Myles Sarwyck Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 In "The Princess and the Queen" Aegon II has this moment: Quote “Rhaenyra was never a queen,” the king declared, insisting that henceforth, in all chronicles and court records, his half sister be referred to only as “princess,” the title of queen being reserved only for his mother Alicent and his late wife and sister Helaena, the “true queens.” And so it was decreed. Is this still part of the canon or was it retconned by omission in Fire & Blood? I didn't recall seeing it mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steller Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 Presumably Aegon III would have reversed that decree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Sarwyck Posted October 9, 2022 Author Share Posted October 9, 2022 Just now, James Steller said: Presumably Aegon III would have reversed that decree. I'm wondering if it still even happened. If it was reversed, why would people like Stannis say Rhaenyra was a traitor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Peres Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 1 hour ago, James Steller said: Presumably Aegon III would have reversed that decree. I doubt it. Rhaenyra was awful and impopular, to a point she makes Cersei looks good. Aegon III was also trying to unify a broken realm, he was betrothed to the daughter of Aegon II, his council of regents was made in parts by former greens, and one of the few things everybody could agree is that Rhaenyra was a awful ruler, he was also named heir by Aegon II and used that in his favor. Rhaenyra allienated even her biggest support the Velaryons. She was ousted of King's Landing not by her enemies but by the smallfolk there. She turned former allies into enemies like she did with Manfryd Mooton. Wasting political power trying to wash this legacy was not something Aegon III was in position to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skahaz mo Kandaq Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 It's really a question of power. Any previous decree can be unmade. Was it worth the effort to undo a decree where the parties affected are dead? Likely it was not worth the trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canon Claude Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 33 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said: Aegon III was also trying to unify a broken realm, he was betrothed to the daughter of Aegon II, his council of regents was made in parts by former greens, and one of the few things everybody could agree is that Rhaenyra was a awful ruler, he was also named heir by Aegon II and used that in his favor. All of those obstacles were gone by the time he came of age. Aegon was in the saddle with Viserys as his Hand. Neither of them were pushovers, as they proved, and neither of them would have wanted to hear a bad word against their mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 2 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said: I'm wondering if it still even happened. If it was reversed, why would people like Stannis say Rhaenyra was a traitor? Because there are different accounts of it. Neither Arianne nor Arys Oakheart believed her a usurper. 1 hour ago, Arthur Peres said: Aegon III was also trying to unify a broken realm, he was betrothed to the daughter of Aegon II, his council of regents was made in parts by former greens, and one of the few things everybody could agree is that Rhaenyra was a awful ruler, he was also named heir by Aegon II and used that in his favor. Aegon speaks of his mother as "true queen" in several occasions. Nor that Aegon the younger used him named heir by his uncle in his favor, he's named King becauuse the Blacks defeat the last Green army in the field, they certainly didn't care about Aegon 2. The decree simply wasn't made, the Blacks kept fighting till they get what they wanted and then went home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 11 minutes ago, frenin said: Because there are different accounts of it. Neither Arianne nor Arys Oakheart believed her a usurper. Exactly @Myles Sarwyck I would say that there would have been several (very biased) histories on it. I would also say that the civil war was so terribly divisive that people still maintain whatever opinions that they had despite the war had long since been fought and won (or lost if you're on that side) and passing it on their children. 1 hour ago, Arthur Peres said: Rhaenyra was awful and unpopular, to a point she makes Cersei looks good. I disagree. 1 hour ago, Arthur Peres said: Aegon III was also trying to unify a broken realm, he was betrothed to the daughter of Aegon II, his council of regents was made in parts by former greens, and one of the few things everybody could agree is that Rhaenyra was an awful ruler, he was also named heir by Aegon II and used that in his favor. Rhaenyra alienated even her biggest support the Velaryons. She was ousted of King's Landing not by her enemies but by the smallfolk there. She turned former allies into enemies like she did with Manfryd Mooton. Wasting political power trying to wash this legacy was not something Aegon III was in position to do. Although a lot of the bad stuff about Rhaenyra's short reign atop the Iron Throne was completely out-of-control and an last ditch effort by the Greens to sabotage her (i.e., emptying the treasury and hiding its former contents directly informed and caused her disastrous tax policies) and although Aegon III was in the position do so after Viserys returned and he became of age... That said, I have to co-sign the bold parts. She did make some very bad decisions. Nevertheless, although Rhaenyra lost the battle(s), she won the war. Posthumously as it were but win she did. Aegon III used the logic of his betrothal to Jaehaera and Aegon II's naming him as temporary heir to satiate the leftover Greens. But in the end, it didn't matter because: not only did the Blacks destroy the last Green army but the Blacks had three or four other armies waiting in the wings Aegon II only made Aegon III his heir in an attempt to mollify the Blacks into ending the war only for it to blow up in his face...which is why he ended up deciding to execute Aegon and make Jaehaera his heir until he could have a son by Cassandra Baratheon the Greens (i.e. Marston Waters, Unwin Peake, Orwyle) tried to undermine and kill him anyway, regardless of the logic The Blacks won the war decisively. It's just that most of the Blacks are coming from parts of the realm that are further away from King's Landing and/or have difficult terrain to navigate than the Greens who were, by in large, both closer to the capital and more invested in what happens in the capital. The reason why the post-Stark regency period was such a hot mess was because the Blacks ended up going home and Jeyne Arryn died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Peres Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 1 hour ago, frenin said: Aegon speaks of his mother as "true queen" in several occasions. Nor that Aegon the younger used him named heir by his uncle in his favor, he's named King becauuse the Blacks defeat the last Green army in the field, they certainly didn't care about Aegon 2. What Aegon III said and what was official are two diferent things. The man was cleary broken and he had almost no strenght to impose his will. His desire to make Gaemon his heir in case of a early death was ignored by his regents just to give a example. Aegon II is regarded as the rightfull king during the period as Stannis show us. Even among the blacks there was cleary not very good will towards Rhaenyra and woman in power in general. Both of Daemon's daughters were ignored as potential heirs. And the Greens remained as a force to be reckon. Tyland and Peake remained in the council both taking the main job of being Hand of the King. Aegon III was pushed into a marriage with his counsin to appease both sides, the realm was broken and it's clear that the years of Aegon III were spend trying to fix the mess that his mother, Grandfather and uncle made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Peres Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 1 hour ago, Canon Claude said: All of those obstacles were gone by the time he came of age. Aegon was in the saddle with Viserys as his Hand. Neither of them were pushovers, as they proved, and neither of them would have wanted to hear a bad word against their mother. They were not gone. The greens remained as a power block. Cregan Stark wanted to ended them but it was clear that the blacks lacked the will to keep fighting even if they were in better situation. By the end of the dance everyone was very spend and the realm broken and divided. Aegon III was not in a position of strenght or to impose his will, he was broken, depressed, his council ignored his wills time and time again, he was not popular with the smallfolk and he did not have dragons to impose himself against the nobles. I would not describe Aegon III as a pushover, but he was one of the weakest Targeryan kings to ever rule. Its either him or Aenys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Peres Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 1 hour ago, BlackLightning said: Aegon III used the logic of his betrothal to Jaehaera and Aegon II's naming him as temporary heir to satiate the leftover Greens. But in the end, it didn't matter because: not only did the Blacks destroy the last Green army but the Blacks had three or four other armies waiting in the wings Aegon was a puppet, a minor prince that no one really respected, even as a adult the man was cleary broken and depressed, the ones that made decisions were the Blacks and it was clear that they had no will too keep fighting the rest of the greens. Cregan Stark kept talking about war but nobody was on his side and he was forced to back down. 1 hour ago, BlackLightning said: Aegon II only made Aegon III his heir in an attempt to mollify the Blacks into ending the war only for it to blow up in his face...which is why he ended up deciding to execute Aegon and make Jaehaera his heir until he could have a son by Cassandra Baratheon True, but was still a official decree by the king and everybody was happy to go along with it to scrap any drop of legitimacy that they could. Reconizing Aegon II decree but disregarding the man as King do not make sense. 1 hour ago, BlackLightning said: the Greens (i.e. Marston Waters, Unwin Peake, Orwyle) tried to undermine and kill him anyway, regardless of the logic Some did not all of them. Tyland seems to be the most honest among the regents. Unwin tried to use Aegon as a puppet. 1 hour ago, BlackLightning said: Although a lot of the bad stuff about Rhaenyra's short reign atop the Iron Throne was completely out-of-control and an last ditch effort by the Greens to sabotage her (i.e., emptying the treasury and hiding its former contents directly informed and caused her disastrous tax policies) and although Aegon III was in the position do so after Viserys returned and he became of age... She pretty much forced several of her supporters to take position against her. She was such a poorly ruler that a mob of angry peasants decided to take head on several dragons, pretty much facing certain death. For comparison, Joffrey and Cersei, awful rulers that I bet everyone here can agree are among the worst we see in the books. Even while fighting a civil war, with the crow heavily in debt, still managed to keep control of the city, and they did not even had dragons. Rhaenyra makes Cersei looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 12 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said: In "The Princess and the Queen" Aegon II has this moment: Is this still part of the canon or was it retconned by omission in Fire & Blood? I didn't recall seeing it mentioned. It was obviously retconned out of existence. I can say that multiple people did point out to George this discrepancy and others, some of which were corrected, but this one was doesn't, so we have to conclude that Aegon II never declared that Rhaenyra was no queen. It makes sense that this never happened, since there is no chance that Rhaenyra's sons and grandsons would let such a decree stand. No reason to even discuss this issue since the whole thing never made it into FaB. That is the definitive, final version. Anything from TPatQ, TRP, TSotD, TWoIaF, or TRotD contradicting FaB is false by default. In-universe it makes no sense that Aegon III, Viserys II, and their descendants would praise and honor the memory of Aegon II whilst erasing/not cherishing their own mother and grandmother. The claims of Aegon III and Viserys II go through Rhaenyra, and Aegon III himself tried to defend his mother until the very end. There is no chance he would spit on her memory. More importantly, since Rhaenyra's bloodline prevailed and Alicent's bloodline was extinguished there is also no chance that (m)any later historians would sing the praise of Aegon II and his siblings since they were complete failures. They all died, and Aegon II himself was put down by his own court who then proclaimed and eventually crowned Rhaenyra's own heir. The idea that Westeros has lots and lots of 'Green fans' is about as likely as there being lots of Maegor fanboys during the reign of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I. You suck up to the bloodline in power, to the final victors, not the guy who ended up as a failure. Hence, the dominant narrative actually should portray Rhaenyra as a martyr and Aegon II as the clear villain. They can do that and still conclude that folks shouldn't name female heirs in the future because it could cause trouble ... but this doesn't mean the ruling dynasty would or could afford to erase the memory of the woman through who their very claim to the throne runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said: What Aegon III said and what was official are two diferent things. Sure but nothing tells us he didn't do. He publicly talked to Lords and Kingsguards of the rightful Queen. 7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said: The man was cleary broken and he had almost no strenght to impose his will. Till he's sixteen that is. When he is fed up with people controlling him and has every intention to impose his will. 7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said: His desire to make Gaemon his heir in case of a early death was ignored by his regents just to give a example. Well yeah. Most regents ignore the idiotic requests of minor rulers. That tells us little about what he'd do as an adult. 7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said: Aegon II is regarded as the rightfull king during the period as Stannis show us. Aegon is regarded as the rightful King according to some accounts. That's why I brought up Arianne and Oakheart, they believe Rhaenyra the rightful heir. 7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said: Even among the blacks there was cleary not very good will towards Rhaenyra You mean the woman they fought to the bitter end and then some? 7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said: Both of Daemon's daughters were ignored as potential heirs. They weren't ignored tho. Till Viserys returned they were acknowledged as the only logical heirs of their brother. 7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said: And the Greens remained as a force to be reckon. Tyland and Peake remained in the council both taking the main job of being Hand of the King. That is after the war is ended and Aegon is crowned. 7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said: the realm was broken and it's clear that the years of Aegon III were spend trying to fix the mess that his mother, Grandfather and uncle made. What has that to do with anything I said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsjj251 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 12 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said: I'm wondering if it still even happened. If it was reversed, why would people like Stannis say Rhaenyra was a traitor? That line never made sense seeing as Stannis has always been descendent from Viserys II And the Blacks win the war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Sarwyck Posted October 10, 2022 Author Share Posted October 10, 2022 15 hours ago, frenin said: Because there are different accounts of it. Neither Arianne nor Arys Oakheart believed her a usurper. Maybe not usurper, but still not queen. Which makes me wonder about Aegon II's decrees vs semantics about whether she "should" have been queen. Arys never denies she was the "traitor", and Arianne thinks of her as only "princess" and not "queen". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 6 minutes ago, Myles Sarwyck said: Maybe not usurper, but still not queen. Which makes me wonder about Aegon II's decrees vs semantics about whether she "should" have been queen. Arys never denies she was the "traitor", and Arianne thinks of her as only "princess" and not "queen". If she's not a usurper in their eyes, then she's queen by default because she did rule, albet briefly, then again so did her brother. Arys doesn't speak of her as traitor, in fact he speaks of Cole as traitor, whereas Arianne calls her the heir. You're reading at semantics honestly, the decree is simply not there, none of her kids would have allowed it, but different biased tales of the war must exist depending on the house and region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Sarwyck Posted October 10, 2022 Author Share Posted October 10, 2022 10 hours ago, frenin said: If she's not a usurper in their eyes, then she's queen by default because she did rule, albet briefly, then again so did her brother. Arys doesn't speak of her as traitor, in fact he speaks of Cole as traitor, whereas Arianne calls her the heir. You're reading at semantics honestly, the decree is simply not there, none of her kids would have allowed it, but different biased tales of the war must exist depending on the house and region. If she were queen by default, they'd refer to her as such. Arys doesn't speak of her as queen either, and she *was* the heir, whether or not she inherited. That's a non-argument and semantics. The question is was the decree that was there in The Princess and the Queen something that still happened since? If not, then no one (like Stannis, Arys or Arianne) should be reading histories where she is referred to as a "traitor" because writing such would be treason. So either the decree stood, and the histories written were not treason... or there was no decree, and all her heirs and descendants just allowed her name to be slandered and didn't punish treason (which makes no sense). Especially since the appendices all omit her as a ruler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenin Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 10 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said: If she were queen by default, they'd refer to her as such. Arys doesn't speak of her as queen either, and she *was* the heir, whether or not she inherited. That's a non-argument and semantics. Why so? She was heir and she did rule, if they do not believe her a usurper, then there is only one logical option. 10 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said: So either the decree stood, and the histories written were not treason... or there was no decree, and all her heirs and descendants just allowed her name to be slandered and didn't punish treason (which makes no sense). There is no decree but there are multiple sources about it and I'd assume that Houses have their own traditions around it too, depending on which side they fought. But it is obvious that there is no decree. 10 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said: Especially since the appendices all omit her as a ruler. Eh, one did back in AGOT. When Martin hadn't figure shit out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Sarwyck Posted October 11, 2022 Author Share Posted October 11, 2022 On 10/9/2022 at 6:15 PM, Lord Varys said: It makes sense that this never happened, since there is no chance that Rhaenyra's sons and grandsons would let such a decree stand. You make good points, but it seems a world-building error on GRRM's part. Why is Aegon II the king of history and not the traitor if Rhaenyra's sons and grandsons would protect her legacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myles Sarwyck Posted October 11, 2022 Author Share Posted October 11, 2022 13 hours ago, frenin said: Why so? She was heir and she did rule, if they do not believe her a usurper, then there is only one logical option. They don't speak of her as queen, only "princess". 13 hours ago, frenin said: There is no decree but there are multiple sources about it and I'd assume that Houses have their own traditions around it too, depending on which side they fought. But it is obvious that there is no decree. It isn't really obvious since it's in a published book and hasn't been listed as a retcon, that's why I thought to ask. And it also doesn't make much sense that published treasons would be allowed by her sons and other descendants. 13 hours ago, frenin said: Eh, one did back in AGOT. When Martin hadn't figure shit out. Is there any book that doesn't omit her as a ruling queen? Even the official wiki lists her as a pretender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.