13 years as lord commander, and still lives, meaning he broke his oath.

Or it's just as plausible that Bloodraven physically joined with the weirwood tree in an attempt to survive long enough to mentor Bran.  And, of course, it's just as plausible to posit Bloodraven would do this because he thinks Bran is integral in the coming resistance to the Others.  And, of course, IF these things are true then Bloodraven would actually be fulfilling his oath to the NW perhaps more than almost any other member in it's history. 

Only time will tell   

[James Steller]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

1. Aenys Blackfyre's role during the Third Blackfyre Rebellion in 219 AC. He was the eldest of Haegon's younger brothers, so he could have been a general/commander in his own right during the Golden Company invasion, committing considerable atrocities against House Targaryen and/or the general populace. Also, he could have been a charismatic and successful politician, establishing lasting links with certain noble houses during and after the war. This could be enough for Bloodraven (and Aegon V) to really loathe and hate Aenys Blackfyre.

 

That doesn't put Bloodraven on any moral high ground over Aenys. Aenys' family rebelled, sure, but even if he did fight and commit violence against the people of Westeros, that doesn't make him different from 80% of the other commanders in the series. Plus, Bloodraven's no innocent; he purposefully killed his own adolescent nephews with arrows, one of them to lure Daemon back onto the field. Not only that, Haegon was killed treacherously after he'd already surrendered, in another battle where Bloodraven was present and would have wielded considerable command as the King's Hand. 

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

2. Aenys Blackfyre could - in part for reasons given in point 1 - have a considerable base of followers and supporters among the lords of the Realm, giving him a great shot at becoming the compromise claimant preventing the rise of the peasant prince Aegon V. Lingering sympathies for the Blackfyre cause as well as the outspoken enemies of Egg could have formed a very powerful voting bloc.

I mean, the whole Great Council thing as such is just weird. The Targaryens are done to Maekar's descendants, so there are  not exactly many potential pretenders ... and most of the existing claimants are children or infant. Only one dragon is a power/player in his own right - the future Aegon V. Aemon is a chained maester, about as prominent or influential with the larger Realm as Archmaester Vaegon back in 101 AC, Maegor is an infant scarcely a year old, and we don't even know if his mother was still alive to push his claim. If Daenora died in childbirth then Maegor's only supporters would have been his wetnurses, I guess. And Princess Vaella had apparently some mental issues and was the daughter of man who was a joke as Heir Apparent and who would have been a complete joke as a king.

Yet somehow the situation was so tense that Bloodraven couldn't just take the throne himself, hand it to Aegon V as the obvious heir, or even install little Maegor as a puppet king with he himself and/or Egg running the regency government.

Civil war was in the air (although we have no idea between which factions as such) and the only way to prevent it was a Great Council.

If things were this bad within the royal family and the powerful players at court then Aenys Blackfyre could have entered that circus as a loose cannon. Somebody who could offer himself as the perfect compromise candidate, somebody above the petty struggles between Maekar's descendants and their relations, somebody who could give the Realm a fresh start, free it from the seemingly eternal rule of the sorcerer Hand who was propping up red dragon after red dragon as figurehead to hide the fact that he was running things, etc.

In light of all that it makes sense that Bloodraven might do what he did to ensure the Great Council would not go in the wrong direction.

Again, how is any of that meant to discredit Aenys Blackfyre and justify murdering him in cold blood? Bloodraven held all the cards, he was the one who offered Aenys protection and safe conduct. If he'd never replied to Aenys' letter, Aenys wouldn't have come. 

And as I said before, if Aenys was that promising of a candidate, then maybe he could have earned the Iron Throne honestly, through the support of the council. And if he was good enough to do that, he might very well have been a worthy king in his own right, never mind Aegon V. Bloodraven's actions were not for the good of the realm, they were for the good of Bloodraven and House Targaryen. There might be explanations for Bloodraven's actions, but no excuses. 

[Lord Varys]

26 minutes ago, James Steller said:

That doesn't put Bloodraven on any moral high ground over Aenys. Aenys' family rebelled, sure, but even if he did fight and commit violence against the people of Westeros, that doesn't make him different from 80% of the other commanders in the series. Plus, Bloodraven's no innocent; he purposefully killed his own adolescent nephews with arrows, one of them to lure Daemon back onto the field. Not only that, Haegon was killed treacherously after he'd already surrendered, in another battle where Bloodraven was present and would have wielded considerable command as the King's Hand.

I don't care or talked about the moral highground, I just suggested a way to explain why Bloodraven would go as low as to treat Aenys in that manner. That is not something Bloodraven would do, I think, if he didn't feel a strong need to do it. It must have been something more than genuine hatred. After all, the whole thing would have blackened both his and the Iron Throne's reputation.

If Aenys was responsible for atrocities committed during the earlier war or if he had arranged assassinations of members of the royal family or Bloodraven's family, etc. then this would change the perspective to a point.

You have no knowledge about Haegon's death or Bloodraven's whereabouts/involvement at that point, so no basis for the idea that Bloodraven was directly involved in that.

26 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Again, how is any of that meant to discredit Aenys Blackfyre and justify murdering him in cold blood? Bloodraven held all the cards, he was the one who offered Aenys protection and safe conduct. If he'd never replied to Aenys' letter, Aenys wouldn't have come.

That we don't know. Perhaps Aenys intended to come in any case - or have his people among the lords push his claim in absentia in any case.

Also, we don't really know what Bloodraven knew about Aenys and his plans when he arrested and executed him. Could be the man planned to murder the entire Targaryen family attending the council.

26 minutes ago, James Steller said:

And as I said before, if Aenys was that promising of a candidate, then maybe he could have earned the Iron Throne honestly, through the support of the council. And if he was good enough to do that, he might very well have been a worthy king in his own right, never mind Aegon V. Bloodraven's actions were not for the good of the realm, they were for the good of Bloodraven and House Targaryen. There might be explanations for Bloodraven's actions, but no excuses. 

In such a setting, loyalty to the ruling dynasty and the good of the Realm are one and the same. Maekar's Hand could not possibly consider anyone but a descendant of Maekar's a viable claimant to the throne. Anything else would have been treason.

And we can certainly say that the murder of Aenys Blackfyre was not done for the good of Lord Bloodraven since it led to his incarceration and subsequent banishment to the Wall. Bloodraven shot himself in the foot there, perhaps to help Egg along so he would not have to deal with Aenys himself, but this was certainly nothing he, personally, profited from.

[James Steller]

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You have no knowledge about Haegon's death or Bloodraven's whereabouts/involvement at that point, so no basis for the idea that Bloodraven was directly involved in that.

 

By your own logic, you have no knowledge of Aenys' role in the previous Blackfyre invasion. We have no evidence of Aenys' cruelty, duplicity, or anything remotely resembling bad faith. All we know for sure is that he asked permission to speak his case to the council, and he only travelled to King's Landing when safe conduct was promised. Maybe he did do the things you suggested, so maybe he was trying to watch his back, but even then, the fact that he's willing to trust the same family which may or may not have slain his elder brother dishonourably seems either too dumb or too naive for a man evil enough to deserve death.
 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That we don't know. Perhaps Aenys intended to come in any case - or have his people among the lords push his claim in absentia in any case.

Also, we don't really know what Bloodraven knew about Aenys and his plans when he arrested and executed him. Could be the man planned to murder the entire Targaryen family attending the council.

Again, that's speculation. I fully agree that Aenys might have been this way, and for that reason, I clarified in my first post that I'm waiting for GRRM to prove me wrong. But I doubt that your version is what it was. For if Aenys was really that sinister, acting so treacherously, planning murder, why would Egg go against his own blood-uncle and arrest him for murder? It is clear that Bloodraven acted unjustly, which I don't think would apply to a man who murdered a would-be assassin. Plus we would surely have gotten a hint of such a plot in the brief blurbs we've gotten thus far. And if GRRM turns that into some kind of twist, I don't think it will work.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In such a setting, loyalty to the ruling dynasty and the good of the Realm are one and the same. Maekar's Hand could not possibly consider anyone but a descendant of Maekar's a viable claimant to the throne. Anything else would have been treason.

And we can certainly say that the murder of Aenys Blackfyre was not done for the good of Lord Bloodraven since it led to his incarceration and subsequent banishment to the Wall. Bloodraven shot himself in the foot there, perhaps to help Egg along so he would not have to deal with Aenys himself, but this was certainly nothing he, personally, profited from.

With hindsight, no, he certainly gained nothing from it. And I'll admit, I can't prove or disprove that he knew he was going to be arrested, so it's pointless to argue over that. But I'll say this; whenever I envision the scene where Egg is crowned king and orders Bloodraven's arrest, it's a shock to everyone, and it's a sign to Dunk that Egg will be the king that Westeros needs. 
 

For the record, much as I wonder over Aenys and his potential as a possible ruler, I do like Aegon V, and I do think he did a good job fighting for the smallfolk. I'm not anti-Egg, I'm anti-Bloodraven. 

[Mourning Star]

2 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Huh?  Bloodraven was expressly given the choice to take the black or be executed.  Or do you mean something else?

I meant being arrested at all... sorry in retrospect this was obviously unclear.

I was responding to the idea that Bloodraven could have taken the throne by force. I was trying to say that I see the Great Council and the execution and flaunting of Aenys's head as Bloodraven's attempt at taking power. I don't think he was arrested by choice, and assume he intended things to play out differently. Presumably his loyal men were arrested with him.

2 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Egg even sent Dunk to make sure Bloodraven didn't escape like Bittersteal

Citation needed.

From the World Book:

 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.

You will note that in the history book Aemon is accompanying Bloodraven and the two hundred men who were sent with him, keep this in mind when reading Aemon's view below.

Also note the, "no one intercepted this ship". This is a direct reference to Bittersteal, whose ship was intercepted on the way to the Wall after he choose to take the black instead of being executed.

He sent me north aboard the Golden Dragon, and insisted that his friend Ser Duncan see me safe to Eastwatch. No recruit had arrived at the Wall with so much pomp since Nymeria sent the Watch six kings in golden fetters. Egg emptied out the dungeons too, so I would not need to say my vows alone. My honor guard, he called them. One was no less a man than Brynden Rivers. Later he was chosen lord commander.

Why did Egg insist Dunk accompany the ship? To make sure the prisoners made it to the Wall, especially Bloodraven.

Want another cool detail? Look at who the six kings were who Nymeria sent to the Wall and see if you can see anything that might relate to Bloodraven:

Yorick Yronwood - “Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest..." Said while Hamlet holds his skull.

Vorian Dayne - What I can only assume is a reference to Vorian Atredies, the founder of House Atredies in Dune. 13th son who lived many human lifetimes. (Atredies means "House of Atreus", a royal family of Greek myth which is cursed.)

Garrison Fowler - The Blind King. Phineus of Greek myth was the blind king who misused prophesy and/or chose long life over the ability to see. He advised the Argonauts how to get past the Stymphalian birds. Also, more literally, a "garrison" is usually where you keep troops and a "fowler" hunts birds.

Lucifer Dryland -  King of the Brimstone and Lord of Hellgate Hall. As far as literary references can go, you can't lay it on much thicker than this one. Lucifer, meaning light bringer, and a name for Venus as the Morning Star, is also a title for the Devil.

Benedict Blackmont - Benedict is a name synonymous with being a traitor, thanks Arnold. Benedict worshipped a dark god and was said to have the power to transform himself into a vulture of enormous size

Albin Manwoody - The root of "Albin" means "white". Manwoody... White man tree.

2 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Citation needed.

See the quotes above.

Aemon says Egg emptied the dungeons, including Bloodraven, when sending men to the Wall here. Aegon calling them Aemon's Honor Guard is cute, like insisting Dunk go along, but you'll notice no mention of some other large group of volunteers going with them.

The World Book says that the Raven's Teeth went with Bloodraven.

Simple deduction will tell us that the Raven's Teeth were other prisoners who choose to go with Bloodraven to the Wall.

Is this the only possible scenario, probably not, but it sure fits with all the information we have.

2 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Or it's just as plausible that Bloodraven physically joined with the weirwood tree in an attempt to survive long enough to mentor Bran. 

That would still violate his Night's Watch vow.

I shall live and die at my post.

2 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

And, of course, it's just as plausible to posit Bloodraven would do this because he thinks Bran is integral in the coming resistance to the Others.  And, of course, IF these things are true then Bloodraven would actually be fulfilling his oath to the NW perhaps more than almost any other member in it's history. 

No he wouldn't.

You can play all the games with words you want, but Bloodraven isn't dead, nobody stood over his body and declared his watch at an end, and he swore to remain at his post until he died.

The monsters cannot pass so long as the Wall stands and the men of the Night's Watch stay true, that's what Old Nan used to say.

2 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

Only time will tell   

One can only hope!

[Mourning Star]

50 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And we can certainly say that the murder of Aenys Blackfyre was not done for the good of Lord Bloodraven since it led to his incarceration and subsequent banishment to the Wall.

No we cannot say that.

How can you make up wild scenarios about totally made up Blackfyre assassination plots to try and hand wave away Bloodraven's actions in one paragraph then claim you know for a certainty that because Bloodraven ended up in a dungeon sentenced to die that he wasn't trying to do something for his own benefit? The most likely way someone ends up in a dungeon sentenced to die is because they tried to do something for their own benefit! But we certainly can't know!

I mean not only is it totally illogical, it's comical! 

If Bloodraven was "loyal" to the Targaryen Dynasty there was no reason for a Great Council, Maegor was the obvious rightful heir. As the son of Aegon the Unworthy, I think it's a preposterous case to try and make that Bloodraven somehow thought the quality of the father would determine that of the son.

All that said, I think Bloodraven thought of himself as a Targaryen, having been legitimized, and would have considered making himself king (in name, not just all but name) the best thing for the realm.

[frenin]

On 11/28/2021 at 8:23 PM, James Steller said:

There's a clear villain in the Aenys Blackfyre story, and it's not him.

Aenys's murder, just like Daeron's murder by breaking the truce by the Dornish.

They are heinous acts only sanctioned because people like the perpetrators.

 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 6:05 PM, Canon Claude said:

Yes, Aenys was slain unjustly (far as we know), but giving the Iron Throne to a Blackfyre would mean trouble for everyone, not just the Targaryen branch

He wouldn't have gotten the throne tho.

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

25 minutes ago, James Steller said:

By your own logic, you have no knowledge of Aenys' role in the previous Blackfyre invasion. We have no evidence of Aenys' cruelty, duplicity, or anything remotely resembling bad faith. All we know for sure is that he asked permission to speak his case to the council, and he only travelled to King's Landing when safe conduct was promised. Maybe he did do the things you suggested, so maybe he was trying to watch his back, but even then, the fact that he's willing to trust the same family which may or may not have slain his elder brother dishonourably seems either too dumb or too naive for a man evil enough to deserve death.

Of course not - which is why I offered this is a speculative answer to the matter at hand. Because I don't think Bloodraven's actions can be explained only by 'I really don't like those Blackfyres'. Keep in mind that - unlike with Bittersteel, Haegon, or Aenys - we actually have met Bloodraven firsthand in TMK and can judge his character a tidbit better than those of folks who are just historical figures to us. At least the Bloodraven from TMK is no bloodthirsty monster.

You gave the impression that we have or should assume that Bloodraven had a Hand in Haegon's death - for which there is just no evidence.

In fact, we also have evidence that he defeated and captured Bittersteel in 319 AC after that second duel they had ... and this not resulting in Bittersteel's cold-blooded murder certainly could indicate that Bloodraven didn't want to see Haegon dead. He also didn't kill Daemon II after he captured him in TMK. After all, Bloodraven loathed Bittersteel much more than any of the Blackfyre boys most of which he never met.

Also, just stop pretending 'the Targaryens' had a hand in Haegon's death. We have no idea who captured and murdered him. It could have been pretty much anyone considering anyone can capture an enemy combatant/general in a battle. The Blackfyres could and might view 'the Targaryens' as the guilty party there ... but neither Aerys I, Maekar, Bloodraven, Aerion, Egg, etc. had to have an active hand in all that. They could have had a hand in it, but so far we really don't know.

25 minutes ago, James Steller said:

Again, that's speculation. I fully agree that Aenys might have been this way, and for that reason, I clarified in my first post that I'm waiting for GRRM to prove me wrong. But I doubt that your version is what it was. For if Aenys was really that sinister, acting so treacherously, planning murder, why would Egg go against his own blood-uncle and arrest him for murder? It is clear that Bloodraven acted unjustly, which I don't think would apply to a man who murdered a would-be assassin. Plus we would surely have gotten a hint of such a plot in the brief blurbs we've gotten thus far. And if GRRM turns that into some kind of twist, I don't think it will work.

Bloodraven could have just evidence gained by skinchanging or other magical means. They could not possibly present such evidence to the lords and the public, so Bloodraven would have to take the fall for this as a completely evil act.

25 minutes ago, James Steller said:

With hindsight, no, he certainly gained nothing from it. And I'll admit, I can't prove or disprove that he knew he was going to be arrested, so it's pointless to argue over that. But I'll say this; whenever I envision the scene where Egg is crowned king and orders Bloodraven's arrest, it's a shock to everyone, and it's a sign to Dunk that Egg will be the king that Westeros needs.

It's not just the arrest and the banishment to the Wall. The succeeding king could not possibly keep him as Hand after that affront.

26 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

How can you make up wild scenarios about totally made up Blackfyre assassination plots to try and hand wave away Bloodraven's actions in one paragraph then claim you know for a certainty that because Bloodraven ended up in a dungeon sentenced to die that he wasn't trying to do something for his own benefit? The most likely way someone ends up in a dungeon sentenced to die is because they tried to do something for their own benefit! But we certainly can't know!

Because, as I said above, Bloodraven must have known that after doing this the succeeding king - whoever he might be - could not keep him as Hand. He could lose his head over this, but he most definitely would lose his office. There was no way around that. If he had wanted to keep his office he would have had murdered Aenys clandestinely - which he certainly would have been capable of considering that he is a sorcerer.

26 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

If Bloodraven was "loyal" to the Targaryen Dynasty there was no reason for a Great Council, Maegor was the obvious rightful heir. As the son of Aegon the Unworthy, I think it's a preposterous case to try and make that Bloodraven somehow thought the quality of the father would determine that of the son.

Loyalty to the dynasty doesn't mean you are loyal to an infant child. If folks had viewed the succession as crystal clear there wouldn't have been a Great Council because the royals and the lords would have just told Bloodraven: 'Fuck off, we don't need a Great Council. We already know who will be king.'

But that didn't happen, apparently.

At the very least we have to assume that King Maekar didn't acknowledge an heir prior to his death nor did he create a Prince of Dragonstone after Aerion's death (assuming he had acknowledged him as his heir which I've trouble imagining since the man was a cruel madman completely unsuited to be king).

That in and of itself would cause confusion. If the late king didn't know whether his youngest son or one of his grandchildren should succeed him, then how could the court and the lords?

And even if they could agree on a monarch then the question of the regency government would be heavily contested. Vaella as Queen Regnant may have required a regency for life, the reign of King Maegor II would have meant a regency government for at about fifteen years at least. Should Bloodraven serve as Lord Regent and Hand? Or would Egg serve as Prince Regent and effectively king in the name of his niece or nephew? Would they create as chaotic a regency government as had troubled the Realm during the minority of Aegon III? And so on and so forth?

26 minutes ago, Mourning Star said:

All that said, I think Bloodraven thought of himself as a Targaryen, having been legitimized, and would have considered making himself king (in name, not just all but name) the best thing for the realm.

If that were the case - and it certainly is an interesting idea - then it is odd that nobody, so far, named him as a claimant at the Great Council. Technically if he wanted to be king his claim would have been considered, should have been considered, in fact.

It might turn out that it was, but Bloodraven's time to claim the throne would have been after the death of Aerys I, not after the death of Maekar. He was too old in 233 AC, without a wife and, to our knowledge, without (trueborn) heirs of his own body. Even if he had become more popular after the Third Rebellion and during Maekar's reign, making such an old guy king at that point would have only postponed whatever succession struggle was brewing among Maekar's descendants.

I mean, perhaps it might turn out that Bloodraven was after the throne in the wake of Aelor's death. They named Aelora the heiress then, which is unusual, so perhaps Bloodraven planned to marry the widowed Aelora and rule at her side as Prince Consort. Nothing came of that because she killed herself.

I have a gut feeling that Maekar only ends up as their and successor of Aerys I because he is going to play a crucial role in the defeat of Haegon Blackfyre in 319 AC.

[Brynden"Bloodraven" Rivers]

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

He did not fight honorably, the opposite in fact.

He did what needed to be done and saved the most loyalist lives by killing Daemon Blackfyre.

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I would bet he was the archer who murdered Fireball before the battle, and the other way to tell the story of the Redgrass field is that he killed Daemon's sons so he would not run when Daemon stopped to help a defeated foe.

All is fair in love and war, even prematurely killing off valuable allies. If you play the game of thrones, prepared to face the consequences.

 

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

During the time that Bloodraven ruled the Seven Kingdoms in all but name how many Targaryens in line for the throne died? I don't think he was above a little murder of family members, clearly.

All of them were caused by Bloodraven? That seems highly unlikely. Even if we accept the fact that he is an all powerful sorcerer, it is simply impossible for him to do this. And also, Bloodraven was Hand of the King for seven years during Aerys's reign and then Maekar, a strong and decisive leader stepped in.

 

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Unclear how hard it would be... especially with Dunk around.

Why and how would Dunk be an obstacle. From what we see in the prequels and TWOIAF, Dunk is not a very good knight. He is easily defeated by all of his opponents and gets trashed by a thirteen year old Barristan Selmy at Storm's End. Dunk is just tall, he isn't a particularly good fighter or anything.

 

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Why didn't he crown Maegor in the first place? He was the rightful heir.

I think it is because he was sick of being king in all but name, and wanted to be king.

Maegor was a baby who had a mentally ill father and if Maegor was crowned, guess who the regent would be? Brynden himself. Crowning Maegor would have been a good move for Brynden.

 

6 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

Right, so I'm suggesting this great council was his attempt to take power.

There is no reason to think Bloodraven had a choice about his fate. Egg even sent Dunk to make sure Bloodraven didn't escape like Bittersteal. Nothing about that suggests Bloodraven was trusted in this. It seems like his Raven's Teeth were in the dungeons with him, and many made the same choice he did, take the black rather than die.

Bloodraven subsequently abandoned his post after 13 years as lord commander, and still lives, meaning he broke his oath.

How would Bloodraven, who is despised by nearly all of the realm as a bastard sorcerer and demonspawn have any chance at winning a Great Council. The previous Blackfyre loyalists hate him for having the highest amount of Blackfyre kills in the lobby, the common lords view him as an interloper and possibly another Blackfyre and the highborn loyalists atmost view him as a reasonable political counselor. No one wants Brynden on the throne, especially not with so many pureborn Targs around.

[Prince of the North]

 

3 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I meant being arrested at all... sorry in retrospect this was obviously unclear.

I was responding to the idea that Bloodraven could have taken the throne by force. I was trying to say that I see the Great Council and the execution and flaunting of Aenys's head as Bloodraven's attempt at taking power. I don't think he was arrested by choice, and assume he intended things to play out differently. Presumably his loyal men were arrested with him.

I disagree with your theory here.  And yes, the bolded certainly is nothing more than a presumption on your part. (Bolding mine)

Quote

From the World Book:

 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.

You will note that in the history book Aemon is accompanying Bloodraven and the two hundred men who were sent with him, keep this in mind when reading Aemon's view below.

Also note the, "no one intercepted this ship". This is a direct reference to Bittersteal, whose ship was intercepted on the way to the Wall after he choose to take the black instead of being executed.

He sent me north aboard the Golden Dragon, and insisted that his friend Ser Duncan see me safe to Eastwatch. No recruit had arrived at the Wall with so much pomp since Nymeria sent the Watch six kings in golden fetters. Egg emptied out the dungeons too, so I would not need to say my vows alone. My honor guard, he called them. One was no less a man than Brynden Rivers. Later he was chosen lord commander.

Why did Egg insist Dunk accompany the ship? To make sure the prisoners made it to the Wall, especially Bloodraven.

[snipped the rest for length]

So...Aemon wasn't simply stating a fact?  It's quite plausible that he was.  But you instead need Aemon to be "being cute" when he said his brother, King Aegon V, insisted Dunk "see him safe" to the Wall because it fits your narrative. 

Quote

See the quotes above.

Aemon says Egg emptied the dungeons, including Bloodraven, when sending men to the Wall here. Aegon calling them Aemon's Honor Guard is cute, like insisting Dunk go along, but you'll notice no mention of some other large group of volunteers going with them.

The World Book says that the Raven's Teeth went with Bloodraven.

Simple deduction will tell us that the Raven's Teeth were other prisoners who choose to go with Bloodraven to the Wall.

Is this the only possible scenario, probably not, but it sure fits with all the information we have.

Nah, this is not "simple deduction" at all and does not fit with all the information we have.  It is instead what you need it to be to fit your narrative/theory/interpretation.  If you can't produce a quote that explicitly states that the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven then stop stating that they were.  It's just as plausible that they weren't and went willingly with their commander out of loyalty.  Again, please produce the quote that explicitly proves the Ravens Teeth were imprisoned with Bloodraven or stop saying they were.

Quote

That would still violate his Night's Watch vow.

I shall live and die at my post.

No he wouldn't.

You can play all the games with words you want, but Bloodraven isn't dead, nobody stood over his body and declared his watch at an end, and he swore to remain at his post until he died.

The monsters cannot pass so long as the Wall stands and the men of the Night's Watch stay true, that's what Old Nan used to say.

One can only hope!

Hmm...can one fulfill the spirit of an oath while seemingly violating the letter of the oath?  Pretty sure it can happen and, indeed, we've already seen it happen multiple times in ASoIaF (and it's gonna happen more, I think).  It's you who are "playing games with words" here by wanting to hold Bloodraven to the exact letter of his oath to the NW because, again, you need him to be an oathbreaker to fit your narrative.