Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 103 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I didn’t get the impression that Alicent understood what Otto was doing at first. She seemed to earnestly believe she was just there to give her condolences. Clearly nothing happened beyond her just reading to him, and I don’t believe anything physical happened prior to their marriage. 

I mean , when she stopped when he told her to wear her mother's dress was telling ! although she did seem confused . even in the books that's possible too. 18 is not very old.

11 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I wish they had found a bigger actor to play Harwin Strong. Though I appreciated the detail of him holding one of the ropes of the stag with just his hands, while the others were using their horses. But it would have been nice to see a big dude get clobbered by Criston Cole later.

At this point the show points towards Corlys being the strongest knight/lord in the Seven Kingdoms.

well , he is the strongest . not the biggest .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I didn’t get the impression that Alicent understood what Otto was doing at first. She seemed to earnestly believe she was just there to give her condolences. Clearly nothing happened beyond her just reading to him, and I don’t believe anything physical happened prior to their marriage. 

 

After 3 years she still doesn't have clue?? Then the girl is really dim and I don't think showrunners are shooting for dim when it comes to her. She didn't seem to be that ok with going to see Viserys after her father told her to - she kept biting her nails down to the skin because it. That shows at some level she was aware of what was happening. I don't buy that she's been totally unware this whole time or again she's really just unable to think for herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tywin's Wallet said:

After 3 years she still doesn't have clue?? Then the girl is really dim and I don't think showrunners are shooting for dim when it comes to her. She didn't seem to be that ok with going to see Viserys after her father told her to - she kept biting her nails down to the skin because it. That shows at some level she was aware of what was happening. I don't buy that she's been totally unware this whole time or again she's really just unable to think for herself.

The first time Otto sent her to comfort Viserys, I don’t think she realized what he was doing. When we see her again six months later, she’s clearly cross with her father, and is feeling torn between her loyalties to him, the king, and Rhaenyra (remember, Viserys asked her not to tell Rhaenyra, and it’s no small thing to disobey a king). I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to believe that a 15-year-old girl doesn’t really want to marry a middle-age man and start popping out babies. It’s what Otto and Viserys wanted—no one ever bothered to ask her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But as I keep saying, the in-universe counting sucks because Aegon II didn't actually 'reign' for two years, since he was deposed after nearly a year of his reign, replaced by Rhaenyra who reigned half a year or so, followed by a chaotic interregnum, after which Aegon II was briefly restored to the throne.

No real world historian would say a king like Aegon II actually 'reigned' while somebody else sat on his throne and he hid on some island.

Just as the Dance is based in the Anarchy, George clearly based the Westerosi official records on the real-life lists of English monarchs, where Empress Matilda is not included even if she was his father's designated heir and mother to the next king.

And most "real historians" count Stephen of Blois's reign from 1135 to 1154. On the basis of this historiographic consensus, Wikipedia does the same, claiming that she is "rarely listed as a monarch" even though she "controlled England for a few months in 1141". Several references are provided.

The point of contention here, I think, is that you are refering to "de facto" reign, while the lists of monarchs are invariably made on the basis of "de jure" reign.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Although, even if Rhaenyra had survived the war, her reign would likely only have begun in 130 AC rather than 129 AC, since Aegon II was crowned first, and they would go with the start of her actual possession of the Iron Throne as the start of her reign - just like it was with Jaehaerys I - who only started to reign once Maegor was dead.

The difference is Jaehaerys didn't openly contest Maegor's rule, while Rhaenyra was crowned in Dragonstone on 129. Had she prevailed, she wouldn't accept 130 as the date of the beginning of her reign because that would be akin to accepting that her coronation had been void. The lists of monarchs are based on "de jure" rules, not "de facto".

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

For Rhaenyra's sons her claim to the throne must be the deciding factor that they are in charge, especially for Aegon III who took up a QG sword to defend his mother at the end. The idea that these two followed the Green ideology and basically invalidated their mother's claim retroactively just doesn't make much sense.

Again, in real life Henry II actively fought for her mother's rights, but when he became king he didn't move a finger to reinstate her mother's place as true monarch. I guess it's a combination of realpolitik, not wanting to stir the bee's nest by opening recent wounds, and having many other present and urgent matters to attend.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Borros Baratheon had won and Aegon II had choked to death a day later, then Alicent and the Greens would have done away with Aegon the Younger and crowned Jaehaera.

It's an interesting what-if, because greens based their argumentation on women not being able to inherit. Alicent would surely disagree, but a rational player would see that Aegon III was the legitimate king even by the green's argumentation (Even if you dismiss his claim through female Rhaenyra, via his father he was Jaehaerys I's only heir through male line.)

As I see it, this is the key point of the whole matter. After Aegon II was killed, Aegon III was the righful heir for both the greens and the blacks. Corlys and Co. used that opportunity to avoid ending the war with a winners vs. losers situation. They opted for reconciliation. Why else would they make sure that the rule of the realm was evenly split between the two factions? (the greens got the Handship, and more or less half the council)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking of Rhaenyra's legacy always reminds me of a Hungária long, Kálmán 'the Bookish', őr Kálmán 'the Hunchback'. He is regarded as one of the greatest medieval kings of Hungary, but because he was meant to have a church career, his younger brother was meant to inheirit the throne.

In the end, he got it anyway, but his brother, Álmos was rebelling against him all the time because of that, until Kálmán had him and his son blinded. Kálmán's line later on eventually died out, and his nephew, Béla II 'the Blind', whom he had blinded became the king and his line continued as kings of Hungary.

The point is, that later kings of Hungary antagonized hím and didn't recognize his greatness, accomplisments, etc... He was called the Hunchback, altough he wasn't even hunchbacked in reality, this just became a widespread common belief around Europe, thanks to his haters.

In contrast to that, to have the children of Rhaenyra not establish that they inherited the Iron Throne from their mother, but Aegon II is really outrageous. Now of course, Daeron and Aegon were the oldest children of Aegon III and Viserys II, and thus the probability of a woman inheriting didn't really come up, but to have the Targaryen dynasty bitter memories of Rhaenyra, or to server her as a bad example is just illogical, even in Stannis' case, who is a descended from her.

I guess we'll never know what would've happened if Daemon's twins would've been boys (and thus the most senior male line). Would they have inherited instead of Aegon? I would personally say no.

Nonetheless, Rhaenyra should be whitewashed by historians of ASOIAF, not left in the mud, considering her line became the later kings of Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

As I see it, this is the key point of the whole matter. After Aegon II was killed, Aegon III was the righful heir for both the greens and the blacks. Corlys and Co. used that opportunity to avoid ending the war with a winners vs. losers situation. They opted for reconciliation. Why else would they make sure that the rule of the realm was evenly split between the two factions? (the greens got the Handship, and more or less half the council)

Funny how Daemon is never mentioned as a reason for why Aegon should be King tho. The Blacks crown him because he's Rhaenyra's heir and force the unable to fight Greens to meet them there. At the end of the day, the Greens were only down to one army whose leader was being blackmailed by the Tyrells. The rest were defeated and demoralized.

The rest is Corlys knowing how to tight the realm.

But Viserys using his mother as a reason to win the throne over his niece just seals her fate anyway.

 

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but was she was not remembered as a usurper by Targaryen dynasty ... not that we know of anyway . Stannis considered her a usurper but I personally took that as Stannis's traditional and sexist beliefs . 

as far as how kings' ancestors are remembered though , I always found it outrageous and quite funny that septons could so openly express their disgust at the name "Daemon" (king's grandfather) for Daena's bastard . then again , I suppose Baelor was different and it is implied that Daena was the closest to their father. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Just as the Dance is based in the Anarchy, George clearly based the Westerosi official records on the real-life lists of English monarchs, where Empress Matilda is not included even if she was his father's designated heir and mother to the next king.

That is, unfortunately, a moot point. George failed to properly model Rhaenyra on Empress Matilda since Matilda did not, in fact, ever style herself Queen of England because she was never formally crowned - and that's also the reason why history doesn't count her as a sitting monarch. The only title she ever claimed was that of a 'Lady of the English'. And historians do grant her that title, just as they also acknowledge the time she governed England in her own right.

Rhaenyra, on the other hand, was crowned queen and sat the Iron Throne for time. She was a queen, period. There is no way around that.

If George wanted to have her as a Matilda he should have had her indefinitely postpone her coronation - perhaps until she had vanquished most or all her foes - styling herself only 'Princess Rhaenyra' the entire time. Or, better still, he should refused to allow her access to the Iron Throne. It was a surprise that she ever sat the Iron Throne when we first read TPatQ, after all.

But you cannot fly with a false monarch having all the trappings a proper monarch would have ... and then also pretend we have to view Maegor as a proper king for, well, 'reasons', never mind that he is obviously a usurper.

Matilda and Rhaenyra are alike in the sense that both were the chosen and anointed heirs of the royal fathers ... and that both were driven out of the capital. But they are unlike in the sense that Rhaenyra was crowned queen and actually secured the throne for a time, when Matilda was never crowned.

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

And most "real historians" count Stephen of Blois's reign from 1135 to 1154. On the basis of this historiographic consensus, Wikipedia does the same, claiming that she is "rarely listed as a monarch" even though she "controlled England for a few months in 1141". Several references are provided.

If Matilda had actually properly deposed Stephen, uncrowning him and crowning herself Queen, only to be later formally deposed by a restored Stephen then we would have a proper parallel to Aegon-Rhaenyra - but we don't have that.

Aegon-Rhaenyra are better compared the Henry VI and Edward IV of the Wars of the Roses - Henry VI did neither reign nor rule while he was deposed and eventually imprisoned by Edward IV, just as Edward IV, in turn, did neither reign nor rule while Henry VI was briefly restored. And history books reflect that.

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The point of contention here, I think, is that you are refering to "de facto" reign, while the lists of monarchs are invariably made on the basis of "de jure" reign.

The difference is Jaehaerys didn't openly contest Maegor's rule, while Rhaenyra was crowned in Dragonstone on 129. Had she prevailed, she wouldn't accept 130 as the date of the beginning of her reign because that would be akin to accepting that her coronation had been void. The lists of monarchs are based on "de jure" rules, not "de facto".

Jaehaerys I's reign also only starts with Oldtown coronation (still in 48 AC), not with his proclamation at Storm's End in the same year. The same with Aegon III, whose reign also only starts with his coronation-wedding in KL, not with his proclamation immediately after the murder of Aegon II.

(Of course those future kings already wielded de facto royal power at that time, but there was only a flimsy legal basis for that, and they were still lacking legitimacy.)

The parallel here are the Conqueror's two coronations. His reign also started with the Oldtown coronation.

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Again, in real life Henry II actively fought for her mother's rights, but when he became king he didn't move a finger to reinstate her mother's place as true monarch. I guess it's a combination of realpolitik, not wanting to stir the bee's nest by opening recent wounds, and having many other present and urgent matters to attend.

Well, installing Matilda as monarch would have meant Henry II would (no longer) be king.

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

It's an interesting what-if, because greens based their argumentation on women not being able to inherit. Alicent would surely disagree, but a rational player would see that Aegon III was the legitimate king even by the green's argumentation (Even if you dismiss his claim through female Rhaenyra, via his father he was Jaehaerys I's only heir through male line.)

As I see it, this is the key point of the whole matter. After Aegon II was killed, Aegon III was the righful heir for both the greens and the blacks. Corlys and Co. used that opportunity to avoid ending the war with a winners vs. losers situation. They opted for reconciliation. Why else would they make sure that the rule of the realm was evenly split between the two factions? (the greens got the Handship, and more or less half the council)

Aegon II and Alicent and others (Tyland, for instance) didn't view Aegon the Younger as Aegon II's heir. And their argument was never the 'iron precendent' of the Great Council, anyway - keep in mind that Otto himself installed Rhaenyra as heir - but rather that the eldest son of a king should inherit.

Technically one could argue that Rhaenyra being Aegon III's mother was irrelevant since he would have inherited a weak claim through his father, who was the brother and grandson of earlier kings ... but this actually never comes up. And it wouldn't matter because Aegon the Younger's claim is dismissed for political reasons - he the son of traitors and a traitor himself, in the eyes of Aegon II and Alicent. Aegon II clearly wants to end his sister's line. Assuming the Greens actually viewed Aegon the Younger as a viable heir to the throne is like assuming that the Lannisters and Tyrells also view Shireen as a potential heir to Tommen or Myrcella. De iure, that may be a possibility, but de facto Shireen is the daughter of an attainted traitor who has neither claims nor rights.

Regarding Daemon, one would also kind of wonder how the madman was viewed by Rhaenyra's supporters after he threw away his life. Could very well be that they viewed him as a traitor, too. If that were the case, then nobody would support Aegon III's claim on the basis that he was also descended from Daemon.

Aegon III is crowned because the Blacks one the war and the traitors on Aegon II's council who turned against him and murdered him wanted to suck up to the victorious Blacks. Now, the marriage to Jaehaera and Corlys' peace terms, etc. were all about reconciliation and participation ... and one can imagine that those Greens who joined camp Green because it was the team of the male pretender could much more easily live with Aegon III because he was male, too. But it was actually not a given that this policy would enacted. When Cregan Stark arrives it is already decided that Aegon III will be king - but what the government of this king is going to do, whether they continue the war, whether they actually do marry Jaehaera to their future king (who was still at Storm's End at the time), was all very much in the air. In the end Cregan was forced to abandon his idea of a continued war, etc. and they went through with the reconciliation thing. But this wasn't a given when the decision was made to crown Aegon III.

And it is quite clear that if the war had continued some Greens would have crowned Jaehaera as a rival pretender to challenge Aegon III.

Aegon III was proclaimed king because the Black victory. Had the Greens won and Aegon II died somehow then there would have been no need to compromise with the Blacks because they would have been in no position to demand anything. Alicent wouldn't have been imprisoned ... meaning she would have killed Rhaenyra's last son to crown her granddaughter. And then she may have ended up reaching out to Alys Rivers and Aemond's alleged son to find a proper consort for Jaehaera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon III was proclaimed king because the Black victory. Had the Greens won and Aegon II died somehow then there would have been no need to compromise with the Blacks because they would have been in no position to demand anything. Alicent wouldn't have been imprisoned ... meaning she would have killed Rhaenyra's last son to crown her granddaughter. And then she may have ended up reaching out to Alys Rivers and Aemond's alleged son to find a proper consort for Jaehaera.

Aegon III not working for his mother's recognition is probably due to the fact that it was decades before he was actually in charge of his own kingdom and Unwin Peake (A Green) was the man in charge of the Kingdom for a significant chunk of the previous time as well as Corlys (who I have very many thoughts on the latter part of the reign of). By the time he was in power, the history books of the Dance are already written.

I should also note that the Anarchy was something that society did not side with Stephen on. Stephen ended up naming Henry II as his heir not because he didn't have his own male heir but because the Pope flat out refused to acknowledge Stephen's claim as legitimate. Which would have been fascinating if the Faith had sided with Rhaenyra but George R.R. Martin keeps it a nonenity after Maegor.

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

Back to the episode:

Did you realize the opening dialogue regarding Aegon has him have the hair, eyes, and nose of the king?

Damn you, guys, how many easter eggs are there, seriously?

Jason Lannister not liking his brother Tyland too much could account for certain later things - the lukewarm support the Lannisters actually give the Greens, not to mention Tyland focusing more on the interests of his king and the Crown than the Westerlands when he later serves as Hand to Aegon III. He doesn't even seem to care much about the Ironborn issue, never mind that most Lannister Hands in his position would have likely made that a top priority of the Crown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Sadly, I'm blanking on this one.

Well, Rhaenyra's elder sons do have brown hair and brown eyes, lacking the Valyrian silver-goden hair and the purple eyes, and they also have a pug noses rather than Laenor's aquiline nose.

It is hardly a coincidence that the Hightower gang praises how much Aegon looks like Viserys. That writing is almonst making fun of the text.

59 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Aegon III not working for his mother's recognition is probably due to the fact that it was decades before he was actually in charge of his own kingdom and Unwin Peake (A Green) was the man in charge of the Kingdom for a significant chunk of the previous time as well as Corlys (who I have very many thoughts on the latter part of the reign of). By the time he was in power, the history books of the Dance are already written.

Don't think that can be much of a reason there. We know that the Green-Black enmity continues into the Regency era (only some people, like Lyonel Hightower and Alyn Velaryon bridge the gap between the parties). But more importantly, if the final presentation of Aegon III indicates anything, then he did bottle up a lot of anger during those six years.

Viserys was always his closest companion ... but next to him clearly comes his mother. And we also know that he idolized his Velaryon brothers all of whom were also killed during the war.

The idea that this guy - whose family are also all Black affiliated Targaryens/Velaryons - would continue favoring former Greens or their narratives is just not very likely.

In fact, we can also expect that both the fake Daerons and Alys Rivers' son will be supported by disgruntled and scheming die-hard Greens. And they might do so not just because they are 'evil Greens' but also because they correctly realize and understand that King Aegon III is not their friend.

I mean, even if Unwin Peake were returning to his castles and never trying to cause any mischief ... there is just no chance that Aegon III and Viserys can allow him to get away with what they know or strongly suspect he pulled. They might not be able to formally accuse him of a crime ... but that doesn't mean they cannot destroy him. Peake may have killed one queen, his goons tried to kill Aegon III and Daenaera, and they also wanted to kill Larra Rogare. This cannot just be over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But more importantly, if the final presentation of Aegon III indicates anything, then he did bottle up a lot of anger during those six years.

Viserys was always his closest companion ... but next to him clearly comes his mother. And we also know that he idolized his Velaryon brothers all of whom were also killed during the war.

The idea that this guy - whose family are also all Black affiliated Targaryens/Velaryons - would continue favoring former Greens or their narratives is just not very likely.

 

dude , you don't have to explain Aegon III's sympathies . the guy literally wore all black all the time ! 

I think , the whole line of succession problem stems from 2 things: 1. Citadel preferred Aegon II , 2. George did not initially plan for "Rhaenyra triumphant" and later just didn't want to mess with the published succession line.... mostly the latter 

 

by the way, hair dialogue was great ! I grinned the whole time ! I expect they make the hair thing a big deal for Aemond and Haelena , too . so when Jace is born , even the audience notices the hair

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

I just can't believe the viewership for episode 3 had 150% more than the premiere. I can't accept that, call me a flat earther but I just don't have the intellectual or emotional capacity to comprehend that. 

Anyways, here is a mainstream youtuber with a slightly negative review on episode 3: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJqUFRIroAU

 

It didn’t. The article was saying that ten million people watched the night of the premiere, then an additional 15 million watched the premiere over the course of the following week.

 

What did everyone think of Rhaenyra’s scenes with Criston Cole? I found them disappointing. I didn’t think they had much chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But as I keep saying, the in-universe counting sucks because Aegon II didn't actually 'reign' for two years, since he was deposed after nearly a year of his reign, replaced by Rhaenyra who reigned half a year or so, followed by a chaotic interregnum, after which Aegon II was briefly restored to the throne.

No real world historian would say a king like Aegon II actually 'reigned' while somebody else sat on his throne and he hid on some island.

Er..what?  Real world historians absolutely would say Aegon II "reigned" during that entire time - if they thought Aegon II was the rightful king.  Which is why Martin's in-universe accounting of him reigning during that time makes entire sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Er..what?  Real world historians absolutely would say Aegon II "reigned" during that entire time - if they thought Aegon II was the rightful king.  Which is why Martin's in-universe accounting of him reigning during that time makes entire sense.

Historians usually don't go with stuff like 'rightful monarch' unless the they are court historians ... but rather whether somebody actually wielded the power they claimed to wield ... or not. The best example for this are the many guys who claimed to be Roman Emperors. It is a tedious business to sort out the would-be usurpers, etc. but the crucial criteria there is whether anyone actually accepted them and whether they actually wielded (sufficient) power that it makes sense to count them as a Roman Emperor. But you also have that kind of thing with medieval kings - anti-kings and anti-popes are a thing precisely for this reason.

Again, was the reign of Henry VI and Edward IV interrupted or ended when the other monarch was took the throne ... or did Edward IV's reign only begin after Henry VI had been killed? Historians count the years of the reigns of those two monarchs accurately, unlike George.

To answer the question:

Quote

Henry VI (6 December 1421 – 21 May 1471) was King of England and Lord of Ireland from 1422 to 1461 and again from 1470 to 1471, and disputed King of France from 1422 to 1453.

Edward IV (28 April 1442 – 9 April 1483) was King of England from 4 March 1461 to 3 October 1470, then again from 11 April 1471 until his death in 1483.

It is the same for Aegon and Rhaenyra, never mind if George acknowledges that or not.

Aegon II is formally deposed, and subsequently replaced by another monarch. That's just how it is. That monarch eventually gives up her throne by running away, and months later the earlier monarch is kind of restored again (the fact that he never sits the throne again does send a different symbolic message there).

Aegon II ruled when he was fit to rule (i.e. while there was no Prince Regent yet), he reigned from the day of his coronation until his deposition early in 130 AC. And then he reigned and ruled again after he was literally (kind of) 'restored to the throne'.

And during the interregnum neither Aegon II nor Rhaenyra ruled or reigned ... it was a time with either no or too many monarchs.

King Stephen, the guy Aegon II is always compared to, was never actually formally deposed. He was imprisoned and unable to rule for a time, but people continued to rule in his name, so his reign never formally ended.

A comparison there would be Aegon II running away or being imprisoned during the war without ever giving up his kingship nor him actually being replaced by another monarch ... and KL and the throne remaining in the hands of the Greens, with Aegon's brother(s) or sister-wife, or mother ruling in his name. Aegon's reign ends when Rhaenyra takes KL, it does not end when Aemond starts to rule as Prince Regent.

But that's not what happens in the Dance. Aegon II runs away and hides, giving up his crown and his throne while a different monarch is installed on the Iron Throne who is recognized by as many Westerosi people (or more) than Aegon II was earlier (including, one has to say, even Aegon's mother and sister-wife at that point, since they are allowed to live).

If George had wanted to present Rhaenyra as a mere pretender or would-be queen then he should have (1) not given her a coronation (the pretender Aegon the Uncrowned, while the rightful heir, is never crowned king - Daemon Blackfyre is crowned but he never properly reigns or rules), and/or (2) never allowed her to sit the Iron Throne because that's clearly the crucial feature how a proper monarch is counted in Westeros (Aegon the Uncrowned, Daemon Blackfyre, Stannis, Renly never sat the Iron Throne whilst Joffrey and Tommen did), and/or (3) never made her the chosen and anointed heir of her father, the previous king (folks who just think they are the rightful king like Stannis or Daemon Blackfyre without actually being acknowledged as such in a meaningful way undermines their claim to kingship to no small degree).

Edited by Lord Varys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Historians usually don't go with stuff like 'rightful monarch' unless the they are court historians ... but rather whether somebody actually wielded the power they claimed to wield ... or not.

You seem to be preoccupied with comparing in-universe historians to historians today, or even the last century.  Whereas Martin's "historians" are still ensconced in a middle ages context and obviously going to be flagrantly biased, thus subsequently not too worried (if it even occurs to them) about objectivity nor empiricism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, it'd be very strange if the Maesters of Oldtown wrote anything positive about the Blacks.

Edit:

Actually, Fire and Blood seems a LOT more favorable to Rhaenyra than The World of Ice and Fire and BOTH seem a lot more favorable than Stannis' take on history.

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

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

You seem to be preoccupied with comparing in-universe historians to historians today, or even the last century.  Whereas Martin's "historians" are still ensconced in a middle ages context and obviously going to be flagrantly biased, thus subsequently not too worried (if it even occurs to them) about objectivity nor empiricism.

But I'm not going with in-universe stuff here ... but rather the official kings list in the appendix of AGoT. In-universe the picture is actually pretty nuanced and George did away with the weirdo nonsense from TPatQ about Aegon II 'decreeing' that his half-sister never was a queen (presumably because he realized that there is no chance that Aegon III would allow such a decree to stand).

In addition, though, as we all know - Rhaenyra Targaryen's bloodline won the Dance. Her sons continued the royal bloodline, she is the mater genetrix of all post-Dance Targaryen monarchs (and the Baratheon dudes as well, at least de iure). In such a setting where blood is everything it just doesn't make sense that folks would ignore or vilify her.

If we compare things with the Tudor monarchy vilifying Richard III (justified or not) then Aegon II would be the evil uncle here, too, and Rhaenyra would be a tragic hero ... whilst Aegon III and Viserys II and their descendants are the guys singers and maesters would both suck up to. Just as, in Westeros, Maegor the Cruel is the evil uncle, Aegon the Uncrowned is the tragic hero, and Jaehaerys and Alysanne are the ones people sucked up to.

At the same time they can also still maintain you should name a woman heir ... that is not mutually exclusive.

You can also continue to accept that Aegon II was king and that he killed Rhaenyra and was restored. But it makes no sense to have him as the only monarch while you effectively erase the short queenship of your own mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and so forth. They should exist together, with subsequent Targaryen kings favoring Rhaenyra & Daemon over Aegon II and Helaena.

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...