Aegon II's decrees regarding Rhaenyra

[Myles Sarwyck]

On 10/10/2022 at 2:30 AM, dsjj251 said:

That line never made sense seeing as Stannis has always been descendent from Viserys II And the Blacks win the war

The only way it even halfway makes sense is if the Aegon II decrees did happen and for some reason Aegon III and Viserys II left them standing, maybe as a conciliatory motion to the Greens since they had a claim through Daemon anyway.

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, Myles Sarwyck said:

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?

Well, it is complex.

George hadn't fleshed out the Dance when writing the appendix of AGoT ... which contained other 'errors' like the age gap between Aegon and Rhaenyra, that they were full siblings then rather than half-siblings, and that Viserys II wasn't Rhaenyra's son but rather Aegon III's fourth son.

One imagines that Rhaenyra wasn't imagined as somebody who truly ended up ruling as queen at that time, nor would she have been imagined as her father's chosen and anointed heir. You have to keep in mind that in the Rhaenyra is (1) the chosen and anointed heir of her father for 24 years, (2) ascends the Iron Throne and actually rules the Realm for a period for 6+ months in 130 AC, (3) at no time during the war has less support or power than Aegon II, (4) her bloodline continues House Targaryen. That's not what a pretender looks like. A pretender may have a battle proclamation or modest coronation ceremony, but he or she would never actually acquire all the trappings of power. People who do this, even for a short time, are usually counted among the legitimate monarchs.

In-universe general history writing can still count Aegon II as 'the real king' because he killed Rhaenyra. The complication is that George also has Aegon II as a monarch who was formally and effectively deposed and reinstated later. The in-universe historians could technically say that Rhaenyra was a pretender because she was eventually killed by Aegon II ... but they should, at the same time, also point out that Aegon II was formally deposed and replaced by Rhaenyra who ruled for half a year or more in 130 AC. During that time she was the sitting monarch regardless whether you want to view her as a pretender or usurper or not.

Nobody should erase that fact from history, just as Aenys' descendants never said Maegor never ruled.

More importantly, though, the fact that the Blacks win the war, the Green court turns Black and murders Aegon II when the war is lost to replace him with Rhaenyra's heir, Aegon III, pretty much hammers home the fact that not only Rhaenyra's bloodline but her cause won the Dance. On the Kingsroad the last battle of the war was fought and won by the Blacks under Rhaenyra's quartered banner.

George kind of tries to soften Aegon III's rise by having Larys and Corlys convince/force Alicent and Aegon II to accept Aegon III as Aegon II presumptive heir ... but that only works in part because they also happen to marry Aegon II. Aegon III doesn't become king as heir to Aegon II upon his uncle's natural death but because his uncle lost a civil war, was murdered by his own court, and, most importantly, because Aegon III was also the heir of Rhaenyra and the pretender in whose name the Blacks in the field were already fighting. Him being his mother's heir and successor is the crucial thing there, not that the Greens were also strongarmed into kind of accepting him until Aegon II had new sons of his own.

(In that context one also has to wonder whether Corlys and Larys actually ever were in team Green in those last days, or whether the whole Aegon-Jaehaera match and the installation of Aegon III as Aegon II's presumptive heir wasn't just their way to prepare the Realm for the installation of Rhaenyra's son as king. Because in light of multiple Black armies in the field the chance for a Green victory was never particularly high. Even if Borros had won on the Kingsroad ... the Greens wouldn't have prevailed against the Northern and the Vale armies.)

What can stand, I think, is the idea that the Dance itself made subsequent kings very wary to name another female heir, especially not in a scenario where there were viable male alternatives (that King Aerys I still named Aelora his heir might have to do with him not wanting Maekar on the throne, perhaps due to the man's unpopularity because of Baelor Breakspear's death).

But the idea that it would be consensus in Westeros that Rhaenyra was never a proper queen doesn't really make sense to me.

[Myles Sarwyck]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it is complex.

Very good post, and you raise excellent points.

I wonder why GRRM chose to take the story in the direction he did while keeping the line of "official" monarchs the same.

[Lord Varys]

25 minutes ago, Myles Sarwyck said:

The only way it even halfway makes sense is if the Aegon II decrees did happen and for some reason Aegon III and Viserys II left them standing, maybe as a conciliatory motion to the Greens since they had a claim through Daemon anyway.

Aegon II never made the decree that's mentioned in TPatQ. The text as given in FaB is the complete and final version, not TPatQ which is a preliminary version riddled with errors.

The final version has Aegon II formally undo and burn all the decrees and edicts of dayfly kings from the Moon of Madness, so their 'reigns' are officially erased (not that they had much effect, anyway) but the same thing is specifically not made for Rhaenyra's reign. For instance, unless I'm misremembering, Lord Celtigar's taxes remain in effect until they are abolished by Tyland Lannister early during the reign of Aegon III. That is not an indication that folks try to pretend Rhaenyra never ruled. Rhaenyra's legitimization decree of the Hull boys also stood, the same with the Rosby and Stokeworth succession, and possibly a number of other cases.

[Myles Sarwyck]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon II never made the decree that's mentioned in TPatQ. The text as given in FaB is the complete and final version, not TPatQ which is a preliminary version riddled with errors.

The final version has Aegon II formally undo and burn all the decrees and edicts of dayfly kings from the Moon of Madness, so their 'reigns' are officially erased (not that they had much effect, anyway) but the same thing is specifically not made for Rhaenyra's reign. For instance, unless I'm misremembering, Lord Celtigar's taxes remain in effect until they are abolished by Tyland Lannister early during the reign of Aegon III. That is not an indication that folks try to pretend Rhaenyra never ruled. Rhaenyra's legitimization decree of the Hull boys also stood, the same with the Rosby and Stokeworth succession, and possibly a number of other cases.

I wonder why the decision was made to retcon it when the new canon seems inconsistent with Rhaenyra's legacy in the novels.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Myles Sarwyck said:

Very good post, and you raise excellent points.

I wonder why GRRM chose to take the story in the direction he did while keeping the line of "official" monarchs the same.

We don't really have an 'official king list' aside from the one from AGoT's appendix. And that one should and could be easily enough amended to

103-129 AC: Viserys I

129-130 AC: Aegon II (deposed)

130 AC: Rhaenyra

130-131 AC: Aegon II (restored)

It really is like the Wars of the Roses where both King Henry VI and King Edward IV were deposed and on the run, in exile, or imprisoned, only be to be subsequently restored to the throne. No historian writing the history of that era would pretend that Henry VI continued to be king whilst he was on the run and subsequently imprisoned in the Tower, nor do people pretend that Edward IV was king while he was in exile on the continent and Henry VI back on the throne for a two years.

The notion that Aegon II reigned throughout the the entire Dance is factually wrong. He reigned until Rhaenyra took his city and his throne ... and he ruled even shorter, only for a brief time in 129 AC until Rook's Rest left him incapacited and Aemond Targaryen ruled as Prince Regent in his name. His reign and rule then continued only after his return to KL very late in 130 AC ... although, of course, his grasp on his own government and the Realm at large was shaky at best.

And symbolically Aegon II was never actually restored completely as king after his depostion by Rhaenyra since the crippled Aegon could never ascend the Iron Throne after his return from Dragonstone. That is no accident or coincidence and is subtly sending the message that the guy wasn't the king.

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Myles Sarwyck said:

I wonder why the decision was made to retcon it when the new canon seems inconsistent with Rhaenyra's legacy in the novels.

I actually don't think this matters much. It is a kind of obscure fan circle discussion whether Rhaenyra is counted as monarch or not. Most people actually reading FaB would and do count her. If they notice that she isn't mentioned in the from the appendix at all, they may think it an error or be fine enough with the fact that she is mentioned as a rival pretender in the bracket text.

If you look at the whole split among the Blacks and Greens in the fandom there then the issue is actually older than FaB and the complete history of the Dance. We had bits and pieces about the Dance before, and many people seized on the whole 'Andal tradition' angle which supposedly doesn't allow for female heirs ... or at least not for elder daughters coming before younger sons.

But even that isn't an issue that the FaB emphasizes all that much. It is more the Great Council and other Targaryen precedents that make Viserys' decision for Rhaenyra somewhat controversial. Both book and show hammer home the fact that Viserys is perfectly within his rights to name an heir as he sees fit. That is not in doubt.

[Myles Sarwyck]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

I actually don't think this matters much. It is a kind of obscure fan circle discussion whether Rhaenyra is counted as monarch or not. Most people actually reading FaB would and do count her.

Doesn't really seem obscure. Anyone who reads the books short of FaB or peruses the ASOIAF wiki will assume she wasn't really queen, which the new canon definitely changes.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said:

Doesn't really seem obscure. Anyone who reads the books short of FaB or peruses the ASOIAF wiki will assume she wasn't really queen, which the new canon definitely changes.

Well, okay, these days, with the new show, it is a less obscure topic.

But I'm also not the guy who advocate to repeat perpetuate the take of interpreting the AGoT Targaryen appendix as 'an official in-universe kings list', so I'm not exactly the majority opinion guy here.

However, nothing in the wiki or in any other fan publication can take away Rhaenyra's queenship as such. She is crowned, she sits the throne, and she is referred to as 'queen' and 'Queen Rhaenyra' by the historian Gyldayn and his sources. Nobody insists styling her 'princess' throughout or argues that she never was a queen.

Also, one shouldn't really cite Stannis in relation to Rhaenyra's status. Not only were the Baratheons Greens during the Dance - Greens who seem to have lost the good will of the Iron Throne for quite some time after the war was over due to their involvement in Lucerys Velaryon's death as well as the last battle of the war -, but Stannis also clearly doesn't seem to know much about Rhaenyra's actual death.

He claims she died 'a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown:

Quote

"It has always been so. I am not . . . I am not a cruel man, Ser Davos. You know me. Have known me long. This is not my decree. It has always been so, since Aegon's day and before. Daemon Blackfyre, the brothers Toyne, the Vulture King, Grand Maester Hareth . . . traitors have always paid with their lives . . . even Rhaenyra Targaryen. She was daughter to one king and mother to two more, yet she died a traitor's death for trying to usurp her brother's crown. It is law. Law, Davos. Not cruelty."

If Stannis knew anything about the circumstances of Rhaenyra's death he would know that (1) she was neither accused of treason nor got a proper trial which determined what treasons she committed and sentenced her to death (her own father named her heir, so wasn't it her duty as an obedient daughter to try to uphold the will and wishes of her late father, the king?), (2) she wasn't executed by any formal authority but rather a deposed warlord prince/pretender king, who had his thugs feed her to his dying dragon.

That isn't a 'traitor's death', it is blatant murder. It is like Renly somehow surviving his death, sneaking to Dragonstone in Stannis' absence, taking the castle with the help of some brigands and turncloaks, and then having them kill Stannis upon his return after his defeat on the Blackwater. The correct name for that is murder or manslaughter, not 'a traitor's death'.

(Stannis' take on Daemon Blackfyre is equally problematic, by the way - Daemon died in battle. That's not 'a traitor's death', either. The brothers Toyne and the first Vulture King died a traitor's death, and Grand Maester Hareth may as well - but so far we don't know who the guy was nor what he did.)

If you think about Stannis' take there, it is pretty clear that George may not yet have come up with Rhaenyra's backstory as her father's chosen heir. That doesn't fit with her being 'a traitor'. In fact, it is a pretty warped view that folks apparently don't view Aegon II as a usurper to the same degree they do Maegor, since he simply wasn't the named and acknowledged heir of his father.

You can make the case that George's original take on the Dance was that Rhaenyra was truly a usurper, an elder sister who for some reason thought she was better suited for the crown than her younger brother, her father's anointed heir. That's pretty much the gist of the appendix - a full sister a year older than Aegon II tried to usurp Aegon's throne.

[Myles Sarwyck]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

However, nothing in the wiki or in any other fan publication can take away Rhaenyra's queenship as such. She is crowned, she sits the throne, and she is referred to as 'queen' and 'Queen Rhaenyra' by the historian Gyldayn and his sources. Nobody insists styling her 'princess' throughout or argues that she never was a queen.
 

I asked Ran about it and he said:

4 hours ago, Ran said:

The reason the histories don't record her as queen was that Aegon III succeeded as Aegon II's heir, not hers. While Aegon III might have made a point about emphasizing his mother, it seems he did not, presumably for the purpose of maintaining peace between remaining Green and Black loyalists and letting the matter lie. It does Rhaenyra no good to be remembered as queen, after all -- she's  long dead by the end of the Regency.

So I guess Rhaenyra didn't go down as a queen in the interest of peace. Explains a lot.

That said I really enjoy your responses and the time you time thinking this stuff out! It's awesome to get to chat with other dedicated fans about this stuff.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said:

I asked Ran about it and he said:

So I guess Rhaenyra didn't go down as a queen in the interest of peace. Explains a lot.

That said I really enjoy your responses and the time you time thinking this stuff out! It's awesome to get to chat with other dedicated fans about this stuff.

That doesn't explain why the histories and historians apparently erase or ignore Rhaenyra's brief reign in 130 AC. She was the monarch then, Aegon II was not. He had been deposed. That's simply a fact of reality and history. It is factually wrong to list him as a monarch who reigned from 129-131 AC. You could say that Aegon II prevailed in the end against Rhaenyra, that he killed her, that he was restored as king for a brief time. But that would only mean to acknowledge that he became king again. It makes no sense to create the fiction that he reigned or ruled throughout the entire Dance, even while he was hiding under a rock on Dragonstone.

When Aegon III became king he also happened to be Aegon II's acknowledged heir ... but that's not why the Lads, and the Northmen, and the Vale armies viewed him as their king. For them he was their king because he was Rhaenyra's son. And since the Blacks were actually both in the position to continue the war, with Cregan Stark demanding that the remaining Greens being punished for their treason, it would strike one as very odd if any Black at court would want to or agree to bury or erase Rhaenyra's queenship. The Greens were in no position nor willing to rise in bloody rebellion because Rhaenyra was called a queen. Remember, they weren't even willing to answer Aegon II's final pleas for help.

Finally, the very fact that Rhaenyra's sons continue the Targaryen bloodline would cause all historians and singers to celebrate their branch of the family, their bloodline - and thus Rhaenyra's and Daemon's by default. They cannot really praise the ruling dynasty and their forebears and ignore the actual family tree.

Hell, like with the English Anarchy, Aegon III rise to the throne would be viewed as a triumph of Viserys I's decision to name Rhaenyra his heir - she may have failed in her quest for the throne, but her son succeeded, Viserys and Aemma's blood triumphed in the end, not Viserys and Alicent's blood.

[Myles Sarwyck]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't explain why the histories and historians apparently erase or ignore Rhaenyra's brief reign in 130 AC.

I mean with her own son not supporting or emphasizing her and basically legitimizing the reign of her brother, it adds up to me.

[Lord Varys]

On 10/13/2022 at 2:59 AM, Myles Sarwyck said:

I mean with her own son not supporting or emphasizing her and basically legitimizing the reign of her brother, it adds up to me.

We have to wait and see what Aegon III and Viserys II actually do regarding the memory of Rhaenyra. So far we know nothing of their reigns while they were actually running the government themselves (or, in Viserys' case, running the government of Aegon III's sons).

It would strike me as completely nonsensical for them not honoring the memory of their parents, both privately and publicly, and also the memory of their martyred elder half-brothers.

In context, we can also expect that Aegon III is going to be repeatedly challenged by insurrections and rebellions staged or supported by (former) Greens - after all, we know that there will be multiple fake Daerons and Aemond's son is still out there at Harrenhal, styled as the rightful king by his mother Alys Rivers). In that context it is exceedingly unlikely that Aegon III's government will play up the kingship of Aegon II. If Aegon III were (only or mainly) king as Aegon II's heir then both the loss of Jaehaera and the fact that a nephew and people claiming to be Aegon II's younger brother will weaken his claim and legitimacy - because both Aemond's son and a real Daeron the Daring would have a much better claim to the Iron Throne than Rhaenyra's son.

That is, if the political ideology of Aegon III's government were to say he is king because Aegon II named him heir. If they were to say he is king both as Rhaenyra's eldest surviving son and because Aegon II was strongarmed into accepting him as heir (which could easily be stretched to also claim that Aegon II did, in fact, recognize Rhaenyra's queenship) then his claim would be much stronger.

The Dance isn't really over at that point. The big part is done, but the Green claimants are not completely destroyed yet. Especially Aemond's son should become a pretty big challenge to the reign of Aegon III.

[Myles Sarwyck]

On 10/13/2022 at 11:02 PM, Lord Varys said:

It would strike me as completely nonsensical for them not honoring the memory of their parents, both privately and publicly, and also the memory of their martyred elder half-brothers.

In the aftermath of a bloody civil war it could be politics comes before personal preferences. Ran did point out it is what happens regarding Rhaenyra, and given their "martyred" half-brothers seem forgotten by history in the novels I'm guessing the possible taint of bastardy and Rhaenyra's own poor legacy in King's Landing (tied as it is to the storming of the Dragonpit) left a poor taste in people's mouths and they moved on.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Myles Sarwyck said:

In the aftermath of a bloody civil war it could be politics comes before personal preferences. Ran did point out it is what happens regarding Rhaenyra, and given their "martyred" half-brothers seem forgotten by history in the novels I'm guessing the possible taint of bastardy and Rhaenyra's own poor legacy in King's Landing (tied as it is to the storming of the Dragonpit) left a poor taste in people's mouths and they moved on.

There is a difference between erasing/not recognizing Rhaenyra's queenship - the did reign and rule for half a year or more in 130 AC - and not celebrating her memory.

It might indeed have been politically convenient for Aegon III to not celebrate the memory of his mother at every turn ... but it just doesn't make any sense that singers and maesters and mummers, etc. trying to gain the favor of Rhaenyra's sons and grandsons wouldn't try to do so by painting Rhaenyra and Daemon in bright colors and celebrating the memory of Aegon's elder brothers.

It also makes no sense to assume that anyone in the Realm would want to celebrate the memory of the king who was murdered by his own court and who happened to keep the current king hostage, threatened to geld, mutilate, and murder him, murdered his mother, and also threatened to murder his half-sister.

Aegon II should have been the usurper who was kind of forgotten/pushed into the background, while Rhaenyra should have been remembered as 'the rightful queen'.

If there had been a true peace in the wake of the Dance, if Aemond hadn't left a son and if Aegon III (and possibly even his sons) hadn't been challenged by fake Daerons the idea that people may have kind of ignored Rhaenyra might make some sense, but not in the scenario we are given. There Aegon III and Viserys II would have to go back to their parents to strengthen their own claims to the throne in light of challenges faced by the elder and exclusively male line.

In context to the eventual succession of Viserys II I don't buy it that this decision was only made after Baelor's death. Baelor must have named an heir, and one imagines that this heir was his uncle Viserys. Possibly only after Daena gave birth to her bastard, but there is just no chance that a childless king who took the vow's of a septon could ignore naming an heir in light of the fact that he would never have children of his own.

[Tygett Lannister]

Aegon II has to say Rhaenyra was never the Queen else he is saying that he was not the true king. Equally Rhaenyra has to say that Aegon II was never a king else she was never a Queen. And Aegon III has to proclaim Aegon II traitor and not a true King while his mother was the Queen and he actually has to call himself Aegon II since Aegon II wasn't a king. 

 

Edit: Technically Aegon III could claim his mother was the fake Queen and Aegon II real one because he is heir of both Rhaenyra and Aegon II at that point. But considering circumstances and the fact that mothers faction won the war it makes more sense to proclaim his mother to be the Queen.