A specific plot point compromises the potential of the Dance (spoilers)

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

According to Aemon they've (whoever they is) have been trying to decipher the prince that was promised prophecy for a thousand years.  So it's much older than Aegon the Conqueror.

Yes, the older savior prophecy later revelations are based on or connected to. Back in the Valyrian version of that there must be talk about 'a dragon' meaning a dragonlord but the word is later translated as 'prince' once the Targaryens are Westerosi royalty.

I imagine Aegon also had dreams about that and coined the term 'promised prince' to refer to that person.

[Frey family reunion]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, the older savior prophecy later revelations are based on or connected to. Back in the Valyrian version of that there must be talk about 'a dragon' meaning a dragonlord but the word is later translated as 'prince' once the Targaryens are Westerosi royalty.

I imagine Aegon also had dreams about that and coined the term 'promised prince' to refer to that person.

I've heard that theory before and it doesn't really make any sense.  There is no reason that the Valyrian word for dragon or dragonlord should ever be mistranslated into Prince.  It's not like trying to decipher First Men runes.  The issue isn't Prince vs Dragon, it's whether Prince was gender specific.  That's what Aemon believes fooled them.  That they were looking for a Prince, i.e. a male.

And the specific word "Prince" was what had fooled them for a thousand years.  So it predates Aegon the Conqueror. 

Once again, I point to a Rhoynish angle here.  Prince is their highest sovereign.  Yet their highest sovereign, unlike the Andals could be male or female, it was interchangeable.  So presumably the Rhoynish term from Prince might have encompassed Princess as well.

Now Aemon's reference to Septon Barth is interesting however.  Because Septon Barth's Unnatural History wasn't focused on messianic figures or people who titled themselves as "dragons".  He wrote about literal dragons.  Which implies to me that the Prince that was Promised may be a dragon in a more literal sense than figurative.  

My gut feeling is that Aemon believes that a Prince that was Promised is more than a mere dragon rider.  After all people have been trying to figure out this prophecy and how it can come about for a thousand years.  There may have been at least a thousand dragon riders during that time period, yet no one who fit the prophecy.

My guess is that Aerys and Aerion's delusions about transforming into dragons may have originated with some of these prophecies that their families were trying to fulfill.  In other words, the riddle is a Valyrian Sphinx.  A dragon with the "head" of a human.  In other words, how can a Targaryen transfer their consciousness into a dragon?  Truly a second life worthy of a king.

[C.T. Phipps]

On 8/22/2022 at 6:24 PM, BlackLightning said:

I don't think  it's common.

Because clearly neither Daenys' brother nor father had those dreams.

Aerys II having green dreams might actually explain why he was such a paranoid wreck.

[dsjj251]

On 8/22/2022 at 5:30 AM, Dreadscythe95 said:

I loved the pilot of the show but I am a bit sad that Hollywood can't really escape from it's pretentious mediocrity nowdays and doesn't want to truly divide the audience. The Dance of The Dragons is a civil War with no clear good and bad guys, it's people personalities and agendas with immense power clashing and burning the world along with them.

Yeah Rhaenyra is slightly more favorably written than the Greens but bt giving her the whole plot of carrying the information of The Long Night it instantly gives her a justification, removing her personal ambitions and egotism and it makes her a mainly tragic hero that did everything for the good of humanity and it annoys me because it's the story Martin told.

What do you guys think?

 

 

I dont get this argument, she was the acknowledged heir. Its that simple for me. The throne was hers and it was taken. She is justified on that alone. 

[C.T. Phipps]

20 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

I dont get this argument, she was the acknowledged heir. Its that simple for me. The throne was hers and it was taken. She is justified on that alone. 

The Greens have a fairly decent legal argument, if you believe precedent is actually triumphing over king's choice when dealing with who is the hereditary dictator of a nation. However, the king's decree was clear and the Greens did some unseemly and nasty business behind the scenes to try to forward Aegon's claim. We also know if they did call ANOTHER Great Council, Aegon would have won handily.

However:

1. Aegon II is a manifestly unworthy bastard and so is his brother.

2. They have no way of reversing the royal decree if Aegon II wasn't ever a king in the first place. Which he wasn't.

Sadly, Stannis certainly believes Rhaenyra was a usurper. Which is part of his own characterization that believes he's entitled to be king despite the fact his brother is a usurper.

[Dreadscythe95]

On 8/24/2022 at 10:58 PM, Lord Varys said:

Valyrian daggers are not that rare. Again, the catspaw dagger is costly in the books, but still plain. It is clear that no common thief would have such a weapon ... but it also doesn't point directly at the king.

This! This is the reason that weapon was choses by Geroge for the plot. A weapon that not a common lowborn would have but it's not certain that is a Great House possesion.

[Dreadscythe95]

13 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

 

 

I dont get this argument, she was the acknowledged heir. Its that simple for me. The throne was hers and it was taken. She is justified on that alone. 

Yes it's true but the law of Westeros prefered men of women to rule and in the end of the day:

"How far will you go for Rome?" What are you willing to do for power? Stannis had the biggest right as well but the things he did for power corrupted his cause. Rhaenyra was right, as Rhaenys was as well. But burning the world for your right is not righteous.

[dsjj251]

3 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Yes it's true but the law of Westeros prefered men of women to rule and in the end of the day:

"How far will you go for Rome?" What are you willing to do for power? Stannis had the biggest right as well but the things he did for power corrupted his cause. Rhaenyra was right, as Rhaenys was as well. But burning the world for your right is not righteous.

How exactly did Rhaenyra burn the world ????

Rhaenyra didnt even march her army on any of her enemies first, that was Aegon II. 

[dsjj251]

16 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The Greens have a fairly decent legal argument, if you believe precedent is actually triumphing over king's choice when dealing with who is the hereditary dictator of a nation. However, the king's decree was clear and the Greens did some unseemly and nasty business behind the scenes to try to forward Aegon's claim. We also know if they did call ANOTHER Great Council, Aegon would have won handily.

However:

1. Aegon II is a manifestly unworthy bastard and so is his brother.

2. They have no way of reversing the royal decree if Aegon II wasn't ever a king in the first place. Which he wasn't.

Sadly, Stannis certainly believes Rhaenyra was a usurper. Which is part of his own characterization that believes he's entitled to be king despite the fact his brother is a usurper.

This argument doesnt really work when Jaehaerys himself set precedent by naming  Aerea as his heir , and Rogar was fine with putting Rhaena or Aerea on the throne.  There was no law saying only a women could inherit.

[Dreadscythe95]

1 hour ago, dsjj251 said:

How exactly did Rhaenyra burn the world ????

Rhaenyra didnt even march her army on any of her enemies first, that was Aegon II. 

Are you serious? The Dance takes two.

[dsjj251]

44 minutes ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Are you serious? The Dance takes two.

Ok, everyone has different philosophical views on the world, but your argument is that Rhaenyra should have both allowed her son to be killed, and then her supporters to be slaughtered.

Your argument is that "it takes two", but in reality Aegon not only drew blood, but was willing to wipe out and killed Rhaenyra when at that point all she had done was state her rights and send ravens/crows. 

Im not sure if you are being serious or playing devil's advocate

[Dreadscythe95]

2 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Ok, everyone has different philosophical views on the world, but your argument is that Rhaenyra should have both allowed her son to be killed, and then her supporters to be slaughtered.

Your argument is that "it takes two", but in reality Aegon not only drew blood, but was willing to wipe out and killed Rhaenyra when at that point all she had done was state her rights and send ravens/crows. 

Im not sure if you are being serious or playing devil's advocate

It was already war when her son was killed, he went to Storm's End to take Lord Baratrheon to his mother's side in the upcoming conflict, it's not a philosophical point. Yes, she was the righteous ruler and The Greens were a bit worse but don't forget that the only thing they did was crown Aegon according to the laws of Westeros. Lord Beesbury was murdered because he denied whom they considered the King by the laws of Westeros. It was Westeros tradition and the will of the nobility (who support males over females) vs the will of Viserys (the previous King) and Rhaenyra. Raenyra could have gone to King's Landing, bend the knee and noone would die, there would be piece. It's not about what is right and wrong for The Targaryens here cause Rhaenyra was definitely right from our point of view, it 2022 in Earth after all. It's about Westeros society. Hundreds of people were murdered, the realm was distabilized and in ruins. The Dynasty was weakened. Rhaenyra should have been Queen but when she was stripped from it by her halfbrother she was willing to burn The Realm to the torch for what was hers. 

[dsjj251]

10 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

It was already war when her son was killed, he went to Storm's End to take Lord Baratrheon to his mother's side in the upcoming conflict, it's not a philosophical point. Yes, she was the righteous ruler and The Greens were a bit worse but don't forget that the only thing they did was crown Aegon according to the laws of Westeros. Lord Beesbury was murdered because he denied whom they considered the King by the laws of Westeros. It was Westeros tradition and the will of the nobility (who support males over females) vs the will of Viserys (the previous King) and Rhaenyra. Raenyra could have gone to King's Landing, bend the knee and noone would die, there would be piece. It's not about what is right and wrong for The Targaryens here cause Rhaenyra was definitely right from our point of view, it 2022 in Earth after all. It's about Westeros society. Hundreds of people were murdered, the realm was distabilized and in ruins. The Dynasty was weakened. Rhaenyra should have been Queen but when she was stripped from it by her halfbrother she was willing to burn The Realm to the torch for what was hers. 

 

1. There is no law in westeroes stating women cant inherit, in fact daughters always come before uncles , and men can indeed name their own heirs. 

2.  Viserys named Rhaenyra has heir, and lords swore fealty, including Otto Hightower himself

3. You are trying to define Prince Luke flying to  Storm's end as an act of aggression as if Aemon already being there isnt one . And again, even in that context, Luke was only a messenger, he didnt go there to fight, but Aemon did. 

4. As you admitted, the Greens killed first and often.  Rhaenyra was never the agressor so blood was split because Aegon II was clearly a tyrant in the context of the books. So it was Aegon who actually was willing to burn everything, not Rhaenyra.

5. The "Will of Nobility" was literally  them swearing to defend Rhaenyera, and her side eventually won the war with greater numbers overall, so obviously nobility is actually fine with a women being ruling queen. Rhaenyra had the support of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Narrow sea Lords and most of the Reach.  

literally, every argument you made starts with admitting Aegon did something bad, and your argument for why Rhaenyra is at fault is simply because she existed, LOL. How exactly do you believe that to be a good argument or even make sense. its like you are cosplaying as  Green supporter. 

[Dreadscythe95]

5 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

 

1. There is no law in westeroes stating women cant inherit, in fact daughters always come before uncles , and men can indeed name their own heirs. 

2.  Viserys named Rhaenyra has heir, and lords swore fealty, including Otto Hightower himself

3. You are trying to define Prince Luke flying to  Storm's end as an act of aggression as if Aemon already being there isnt one . And again, even in that context, Luke was only a messenger, he didnt go there to fight, but Aemon did. 

4. As you admitted, the Greens killed first and often.  Rhaenyra was never the agressor so blood was split because Aegon II was clearly a tyrant in the context of the books. So it was Aegon who actually was willing to burn everything, not Rhaenyra.

5. The "Will of Nobility" was literally  them swearing to defend Rhaenyera, and her side eventually won the war with greater numbers overall, so obviously nobility is actually fine with a women being ruling queen. Rhaenyra had the support of the North, Vale, Riverlands, Narrow sea Lords and most of the Reach.  

literally, every argument you made starts with admitting Aegon did something bad, and your argument for why Rhaenyra is at fault is simply because she existed, LOL. How exactly do you believe that to be a good argument or even make sense. its like you are cosplaying as  Green supporter. 

But the Greens did bad things, noone denied this.

Westerosi tradition (there was no written law) says that if there is man he is before a woman to inherit. 

Both princes went to Stroms End for the same thing. One was just stroger and took revenge for his eye.

What do you mean the agressor was never Rhaenyra? When The War begins both sides did War, everyone answerfed the othe rhow and when they could, are you really that delusional?

Calling me a Green supporter because I state the obvious, that both sides where in the end part of the civil war the devastated the realm is insulting

The fact that you try to make a confict that Martin and the book itself has clearly stated that was a civil conflict that no side was right and devastated the realm, into a a black tragedy is beyond infuriating.

Believe what you want but to say that the cause justies the means in what every dictator says.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

But the Greens did bad things, noone denied this.

Westerosi tradition (there was no written law) says that if there is man he is before a woman to inherit. 

Both princes went to Stroms End for the same thing. One was just stroger and took revenge for his eye.

What do you mean the agressor was never Rhaenyra? When The War begins both sides did War, everyone answerfed the othe rhow and when they could, are you really that delusional?

Calling me a Green supporter because I state the obvious, that both sides where in the end part of the civil war the devastated the realm is insulting

The fact that you try to make a confict that Martin and the book itself has clearly stated that was a civil conflict that no side was right and devastated the realm, into a a black tragedy is beyond infuriating.

Believe what you want but to say that the cause justies the means in what every dictator says.

If, say, Trump’s comic opera insurgency had been much better-organised, with Red State governors proclaiming him the President, with the backing of much of the army, I think Biden would still have been justified in using force to assert his right to be President.

This principle of legitimacy is the same for Rhaenyra.  She was not the aggressor in this war.  The Greens threw the first punches.

[Lord Varys]

On 8/27/2022 at 12:21 AM, C.T. Phipps said:

The Greens have a fairly decent legal argument, if you believe precedent is actually triumphing over king's choice when dealing with who is the hereditary dictator of a nation. However, the king's decree was clear and the Greens did some unseemly and nasty business behind the scenes to try to forward Aegon's claim. We also know if they did call ANOTHER Great Council, Aegon would have won handily.

Not really sure about that. If that were so, then they likely would have used the time advantage they had to invite the lords to a Great Council at KL. Keep in mind that in the books Jaehaerys I had already passed Rhaenys over in 92 AC. Corlys and she tried to push Laenor as a new alternative to Viserys because back in 92 AC the late Prince Aemon didn't have a grandson yet.

But Rhaenys' own claim was very much damaged by the king's decision in 92 AC.

However, something similar could not be said at a hypothetical Great Council in 129 AC. Rhaenyra Targaryen was the chosen and anointed heir of her father, King Viserys I. Anyone arguing against her claim would have to argue against the decrees and wishes of the late king, the vows many lords and knights swore in 105 AC, and the way Rhaenyra had been treated and styled from 105-129 AC - namely as the Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. While people may have thought the king shouldn't have done this - he did it, and he had the right to do it, so they couldn't really argue against this precedent.

What muddied the water there was the coup and the subsequent coronation of Aegon II. That really created an alternative pretender. If Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Aegon had to put forth their own claims before the lords things it wouldn't have been a close thing, one imagines. After all, if half the Realm is willing to go to war over this issue, then one can only imagine that more than half the Realm may have been willing to support Rhaenyra peacefully.

There is no chance that she would have lost against Aegon 20:1 like Laenor lost against Viserys.

I'd argue that Rhaenyra herself only dismisses the idea of a Great Council in 130 AC because by that time Aegon II is already a crowned and anointed monarch. He is a viable alternative to her, so there is a decent enough chance she might lose at such a council. Although, as her military support shows, it could still be a close thing.

[SeanF]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not really sure about that. If that were so, then they likely would have used the time advantage they had to invite the lords to a Great Council at KL. Keep in mind that in the books Jaehaerys I had already passed Rhaenys over in 92 AC. Corlys and she tried to push Laenor as a new alternative to Viserys because back in 92 AC the late Prince Aemon didn't have a grandson yet.

But Rhaenys' own claim was very much damaged by the king's decision in 92 AC.

However, something similar could not be said at a hypothetical Great Council in 129 AC. Rhaenyra Targaryen was the chosen and anointed heir of her father, King Viserys I. Anyone arguing against her claim would have to argue against the decrees and wishes of the late king, the vows many lords and knights swore in 105 AC, and the way Rhaenyra had been treated and styled from 105-129 AC - namely as the Princess of Dragonstone and Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. While people may have thought the king shouldn't have done this - he did it, and he had the right to do it, so they couldn't really argue against this precedent.

What muddied the water there was the coup and the subsequent coronation of Aegon II. That really created an alternative pretender. If Princess Rhaenyra and Prince Aegon had to put forth their own claims before the lords things it wouldn't have been a close thing, one imagines. After all, if half the Realm is willing to go to war over this issue, then one can only imagine that more than half the Realm may have been willing to support Rhaenyra peacefully.

There is no chance that she would have lost against Aegon 20:1 like Laenor lost against Viserys.

I'd argue that Rhaenyra herself only dismisses the idea of a Great Council in 130 AC because by that time Aegon II is already a crowned and anointed monarch. He is a viable alternative to her, so there is a decent enough chance she might lose at such a council. Although, as her military support shows, it could still be a close thing.

Once the Greens used violence as a first resort, I’d say they lost any right to have a Great Council judge their claim.

[C.T. Phipps]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Once the Greens used violence as a first resort, I’d say they lost any right to have a Great Council judge their claim.

The murder of a member of the Small Council and Aemond's own kinslaying.

 But by Blood and Cheese, both sides have been vilified.

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The murder of a member of the Small Council and Aemond's own kinslaying.

But by Blood and Cheese, both sides have been vilified.

The Greens are almost always the aggressors. They shed the first blood, they first imprison people, they first shed royal blood, etc. The Blacks kind of open military matters by taking Harrenhal, but that, in turn, is just a reaction to Aegon's coronation.

But it is especially glaring where the escalation of violence is concerned. The Greens first arrest and imprison and execute people, and Rhaenyra just pays them back in kind.

At first glance it seems stupid that she executes the turncloaks Stokeworth and Rosby ... but in light of how many lords (and one lady) went into death willingly for her, refusing to renounce her queenship one can actually argue that she would be spitting on the graves of those martyrs if she were to welcome every opportunist back into the fold.

[Lord Varys]

On 8/26/2022 at 1:32 PM, Frey family reunion said:

I've heard that theory before and it doesn't really make any sense.  There is no reason that the Valyrian word for dragon or dragonlord should ever be mistranslated into Prince.  It's not like trying to decipher First Men runes.  The issue isn't Prince vs Dragon, it's whether Prince was gender specific.  That's what Aemon believes fooled them.  That they were looking for a Prince, i.e. a male.

I imagine it wasn't that much 'translated' but rather the word 'prince' replaced the older word which could have been scion or son or something along those lines when the Targaryens became royalty.

We have no idea about the Valyrian language but the fact that the Targaryens are always kind of confused about whether they are dragons or humans, one imagines that the Valyrian word for 'dragon' and 'dragonlord' is either very similar or outright the same, with the context deciding whether you talk about the dragon itself or its master.

On 8/26/2022 at 1:32 PM, Frey family reunion said:

And the specific word "Prince" was what had fooled them for a thousand years.  So it predates Aegon the Conqueror.

The prophecy fooled them. Aemon makes it clear that it must have been a Valyrian word connected to 'dragons' since his argument in favor of Dany being the promised prince is that dragons can change their sex, meaning he thinks or knows that the original Valyrian (or in whatever language the old prophecy was written down) made it clear the person in question was 'a dragon' in some sense.

On 8/26/2022 at 1:32 PM, Frey family reunion said:

Once again, I point to a Rhoynish angle here.  Prince is their highest sovereign.  Yet their highest sovereign, unlike the Andals could be male or female, it was interchangeable.  So presumably the Rhoynish term from Prince might have encompassed Princess as well.

Don't think there is a reason to assume this. They could have had gendered terms for that, like they still do in Dorne.