Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

No, the prophecy was clearly translated and according to Aemon that's where the error crept in:

Quote

“No one ever looked for a girl,” he said. “It was a prince that was promised, not a princess. ”

Quote

“The error crept in from the translation.”

Quote

“The language misled us all for a thousand years.”

An interesting question is who did Aemon mean when he said:

Quote

“What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise!”

I think there are really only two possibilities, he either meant that the fools were himself and Rhaegar, for looking only to the Targaryen sons, or he's talking about the Citadel.  If so when he said that the language misled "us all" for a thousand years, he's referring to the Maesters.

While I understand the knee jerk reaction to just assume that everything that the Targaryens had interest in, only dealt with their Valyrian heritage, I think it's a mistake.  

GRRM went out of his way to interweave Dorne with the Targaryens.  Starting with Baelor the Blessed, when he arranged the marriage pact.  

Then the Blackfyre rebellion highlighted the idea that the Targaryens had become too Dornish for the liking of many of the lords, and they preferred their royal family to be of purer Valyrian stock.

But it was Bloodraven who seemed to make sure that the Targaryen line originating from Myriah Martell as opposed to Daena the defiant remained in power, going to great lengths to ensure it.

Finally Rhaegar comes to believe that his half Dornish son, is the one who fulfills the role of the prince that was promised.

My guess is that the prophecy, especially if it is a thousand years old, might contain Valyrian and Rhoynish aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Frey family reunion said:

I think there are really only two possibilities, he either meant that the fools were himself and Rhaegar, for looking only to the Targaryen sons, or he's talking about the Citadel.  If so when he said that the language misled "us all" for a thousand years, he's referring to the Maesters.

Maybe he meant all Targaryens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Maybe he meant all Targaryens?

I don't think he meant the Targaryens when he said: 

“What fools we were, who thought ourselves so wise!”

I don't' think a defining characteristic of the Targaryens has ever been their wisdom, even among themselves.  Powerful, entitled, special, yes, but wise?  Not really.

Of course the other possibility is that when he said the language misled "us all" he could have simply been referring to everyone who had tried to decipher the prophecy.  Unlike the direction the show seems to be heading in, it does not appear in the books that the prince that was promised prophecy was a secret Targaryen prophecy.  Aemon assumes that Melisandre is aware of the prophecy and has no problem in asking her about it publicly.  

I think certain academic and/or occult circles were all probably aware of the prophecy whether Targaryen or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

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.

No it's not the same at all, you are comparing apples with oranges here. Trump would completely undermine Democracy, throwing it off the window. It's not Biden as a person that would move against him, it's the whole US state as a constitution that would move against him. Biden and all democratic people will move under the same "banner" against Trump and his supporters. They are not Kings to act as a standalone entity, Trump could as a dicatotor but the state that woudl react to it is exactly that, a state, becaus eof Democracy. The Greens play inside the Westeros bureocracy rules. Aegon is the first male heir. To say they overthrow the system is a lie. They userp the throne yes, but they use a claim. If there was no claim, there would be no way for the civil war to begin. The war happened in the firs tplace because of these specific circumstances.

Yes, Rhaenyra was not the agressor, she is the more roghteous side of the conflict. Still, she spills blood of innocent people fo rher own crown and that's why these conflicts can never be justified.

Edited by Dreadscythe95
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

Yes, Rhaenyra was not the agressor, she is the more roghteous side of the conflict. Still, she spills blood of innocent people fo rher own crown and that's why these conflicts can never be justified.

 

13 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

The Greens play inside the Westeros bureocracy rules. Aegon is the first male heir. To say they overthrow the system is a lie. They userp the throne yes, but they use a claim. If there was no claim, there would be no way for the civil war to begin. The war happened in the firs tplace because of these specific circumstances.

 

Westeros rules states that you can take the throne by right of conquest, so your argument doesnt actually work in context either, so you dont actually have to have a claim on the throne. Sons can also be disinherited in the context of westerosi rules. LOL

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Westeros rules states that you can take the throne by right of conquest, so your argument doesnt actually work in context either, so you dont actually have to have a claim on the throne. Sons can also be disinherited in the context of westerosi rules. LOL

The issue with Aegon II is that by tradition he should have been named heir ... but he wasn't. He simply wasn't. The king did have another heir and he stuck with her. You can have the position that Viserys should have named Aegon his heir ... but he didn't. So he wasn't the heir.

This is not a society where there is some sacrosanct succession law the king is bound by. Far to the opposite, actually.

In that sense, it is clear treason to pretend that the succession is unclear upon Viserys' death and crown your own king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The issue with Aegon II is that by tradition he should have been named heir ... but he wasn't. He simply wasn't. The king did have another heir and he stuck with her. You can have the position that Viserys should have named Aegon his heir ... but he didn't. So he wasn't the heir.

This is not a society where there is some sacrosanct succession law the king is bound by. Far to the opposite, actually.

In that sense, it is clear treason to pretend that the succession is unclear upon Viserys' death and crown your own king.

“The Will of the Prince has the force of Law.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The issue with Aegon II is that by tradition he should have been named heir ... but he wasn't. He simply wasn't. The king did have another heir and he stuck with her. You can have the position that Viserys should have named Aegon his heir ... but he didn't. So he wasn't the heir.

This is not a society where there is some sacrosanct succession law the king is bound by. Far to the opposite, actually.

In that sense, it is clear treason to pretend that the succession is unclear upon Viserys' death and crown your own king.

But the succession IS unclear. Going by Viserys' rules, he would never be King in the first place.

In the 7 Kingdoms, sons inherit before daughters. It's simple as that. Viserys would guarantee a civil war even if Aegon II was a wise and kind person who has no interest in being king himself, because that would require every lord in the realm to accept it- and if you accept that a woman can be queen before her brother, why can't you accept a daughter becomes lady of whatevercastle before her brother (hell, many of these lords had older sisters)? Or that the lord of said lordship names his 3rd son rather than the first? 

Viserys could name Rhaenyra as his heir and keep her, he could have married Alicent and have sons with her, but not both, because trying to have both ways doesn't affect only him, or only the empire. Moreover, a dead king has no power. And all that, again, even if Otto, Alicent and Aegon were peace-loving saints with no ambition.

Edited by Winterfell is Burning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

But the succession IS unclear. Going by Viserys' rules, he would never be King in the first place.

Who cares? He was king, and as king he rules, not some Great Council who made him king.

Of course, a king should value tradition in such society. But he isn't bound by it. That's why he is king.

5 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

In the 7 Kingdoms, sons inherit before daughters. It's simple as that. Viserys would guarantee a civil war even if Aegon II was a wise and kind person who has no interest in being king himself, because that would require every lord in the realm to accept it- and if you accept that a woman can be queen before her brother, why can't you accept a daughter becomes lady of whatevercastle before her brother (hell, many of these lords had older sisters)? Or that the lord of said lordship names his 3rd son rather than the first? 

Easy enough. Because Rhaenyra's succession is a special case. Point is, in the end it is the royal family's call who puts forth a claim, not some lord's. The lords can talk all day about that a son of Viserys should be king - but if his sons support Rhaenyra then there is literally nothing they can do. This isn't a democracy.

The problem is that the royal family are split and Viserys allowed a pro-Aegon faction to gain and retain (too much) power at his court. If Rhaenyra or Daemon had been Hand when Viserys died, things would have gone very differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

In the 7 Kingdoms, sons inherit before daughters. It's simple as that. Viserys would guarantee a civil war even if Aegon II was a wise and kind person who has no interest in being king himself.

By that logic, there would be a civil war every time a law is reversed or overturned.

Edited by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

- and if you accept that a woman can be queen before her brother, why can't you accept a daughter becomes lady of whatevercastle before her brother (hell, many of these lords had older sisters)? Or that the lord of said lordship names his 3rd son rather than the first?

The lords already can name heirs in disregard of primogeniture, though, this is referenced several times in AGoT - ASoS.

Also, it is repeatedly mentioned throughout that a daughter inherits if there are no sons, yet you'll notice that this isn't always adhered to either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

But the succession IS unclear. Going by Viserys' rules, he would never be King in the first place.

In the 7 Kingdoms, sons inherit before daughters. It's simple as that. Viserys would guarantee a civil war even if Aegon II was a wise and kind person who has no interest in being king himself, because that would require every lord in the realm to accept it- and if you accept that a woman can be queen before her brother, why can't you accept a daughter becomes lady of whatevercastle before her brother (hell, many of these lords had older sisters)? Or that the lord of said lordship names his 3rd son rather than the first? 

Viserys could name Rhaenyra as his heir and keep her, he could have married Alicent and have sons with her, but not both, because trying to have both ways doesn't affect only him, or only the empire. Moreover, a dead king has no power. And all that, again, even if Otto, Alicent and Aegon were peace-loving saints with no ambition.

Well, not in Dorne, and that's the rule upon which Arianne plans to crown Myrcella.  And Tywin believes he can disinherit Tyrion, in favour of Cersei, if Jaime won't resign from the Kingsguard.  Randyll Tarly disinherits Sam in favour of Dickon.  If Dickon died, then Talla would inherit Horn Hill.

But, there is no general law relating to royal succession in Westeros, equivalent to the Act of Succession, or the various constitutions that govern royal succession today, in various monarchies. What you have are a collection of precedents.  Rhaenyra can certainly point to family precedents that favour her accession to the Iron Throne.

What really counts - in terms of legitimacy - is the will of the outoging monarch.  In the actual medieval and early modern societies upon which Westeros is based, that was the most crucial factor in determining legitimacy.  Rulers could and did disinherit sons whom they deemed unsuitable.  Viserys had made his daughter Princess of Dragonstone, and for twenty or so years, nobody had disputed that she would inherit his throne.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess Rhaenys need to hector order of things more. She had a strong claim but got passed out twice. Aegon II is trueborn son with Targaryen heir of his own unlike his sister. Had she married only Daemon then Rhaenyra's claim would be stronger with immediate heirs being trueborn Targaryen in name and looks. 

Kings decleration only lasts till his life. Many old lords who swore oath have died as well. Lords vassal always have to renew their oath to overlods when either one of them dies.

Daughter coming before son would really open can of worms in that society. And even she heeds wise council of Corlys not to award Rosby & Stokeworth to elder daughters instead of their younger brothers.

Its surprise to me really that only 30 yrs after 101 council with 20-1 vote out the female line gets even support on merit of some weak King's word. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess Rhaenys need to hector order of things more. She had a strong claim but got passed out twice. Aegon II is trueborn son with Targaryen heir of his own unlike his sister. Had she married only Daemon then Rhaenyra's claim would be stronger with immediate heirs being trueborn Targaryen in name and looks. 

Kings decleration only lasts till his life. Many old lords who swore oath have died as well. Lords vassal always have to renew their oath to overlods when either one of them dies.

Daughter coming before son would really open can of worms in that society. And even she heeds wise council of Corlys not to award Rosby & Stokeworth to elder daughters instead of their younger brothers.

Its surprise to me really that only 30 yrs after 101 council with 20-1 vote out the female line gets even support on merit of some weak King's word. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Who cares? He was king, and as king he rules, not some Great Council who made him king.

Of course, a king should value tradition in such society. But he isn't bound by it. That's why he is king.

Easy enough. Because Rhaenyra's succession is a special case. Point is, in the end it is the royal family's call who puts forth a claim, not some lord's. The lords can talk all day about that a son of Viserys should be king - but if his sons support Rhaenyra then there is literally nothing they can do. This isn't a democracy.

The problem is that the royal family are split and Viserys allowed a pro-Aegon faction to gain and retain (too much) power at his court. If Rhaenyra or Daemon had been Hand when Viserys died, things would have gone very differently.

But Viserys WAS NOT the king...once he died. What you're claiming is that law and tradition bound a king in ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, which is well, blatantly false both in Westeros and the real world. Viserys wants people to follow his command even after he dies because it's the law and it's the tradition to follow the previous king's desires...yet he's breaking them both for Rhaenyra and expects everyone to follow.

And everything you say about the royal court is exactly the point I made- Viserys could name Rhaenyra his heir, he could marry Alicent and have sons, he could not do both. Specially considering both sides had dragons.

Also, there is no such thing as a "special case" in politics that is forbidden to ever happen again. Once you do something, you set a precedent that others can or will try to follow. Reminds me of Sulla setting himself as a dictator for life in Rome, then abdicating after 6 years and forbidding anyone from ever doing it again- once he set the precedent that it was possible to set yourself as dictator for life, now everyone else would try to follow, and the next guy to do that was exactly the heir of the faction Sulla was trying to destroy in the first place.

Also, this "if every son was OK with Rhaenyra inheriting, everything would be fine" is just non-sense because first of all in real life (and probably Westeros, assuming Aegon is fake) we have seen people using even long dead monarchs, princes and claimants as pretext to try to gain power.

Second, it depends on the idea that extremely patriarchal and sexist society in which the lords a few decades ago passed a woman over for the throne so the EXACT SAME GUY that appointed Rhaenyra as heir could become king, in which the founder of the dynasty had an older sister that didn't get the throne for herself, not a single one out of many young princes would entertain the idea of becoming kings themselves, or would have someone trying to make them king.

  

28 minutes ago, Lightoftheast said:

I guess Rhaenys need to hector order of things more. She had a strong claim but got passed out twice. Aegon II is trueborn son with Targaryen heir of his own unlike his sister. Had she married only Daemon then Rhaenyra's claim would be stronger with immediate heirs being trueborn Targaryen in name and looks. 

Kings decleration only lasts till his life. Many old lords who swore oath have died as well. Lords vassal always have to renew their oath to overlods when either one of them dies.

Daughter coming before son would really open can of worms in that society. And even she heeds wise council of Corlys not to award Rosby & Stokeworth to elder daughters instead of their younger brothers.

Its surprise to me really that only 30 yrs after 101 council with 20-1 vote out the female line gets even support on merit of some weak King's word. 

 

  Exactly.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Well, not in Dorne, and that's the rule upon which Arianne plans to crown Myrcella.  And Tywin believes he can disinherit Tyrion, in favour of Cersei, if Jaime won't resign from the Kingsguard.  Randyll Tarly disinherits Sam in favour of Dickon.  If Dickon died, then Talla would inherit Horn Hill.

But, there is no general law relating to royal succession in Westeros, equivalent to the Act of Succession, or the various constitutions that govern royal succession today, in various monarchies. What you have are a collection of precedents.  Rhaenyra can certainly point to family precedents that favour her accession to the Iron Throne.

What really counts - in terms of legitimacy - is the will of the outoging monarch.  In the actual medieval and early modern societies upon which Westeros is based, that was the most crucial factor in determining legitimacy.  Rulers could and did disinherit sons whom they deemed unsuitable.  Viserys had made his daughter Princess of Dragonstone, and for twenty or so years, nobody had disputed that she would inherit his throne.

Well, Dorne wasn't part of the 7 Kingdoms at the time of the Dance, so it doesn't count for what I was saying here.

Tywin thought he could disinherit Tyrion...yet he didn't. We don't even heard of a will in which he does so.

Sam joined the Watch because of Randyll's threats, if it was simply a matter of disinherit him, no need to send him to the Wall.

Both Tywin and Randyll knew that their words and their will counted only so much once they were dead. We also saw what Cersei did to Robert's will indicating Ned was going to be regent.

So, of course, Rhaenyra can look at precedent that would indicate she'll inherit, but so did Aegon. Her biggest claim is that a weak dead King wanted her to inherit.  Aegon's is that firstborn sons inherit before daughters for thousands of years.

1 hour ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

By that logic, there would be a civil war every time a law is reversed or overturned.

It's not a mere law, it's a law of SUCCESSION. Many, many wars in the real world or ASOIAF started for less. Just by changing the law, Viserys already makes the claim of every lord he has that has an older sister, or every first born son that stands to inherit, weaker.

 

 

Edited by Winterfell is Burning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

 

It's not a mere law, it's a law of SUCCESSION. Many, many wars in the real world or ASOIAF started for less. Just by changing the law, Viserys already makes the claim of every lord he has that has an older sister, or every first born son that stands to inherit, weaker.

 

 

But, there is no fixed law of succession in this world, any more than in real world history.  What there are, are precedents.  And, usually, one can find a precedent that favours one's cause.  

It was thought that a woman could not inherit the Hapsburg dominions, until Charles VI designated his daughter, Maria Theresa as his heir.  And, she had to fight for her inheritance, in the face of any number of people who insisted that a woman could not inherit.  But, what mattered to her supporters was the Will of Charles VI, as well as Maria Theresa's own personal qualities.   

The right of a monarch to choose his successor has always been a factor of immense importance in determining the succession.  That Will can be set aside if a pretender has sufficient military muscle to do do so, but to do so always requires force.  That's why the Greens resorted to force, rather than call a Great Council to rule on the issue.  And, in the end, more Great Houses supported the Blacks than the Greens.  So among the nobility, there were many who also viewed the Will of the outgoing king as conferring legitimacy on Rhaenyra.

Dance of the Dragons - A Wiki of Ice and Fire (westeros.org)

This link shows almost twice as many Houses supporting Rhaenyra as supported Aegon.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

But Viserys WAS NOT the king...once he died. What you're claiming is that law and tradition bound a king in ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, which is well, blatantly false both in Westeros and the real world. Viserys wants people to follow his command even after he dies because it's the law and it's the tradition to follow the previous king's desires...yet he's breaking them both for Rhaenyra and expects everyone to follow.

And everything you say about the royal court is exactly the point I made- Viserys could name Rhaenyra his heir, he could marry Alicent and have sons, he could not do both. Specially considering both sides had dragons.

Also, there is no such thing as a "special case" in politics that is forbidden to ever happen again. Once you do something, you set a precedent that others can or will try to follow. Reminds me of Sulla setting himself as a dictator for life in Rome, then abdicating after 6 years and forbidding anyone from ever doing it again- once he set the precedent that it was possible to set yourself as dictator for life, now everyone else would try to follow, and the next guy to do that was exactly the heir of the faction Sulla was trying to destroy in the first place.

Also, this "if every son was OK with Rhaenyra inheriting, everything would be fine" is just non-sense because first of all in real life (and probably Westeros, assuming Aegon is fake) we have seen people using even long dead monarchs, princes and claimants as pretext to try to gain power.

Second, it depends on the idea that extremely patriarchal and sexist society in which the lords a few decades ago passed a woman over for the throne so the EXACT SAME GUY that appointed Rhaenyra as heir could become king, in which the founder of the dynasty had an older sister that didn't get the throne for herself, not a single one out of many young princes would entertain the idea of becoming kings themselves, or would have someone trying to make them king.

  

  Exactly.

Well, Dorne wasn't part of the 7 Kingdoms at the time of the Dance, so it doesn't count for what I was saying here.

Tywin thought he could disinherit Tyrion...yet he didn't. We don't even heard of a will in which he does so.

Sam joined the Watch because of Randyll's threats, if it was simply a matter of disinherit him, no need to send him to the Wall.

Both Tywin and Randyll knew that their words and their will counted only so much once they were dead. We also saw what Cersei did to Robert's will indicating Ned was going to be regent.

So, of course, Rhaenyra can look at precedent that would indicate she'll inherit, but so did Aegon. Her biggest claim is that a weak dead King wanted her to inherit.  Aegon's is that firstborn sons inherit before daughters for thousands of years.

It's not a mere law, it's a law of SUCCESSION. Many, many wars in the real world or ASOIAF started for less. Just by changing the law, Viserys already makes the claim of every lord he has that has an older sister, or every first born son that stands to inherit, weaker.

This idea that a dead king's will has no power is only on the back of it being such in GoT. Robert's will had no power because insufficient men were willing to enforce it. But that's not the case here. People ARE willing to fight for this will here. The Greens undergo great subterfuge from the moment of Viserys' passing and immediately murder a guy for exactly that reason. And there is no thousands of years of precedent. There have been all of five people on the Iron Throne. Any king before then was only as good as the swords that put them there and if those swords decide to not support his daughter they'll find whatever alternative they want. But as long as dragons are around, it's a Targaryan or dragonfire, they don't get to pick another option. Those thousands of years of pre-Targaryans kings where they can pick literally any guy off the street over a female inheritor without needing to worry about dragonfire are irrelevant.

Edited by Denam_Pavel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lightoftheast said:

I guess Rhaenys need to hector order of things more. She had a strong claim but got passed out twice. Aegon II is trueborn son with Targaryen heir of his own unlike his sister. Had she married only Daemon then Rhaenyra's claim would be stronger with immediate heirs being trueborn Targaryen in name and looks.

Eh, the accused bastardry of Rhaenyra's sons I don't believe is anything remotely important to the treason of the Hightower scum. After all, Viserys made a ruling on the legitimacy of the children and publicly removed tongues of the people who EVEN KNOWING that he'd already made such a ruling, dared bring it to his face. Legally and beyond THE SUN style gossip, the children are trueborn of Laenor Velaryon.

The usurpation of Aegon II requires overturning a 20 year precedent that every Lord in Westeros has already known. The Great Council is certainly something they can cite, except the thing is that was called by the King in the first place.

Quote

It's not a mere law, it's a law of SUCCESSION. Many, many wars in the real world or ASOIAF started for less. Just by changing the law, Viserys already makes the claim of every lord he has that has an older sister, or every first born son that stands to inherit, weaker.

I would agree but actually argue that means that Viserys should have removed his sons from the line of succession completely. It wouldn't have probably done much given the Hightowers treasonous plotting and their marriage offer to the Baratheons among others but it would have done more to discredit what was obviously his intent.

As we see with the Blackfyres, traitors will come up with rationales for uprisings post-facto if necessary.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...